Featured Articles

Psychopathology and Racial Self-Hate among Whites

/33 Comments/in , , /by

A prominent feature of the Frankfurt School was the ideology that ethnocentrism among Whites (but not Jews) was a psychopathology. This weapon was taken up by the organized Jewish community which claimed that pro-White and anti-Jewish attitudes were literally public health problems and popularized  phrases like “virulent anti-Semitism,” analogizing anti-Jewish attitudes to the spread of a virus.

This campaign has been incredibly successful among Whites. Whites who have internalized this pathogen naturally suppress such attitudes, and they do so despite their universality, and despite the reality that ethnic self-interest is eminently rational from an evolutionary perspective. And even despite the fact that many of those promoting this pathogen are proudly ethnocentric themselves.

But the campaign has been very effective: No one wants to publicly express attitudes that mark one as a psychiatric case.

Given the rationality and the evolutionary imperative of ethnic interests, there is the opposite suggestion — that at least some of the Whites who express such attitudes are suffering from a psychopathology. After all, the great majority of humanity is, to varying degrees, ethnocentric. and proud of it. What’s wrong with Whites?

This suggests that we should look for signs of psychopathology among Whites who are virulently (to borrow the ADL’s term) anti-White. This is not to suggest that all or even most Whites who express anti-White attitudes are suffering from psychopathology. In fact, the anti-White revolution is massively incentivized, so that a great many normal Whites, from university presidents and corporate executives, to media figures, politicians, and diversity entrepreneurs, personally benefit from White dispossession, both financially as well as in terms of having access to elite positions.

Such people are short-sighted: In the long run, their descendants will suffer incalculably from their sins. But they are definitely living the good life for now.  Read more

The Anglo-American Elite, Part 2: The Bilderbergers

/18 Comments/in /by

Although the American people have never been informed by the public media that the Bilderberg Group is the successor organization to the Anglo-American Establishment, more than a few have surmised that it is because only the Group has the wherewithal (the experienced personnel, the agenda, and the resources) to manage such an undertaking.

Pursuant to the ambitious vision of the Milner group that the Establishment should develop a worldwide base with universal appeal, i.e., an enterprise without borders, they likely decided that the very name ‘Anglo-American’ implied both geographic and ethnic constraints. Consequently, that name was dropped and the distinguished members became known simply as the “Bilderbergers” or the Bilderberg Group, i.e., by the name of the hotel in which the organization happened to hold its first general meeting.  However, no known or acknowledged official linkage has as yet been established between the old Anglo-American Establishment and today’s Bilderbergers, other than the fact that both groups of ambitious industrialists and bankers were and remain in the same business, namely to advance the cause of globalism, and increase world trade and wealth to the profit of its members.

The Bilderberg Group consists of three core organizations, each with its own area of responsibility: the Bilderbergers with their main focus of interest on NATO and Europe; the Trilateralists who work with representatives from the East Asian states; and the Council on Foreign Relations which is part of the State Department. Other important outside groups like the Carnegie Endowment for Peace also cooperate when called upon. Membership overlaps in each of the core organizations with individuals freely transferring from one to the other or as a member in two or three of the components simultaneously. Some members may also move in and out of US Government offices almost at will. Read more

The Anglo-American Elite, Part 1: Professors Carroll Quigley and Revilo Oliver on the Evolution of the Anglo-American Establishment

/32 Comments/in /by

The aftermath of the Great War and its offspring, World War II, left only the capitalist Anglo-American Establishment in competition with the communist USSR for the grand prize — worldwide economic and financial hegemony.

Owing to its rapid expansion, extensive domain, longevity, and success, the Anglo-American Establishment does now indeed appear capable of establishing a “New World Order,” a worldwide hegemony based on its economic, military and financial superiority. It achieved this by first conforming to the hard-right, nationalistic business and social practices of the 19th century (imperialism, colonialism, greed, etc.) and then in the 20th century, after all the other European countries including the Communists had lost their empires, the Anglo-Americans filled the void by establishing their current left-of-center worldwide dominance.

When in the late 19th century the United States entered into this special relationship with the Crown, leadership in Britain was gradually being transferred from her native aristocracy to a new elite, the Milner Group, consisting of visionaries of a new world power based solely on economic and financial wealth rather than on traditional British military, industrial, and diplomatic skills. Lord Milner, although not himself Jewish, was an early Zionist on good terms with the Rothschilds. The partnership with America, a nation composed of immigrants from many countries, compelled this transition from the original exclusive English nationalistic and racial base to its current main object, namely, economic and financial gain on a broader international base. Read more

Why I Write

/11 Comments/in , /by

Deep within the glorious maze of lost time that the archives of Counter Currents represents, I recently found the tag, “Why We Write.”  The essays under this umbrella, some of which originally appeared in The Occidental Quarterly, are a treat in no small part because they show a personal and human side to many authors who normally eschew touching on the personal for the sake of anonymity. It is also a lovely topic for the authors themselves, as it allows a certain egotistical indulgence that all self-described writers covet, openly or not. And with that being admitted, I will tackle the question myself.

The first thing I ever had published was a mere letter-of-the-day on Vdare — and a crummy one at that. I was absolutely elated when it happened, and even sent the link to my vaguely liberal, but mostly apolitical parents. In my eyes, I had struck back. It was the first fortnight of my freshman year in college and I had learned that we were not even called “freshman” because the word lacked gender-neutrality. My roommate was an insufferable “bisexual” Jew who boasted of having met President Obama and been active in the Occupy Wall Street movement (not a contradiction in his eyes; regardless, I suspect both were lies).

The sob story goes on and on, so I will cut to the chase. I decided the best way to strike back was to write. It was a way of telling myself that these people had no control over me, that even if it was pointless to argue in class, I could do better than just fuming in silence. So I kept writing, and I kept annoying editors, and I kept getting curt rejection letters. But by that summer vacation I got paid for something I wrote for the first time. By the end of that summer I had been paid multiple times, and was beginning to think quite highly of myself. I was a writer against time, a man among the ruins, etc. Liberals could tell me I was a stupid redneck, but I could just think to myself, “Oh yeah? How many articles have you been paid to write? I’m a regular right-wing Hunter S. Thompson.” It was immensely satisfying, and even my vaguely liberal, but mostly apolitical parents were impressed that I had found a way to turn time spent on my MacBook into money. Read more

Joe Biden and the Ghost of Shylock

/15 Comments/in , /by

Napoleon once famously remarked that “in politics, stupidity is not a handicap.” In few cases does this seem more apt than in that of Vice-President Joe Biden, perennial lapdog to the ADL’s Abraham Foxman. Biden has recently added to last year’s faux pas by recently committing the egregious sin of using the word “Shylocks” to describe mortgage lenders. The slip came in a speech to the Legal Services Corporation, which provides lawyers to Americans who could not afford them otherwise. In his remarks, the Vice-President described the experience of his son, Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden, who was deployed for one year in Iraq:

People would come to him and talk about what was happening to them at home in terms of foreclosures, in terms of bad loans that were being — I mean, these Shylocks who took advantage of these women and men while overseas.

This accurate and innocuous remark drew a rebuke from the all-seeing, all-knowing, Anti-Defamation League (ADL) National Director Abraham Foxman, who will presumably continue to stalk the verbally careless right up until his retirement on July 20 2015. A rankled Foxman told Yahoo News that “Shylock represents the medieval stereotype about Jews and remains an offensive characterization to this day. The Vice President should have been more careful. … When someone as friendly to the Jewish community and open and tolerant an individual as is Vice President Joe Biden, uses the term ‘Shylocked’ to describe unscrupulous moneylenders dealing with service men and women, we see once again how deeply embedded this stereotype about Jews is in society.” Read more

Norway vs. Sweden on immigration: The importance of becoming part of the mainstream

/45 Comments/in , /by

In his article on the Africanization of France, Guillaume Durocher notes that

no doubt North American White Nationalists can be critical of the FN’s [National Front’s] positioning [i.e., their  public stance that they are unconcerned whether the ethnic French become a minority in France]. I would note however that, as of today, this position is necessary for the FN to be a media-acceptable and potentially electable political party (in contrast for example with the British National Party, which nonetheless does important counter-cultural and metapolitical work). If Marine Le Pen becomes President of the Republic, as a recent poll suggests she could if she faces François Hollande in the second round in 2017, then no doubt freedom of speech on this topic would be much greater in France. For example, already Prime Minister Viktor Orbán in Hungary has been able to argue with other European leaders that “[t]he goal is to cease immigration whatsoever” and that “the ethnic basis of the Nation-State” should not be broken.

Another case where moderating the message can result in important influence on issues such as immigration policy is illustrated in the contrast between Norway and Sweden, as discussed in a New York Times article by Hugh Eakin (“Scandinavians Split over Syrian Influx“).

AFTER eight years of center-right rule, the narrow victory of the left-leaning Social Democratic Party in Sweden’s national elections last Sunday marked a broad shift in the country’s politics. But the new coalition government the party hopes to form is unlikely to reconsider one of the country’s most challenging policies: its response to a war being fought some 2,000 miles away. The country has taken an open-door approach to people fleeing the conflict in Syria, which is bringing more Syrians to Sweden than to any other European country.

Never mind that Sweden has double-digit youth unemployment. That there have been riots in immigrant neighborhoods in Stockholm. That there is a severe housing shortage for new arrivals. Or that the Swedish Migration Board, which handles asylum seekers, needs a drastic budget increase — almost $7 billion — to cover soaring costs over the next few years.

And never mind that the far-right, anti-immigrant Sweden Democrats won 13 percent of the vote in Sunday’s election, their best showing ever. They more than doubled their seats in Parliament — from 20 to 49 — and are now the third-biggest party in the country.

“We are the moral guardians of the world,” Magnus Ranstorp, a specialist in counterterrorism at the Swedish National Defense College, told me a few days before the election, referring to Swedes. “We haven’t fought a war in 200 years. We are righteous. But sometimes the righteousness doesn’t meet reality.”

Read more

The Africanization of France: Medical data suggests one-third French births are non-White

/1 Comment/in , /by
Si0yyX2

Map of percentage of newborns screened for sickle-cell disease, overwhelmingly of Arab, Black, Turkish and Indian descent. In 2006 these made up 27% of newborns, rising to 34.44% in 2012.

 

I take bold claims from alternative media with a grain of salt. So when the popular French racialist blog Fdesouche (short for “ethnic French”) claimed that around 34.44% of newborns in France in 2012 were non-White, I did not think much of it, supposing this figure was much too high to be realistic. 

I decided to reconsider however when I came across a shockingly bad article in Le Monde supposingly “debunking” Fdesouche’s claim under the patronizing title “Sickle-cell anemia, the genetic disease which is exciting the far-right.” The “rebuttal” is a long collection of sophistic arguments and non-sequiturs*, none of which address Fdesouche’s data purporting to show that demographic change and de-Europeanization in France are rapidly occurring on a massive scale, what the French call le Grand Remplacement or “the Great Displacement.” 

Admittedly, it is very hard to get a handle on the rate of demographic change in France given the lack of official ethnic statistics (I have attempted to provide some sense of the ethnic situation in France with statistics on first- and second-generation immigrants; we know that while ethnic Europeans rapidly converge economically/educationally to the French average, Blacks and Maghrebis do not, and that first-generation North Africans have a relatively high birth rate). We know that Pew forecasts that the United States will have a non-White majority by the 2040s and an Oxford professor has estimated that native Britons will become a minority in their own country by the 2060s. Very obviously France, with a comparable immigration history since World War II, could be on a similar timeline.  Read more