Featured Articles

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

Reflections on Hilaire Belloc’s “The Jews” (1922) [Part Three of Three]

/8 Comments/in , /by

Part 1
Part 2

As Belloc moves into the second half of his book, I personally feel that the work becomes weaker. His characteristic style remains powerful, but it is in the second half of the book that Belloc’s attempt to come across as balanced goes too far. The sixth chapter examines “The Causes of Friction upon Our Side.” Here Belloc neglects to concede that the great mass of Europeans has never urged the Jews to settle among them, that they have never held them captive, and certainly never sought out conflict with them. As Martin Luther once so insightfully pointed out:

Now behold what a nice, thick, fat lie it is when they complain about being captives among us. … [W]e do not know to this day which Devil brought them into our country. We did not fetch them from Jerusalem! On top of that, no-one is holding them now. Land and highways are open to them; they may move to their country whenever they wish to do so.

This is a fundamental issue in the history of Jewish-European relations that Belloc fails to recognize. Purposeful or not, the presence of a powerful but separate foreign, political entity exerting influence to its own ends in the elite strata of a given society amounts to one thing and one thing only: colonialism. In such a scenario, one would be hard-pressed to find fault with the colonized. Jews have remained in European society out of choice and with purpose and goals; not out of captivity. There are no passive partners. We are not locked into a fateful and unceasing struggle with all exits blocked. But instead Belloc strains to keep a balance which loses touch with the reality of the situation. He argues that “it is certain that we play a part ourselves in this quarrel between us and the Jews (124).” While certain actions on our part may escalate tensions, I would argue you that no fully accurate assessment of the situation can be made without having as a foundation an acknowledgement of the scenario I have just outlined. Read more

Reflections on Hilaire Belloc’s “The Jews” (1922) [Part Two of Three]

/14 Comments/in , /by

Part 1.

After discussing denial among non-Jews on the issue of the “Jewish problem,” Belloc moves in the third chapter to his thoughts on how that problem had manifested in his lifetime. He describes Jewry as a “political organism” which, like any independent organism, seeks after its own interests. The author writes (44):

It is objected of the Jew in finance, in industry, in commerce — where he is ubiquitous and powerful out of all proportion to his numbers — that he seeks, and has already reached, dominion. It is objected that he acts everywhere against the interests of his hosts; that these are being interfered with, guided, run against their will; that a power is present which acts either with indifference to what we love or in active opposition to what we love. Notably it is said to be indifferent to, or in active opposition against our national feelings, our religious traditions, and the general cultural and morals of Christendom which we have inherited and desire to preserve: that power is Israel.

Although these objections had, for the most part, merely simmered under the surface of Western liberal convention, Belloc argues that the Bolshevik revolution shocked Europeans. The leading role of Jews in the Russian catastrophe “struck both at the benevolent who would near no harm of the Jews, and those who had hitherto shielded or obeyed them as identified only with the interest of large Capital (45).” Although liberal convention on the Jews officially held the field, the Bolshevik menace “compelled attention. Bolshevism stated the Jewish problem with a violence and an insistence such that it could no longer be denied either by the blindest fanatic or the most resolute liar (46).” Read more