Featured Articles

Orbán: “The real threat is from the heart of Africa”

/51 Comments/in , /by

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has given another hard-hitting speech on the threat posed by multiculturalism and immigration to the future of European nations. Speaking at his Fidesz party’s summer student camp, the Hungarian leader argued that African immigration was an existential threat to European nationhood and civilization. He also denounced international complicity through silence and censorship in the crimes committed by immigrants, particularly citing the ongoing Swedish rape crisis. The speech, while given some coverage in mainstream media, merits closer examination.

Orbán clearly revels in slaughtering the sacred cows of political correctness, joking at the beginning of the speech that he had been looking for something which “representatives of today’s western ideological mainstream could find sufficiently offensive.” (Last year, that was his concept of “illiberal democracy.”)

Orbán notes a number of incredible events in recent years: Europe’s inability to stop a continuous wave of African and Muslim migrants, proposals to transform French churches into mosques, the United States’ systematic spying on European leaders, and these same leaders continuing to cozy up with Washington despite this.

In all this, Orbán recognizes contemporary immigration as an event of epochal significance:

At times there are phenomena which enable us to understand a given era, and which encapsulate its essence. In our lifetimes, modern mass migration is just such a phenomenon. Looking through this window, we can see the whole world. It is by this that the world is framed, and it is through this that we can understand where we are and what awaits us.

Read more

Attitudes on Immigration: Compassion for Whites; Ethnic Hardball and Crocodile Tears for Jewish Activists

/59 Comments/in , /by

What’s the population of the United States? About 320 million, you think? No, that statistic is both woefully out-of-date and grossly unjust. The actual, ethical population of the US is seven billion and rising. Funnily enough, that’s also the ethical population of the United Kingdom – and of Canada, France, Sweden and Australia. In fact, all European-majority nations have an ethical population of seven billion. Just ask Stosh Cotler, CEO of “Bend the Arc: A Jewish Partnership for Justice”:

Right now, at least 11 million men, women, and children are living in the United States with the real fear that they could be thrown into a detention center, deported, and torn from their families at any time. These are our neighbors, our friends, and our children’s classmates. Even if we don’t have a personal connection to any of the millions of undocumented people in America, they are people whose innate dignity deserves respect.

Today, upwards of 30,000 people are being held in detention centers across the country, many without any way to contact their families. Every day an average of 1,120 people are put on buses and discarded across the border. This is no way to treat people who have worked hard, paid their taxes, and contributed to the country like the rest of us — they are “different” only because they lack the right papers. (Why Immigration Reform Is A Jewish Issue, NationalJournal.com, 11th April 2014)

The logic is clear: it is nonsensical and unjust to discriminate between people who have the “right papers” for American citizenship and people who don’t. The difference between those two groups is illusory. This leads to a simple conclusion: that all seven billion people on Earth are actually American citizens. It’s just that most of them don’t have the right papers and don’t currently live there. And the same logic applies to Britain, Canada, France, Sweden, Australia and all other Western nations. Legalistic, petty-minded demands that all potential citizens of those nations have the “right papers” are a gross violation of their innate dignity as human beings. Read more

Paul Singer and the Universality of “Anti-Semitism”

/80 Comments/in , , /by

One of the most fundamental positions for White advocates concerned with Jewish influence must be the conviction that antagonism against Jews lies in Jewish behavior rather than solely the cultural pathology or psychological tendencies of non-Jews. A major testing ground for this position is the necessity for anti-Jewish attitudes to be present among geographically, racially, and culturally diverse peoples, and for the reasons behind this antagonism to be fairly uniform. In Separation and Its Discontents Kevin MacDonald argued that a social identity theory of anti-Semitism is highly compatible with supposing that anti-Semitism will be a very common characteristic of human societies in general. Reasons for this pervasiveness lie in Jewish cultural separatism leading to the perception of the Jewish group as an alien entity; inter-group resource and reproductive competition; and finally, the fact that Jews are, for cultural and genetic reasons, highly adept in resource competition against non-Jews. Additionally, Jews are adept at influencing culture and creating and influencing intellectual and political movements which often run contrary to the interests of the host population. Wherever these behaviors and circumstances are present, they contribute to the arousal of hostility in a host population.

Despite overwhelming evidence in support of our position, the vast majority of Jewish historiography and apologetics continue to argue something quite different. Our opponents have successfully disseminated the view that anti-Semitism is a peculiarly Western phenomenon, rooted more or less in a cocktail of evil Christian theology, the implicit frustrations of capitalist society, the despotic nature of the Western family, and even repressed sexual desires. A key aspect of maintaining this narrative has been to downplay non-Western (mainly Muslim) anti-Semitism, or attempt to give it different features. However, as MacDonald has noted, “the remarkable thing about anti-Semitism is that there is an overwhelming similarity in the complaints made about Jews in different places and over very long periods of historical time.”[1] Of the universal themes noted by MacDonald, the theme of resource competition and economic domination is perhaps foremost. Read more

The Cuckservative Phenomenon

/183 Comments/in , , /by

ActOfLove (1)

The cuckservative meme is suddenly everywhere. It’s brash, it’s witty, and it’s often embedded in visually appealing graphics — a new art form really (see collection here). It’s effective partly because its messages are short and simple. The SPLC, NYTimes, ADL et al. have been using this strategy for decades. Terms like “White supremacist,” “racist,” “anti-Semite,” and “Nazi” have been devastatingly effective, but they are only effective because they are disseminated by our hostile elites. It’s no accident that, Jeet Heer, writing in The New Republic, says that the cuckservative meme originated in “the white supremacist movement.”

When someone makes such a claim, it’s supposed to be the end of the argument. These labels have zero intellectual content, and yet they have been extraordinarily effective in making a great many Whites think that it’s a moral imperative that they become a minority in societies they have dominated for hundreds or thousands of years. You’re not supposed to think when you hear them — just cringe at the thought of  being egregiously immoral as defined by people who have radically different ethnic interests than you do. They are intended to shut off debate before it can start by automatically tarring one side as evil.

Yes, I do think that Whites, like Koreans in Korea and Ethiopians in Ethiopia, should do their best to remain in control of the countries their ancestors fought and died for. I do think races are different, that Whites have interests because they are White, and that if things don’t change dramatically, the entire institutional structure built by Whites will eventually be destroyed and Whites victimized. And, yes, Jews, like any group and especially an elite group with enormous power in the media, politics, and the academic world, should be subjected to rational criticism. These views are profoundly moral points of view.

bush5

But now this same strategy has been bubbling up from the bottom due ultimately to the internet. And it combines  intellectual power with simplicity. Bob Whitaker, who is the presidential candidate for the American Freedom Party, pioneered this strategy with his  mantras — simple statements that, unlike the mantras of the establishment, make devastatingly accurate, intellectually unanswerable points: “Asia for the Asians, Africa for the Africans, White countries for everybody!”  “Anti-racist is a code word for anti-White.” I recall during my email debates on the CSU-LB faculty listserv that several times I made versions of the “Asia is for Asians…” argument. Not one response from these SJW’s who populate our departments of social sciences and humanities. Just move on as if the argument didn’t exist. Unlike the labels cooked up by our hostile elites that succeed only through power and relentless propaganda, the argument is compelling because it obviously reflects a basic truth. But, as usual, when the left can’t answer an argument, they ignore it and do their best to get those making it fired. It will be the same with cuckservative. Read more

Moderate Extremism: Fantasy and Reality in Modern British Politics

/47 Comments/in , /by

Let’s play “Spot the Difference.” Here are some beliefs held by dangerous Islamist extremists:

∙ Islam is the one true faith and should tolerate no competition or criticism.
∙ Muslims who abandon their faith should be executed.
∙ Anyone who insults the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) should be executed.
∙ Homosexuality is an abomination and homosexuals should be executed.
∙ Jews are malevolent Islamophobes who want to rule the world.
∙ Men are masters over women and must keep them firmly in their place.
∙ Muslims are superior to non-Muslims and may exploit them as they see fit.

And here are some beliefs held by moderate mainstream Muslims:

∙ Islam is the one true faith and should tolerate no competition or criticism.
∙ Muslims who abandon their faith should be executed.
∙ Anyone who insults the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) should be executed.
∙ Homosexuality is an abomination and homosexuals should be executed.
∙ Jews are malevolent Islamophobes who want to rule the world.
∙ Men are masters over women and must keep them firmly in their place.
∙ Muslims are superior to non-Muslims and may exploit them as they see fit.

Can you spot any differences? Me neither. The beliefs of Islamist extremists look identical to the beliefs of mainstream Muslims. But British politicians have to pretend otherwise. David Cameron has just made a speech about countering the “extremism” that threatens the vibrancy of Brave New Britain. Here he is describing the United Kommunity:

Over generations, we have built something extraordinary in Britain – a successful multi-racial, multi-faith democracy. It’s open, diverse, welcoming – these characteristics are as British as queuing and talking about the weather. It is here in Britain where different people, from different backgrounds, who follow different religions and different customs don’t just rub alongside each other but are relatives and friends; husbands, wives, cousins, neighbours and colleagues. (David Cameron’s speech on counter-extremism, 20th July 2015)

That was the fantasy. Later in the speech Cameron contradicted himself by admitting the reality:

Indeed, there is a danger in some of our communities that you can go your whole life and have little to do with people from other faiths and backgrounds. … It cannot be right, for example, that people can grow up and go to school and hardly ever come into meaningful contact with people from other backgrounds and faiths. That doesn’t foster a sense of shared belonging and understanding – it can drive people apart. … Areas of cities and towns like Bradford or Oldham [heavily enriched with Muslims] continue to be some of the most segregated parts of our country. (David Cameron’s speech)

So first Cameron claims that we’ve built “a successful multi-racial, multi-faith democracy”, then he admits that in some “communities … you can go your whole life and have little to do with people from other faiths and backgrounds.” That’s a funny kind of success, isn’t it? Read more

David Cameron takes on “non-violent extremists”

/59 Comments/in , /by

In a long career filled with achievement, historian David Irving has a new feather in his cap — as a poster boy for the British government’s new campaign against extremism. It is an accolade he shares with internet executioner ‘Jihadi John’.

Prime Minister David Cameron bizarrely chose to single out the revisionist historian as an example of someone beyond the pale in his major speech  on dealing with non-violent extremists who, he complains, manage to sneakily stay on “just the right side of the law”.

It was an outrageous slur: “When David Irving goes to a university to deny the Holocaust — university leaders rightly come out and condemn him. They don’t deny his right to speak but they do challenge what he says. But when an Islamist extremist goes there to promote their poisonous ideology, too often university leaders look the other way.”

So, quite apart from the ludicrousness of Irving ever being allowed to speak on campus, combating him and his books are part of “the struggle of our generation” as Cameron put it. The Irving reference, as with the Charlie Hebdo and internet Jewish conspiracies reference, was really a signal to the Jewish community, that their interests remain closest to his heart. Even the venue for his speech was a nominally Jewish school in Birmingham. Read more

The logic of capitalism; the unemployed and the superfluous

/35 Comments/in /by
Giuseppe Pellizza (1868 – 1907), “The Fourth Estate” (oil)

Giuseppe Pellizza (1868–1907), “The Fourth Estate” (oil)

Translated from the French by Tom Sunic

Below is the interview A. de Benoist gave recently to Boulevard Voltaire.

Q: Despite repeated promises of politicians, both from the right and the left, nothing seems to be stopping the rise in unemployment. Is it something inevitable?

A: Officially, there are 3.5 million unemployed in France, which means that the unemployment rate stands today at 10.3%. This figure, however, varies depending on how it is being computed. The official statistics take into account only the category “A”, i.e.  those who are unemployed and who are actively looking for a job, while leaving out the categories “B”, “C”, “D” and “E”, i.e. those looking for a job although having had some reduced work activity as of lately; those who have stopped looking for a job but are still unemployed; those receiving training; those in traineeship; those working under “subsidized contracts”, etc. When adding together all these categories, one reaches the real unemployment rate of 21.1% (more than double the official figure). If we refer to the overall rate of the inactive population of working age, then we arrive at 35.8%. Moreover, if we were to take into account insecure, part-time, or short-term jobs, as well as the number of the “working poor”, etc., then this figure keeps getting higher.

Undoubtedly, changes in unemployment depend on the official policies—but only to some extent. Today’s unemployment is no longer of a cyclical nature, but primarily structural, something many have not fully understood yet. This means that work is becoming a scarce commodity. The jobs that have been lost are less and less being replaced by other job openings. Of course, the expansion of the service sector is real; yet the service sector does not generate capital. Moreover, twenty years down the road almost half of those service sector jobs will be replaced by networked machines. To imagine, therefore, that someday we shall return to full employment is an illusion. Read more