The Liberal System likes to adorn itself with the label “the rule of law,” implicitly suggesting that other systems of belief, other non-liberal states or statelets throughout history solely function as lawless entities violating the freedom of their citizens. This is not true. Since time immemorial states worldwide, even the worst tyrannies, have used legislative policies when passing a verdict against political opponents or common criminals. The problem is not whether those illiberal states or statelets are/were just or unjust; the problem is rather the right or wrong choice of words and the subsequent interpretation of those words by the detractors or proponents of those states.
For instance, legislation in communist Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union contained detailed constitutional structures covering all aspects of citizens’ lives. The same goes for Fascism in Italy and National Socialism in Germany (1922–1945), whose leaders considered their country’s laws far more freedom-loving than the laws of the Liberal System. In contemporary America, under the cover of the grandiloquent expression “the rule of law,” the judiciary tends more and more to slide toward excessive legalism—lawfare by any other name, which sooner or later leads to administrative disruption with a possibility of triggering civil unrest. Currently, this process of lawfare can be observed in the US judiciary, as illustrated by numerous indictments against former president Donald Trump, by Letitia James’s crusade against VDARE, the Charlottesville lawsuit, and much else. Moreover, the quasi-Soviet-style trials of thousands of January 6 Capitol protestors are in full swing with defendants becoming subjects of poorly defined and often abstract misnomers (rioters?, trespassers?, insurrectionists?, terrorists? …or freedom fighters!?). It must be pointed out that the salvo of mutual accusations, felony charges, and countercharges from Trump’s legal team versus US government-sponsored local DAs and activist, Trump-hating lawyers like Roberta Kaplan are not an inherent feature of the American system. Not at all. In fact, overt hyper-legalism in the US, bordering increasingly on administrative anarchy, represents the very essence of the historical dynamics of the Liberal System.[i]
Quis judicabit? — who makes the final legal decision?
The striking similarity between the current US judicial system and the semi-anarchic judiciary in Weimar Germany that had resulted in incessant civil unrest and serial political killings was observed by Carl Schmitt in his numerous critical articles published from 1933 to 1944 in legal journals of National-Socialist Germany. One must, however, keep in mind several points of concern when studying Schmitt’s legal work. The English language does not have the equivalent for the compound German noun “Rechtsstaat” (state ruled by law), a noun which has its exact verbal and conceptual replica in all continental European languages (état de droit, pravna država, stato di diritto, právní stat, etc.). Instead, US/British legal scholars resort to a more general expression such as “the rule of law” or the “constitutional state” — terms which do not convey the same specific meaning as the German “Rechtsstaat”. The expression I use in my translations of Schmitt’s citations, i.e., state ruled by law may by closest to the original German noun “Rechtsstaat”.
Secondly, one must keep in mind that Schmitt, who is often quoted today by scores of contemporary US and European traditionalist scholars, Alt-Right, or New Right intellectuals and activists, was not only a legal expert and a renowned political scientist, but also a multilingual scholar constantly prodding into the meaning of political concepts and their semantic distortions by diverse ruling political classes in Europe and the US. The expression “fake news” did not exist during his lifetime, although Schmitt was well aware of the faked legalese embedded in liberal judicial jargon. Despite his open sympathy for National Socialism and Fascism it is worth examining the relevance of his articles, especially when assessing the current US and EU legal systems within international law. In his article under the laudatory subtitle “The National Socialist state is a righteous State” he writes:
Whether a “Rechtsstaat” [i.e. state ruled by law] exists depends on a specific property that one attributes to this ambiguous word and also to what extent a Rechtsstaat comes close to a righteous state. Liberalism of the 19th century attributed to this term a specific meaning, thus turning the Rechtsstaat into a political weapon in its struggle against the state. Whoever uses the expression, must exactly spell out what he understands by it and how his Rechtsstaat differs from the liberal Rechsstaat, as well as how his Rechtsstaat should be national socialist, or for that matter any other kind of Rechtsstaat.[ii]
Given the widespread overuse of the term “the rule of law”, it must not come as a surprise that this term hardly sounds credible any longer. “In this sense,” writes Schmitt, “liberalism has indiscriminately endeavored over the last century to portray every non-liberal state, be it an absolute monarchy, be it a Fascist state, be it a National-Socialist or a Bolshevist state, as a state not ruled by law (Nicht-Rechtsstaat), or as an unjust or lawless state (Unrechtsstaat).”[iii] Furthermore, the Liberal System, as its supporters tirelessly point out, is established as a two-tier social construct with a sharp division between the state apparatus and a private person. The underlying assumption is that such a division can best prevent the rise of a powerful state and a dictatorial leader. The liberal state, according to liberal theoreticians, must solely function as an occasional “nightwatchman,” never interfering in the private sphere of the individual:
This two-tier nature explains the typical two-tier constitutional framework of the bourgeois Rechtsstaat. Fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by the liberal-democratic state and its constitutional system are essentially the rights of the private person. For this reason alone [those rights] can be considered “apolitical”. The liberal state and the constitutional framework are based on a simple and direct contrast between the state and the private person. Only on the basis of this contrast is it natural and worthwhile to endeavor to create the entire building of legal protections and facilities in order to protect a helpless, defenseless, poor, isolated private person from the powerful Leviathan “state”. Only for the protection of a poor individual do most of these legal protection measures, in the so-called Recthsstaat, make sense. They can be justified on the grounds that the protection from the state must be increasingly modeled on judicial proceedings, and even more so in line with the decision of judicial authority independent from the state.[iv]
The above-mentioned quote on the romantic self-perception of the Liberal System is flawed. One might raise the question: is it true, as liberal theoreticians claim, that division between the civil society and the state can best guarantee individual liberties, and best protect private citizens from arbitrary state decisions? Hardly. Is it true that the much-lauded liberal checks and balances, including a sharp separation between the executive, the legislative and judicial branches can best prevent totalitarian temptations? Hardly. The overly praised cleavage between the private sphere and the public sphere is deceptive; it does not enable citizens to escape from the modern liberal surveillance state. It must be emphasized over and over again that in the Liberal System it is no longer the state that exerts control; instead, a myriad of elite, well-funded pressure groups, NGOs, media companies, and lobbies influence citizens on the daily basis while wisely using the state only as a legal cover. Schmitt analyzed long ago the negative impact of nongovernmental counterpower pressure groups.
However, all of this gets completely absurd as soon as strong collective associations or organizations conquer nongovernmental, non-political spheres of freedom, and as soon as nongovernmental (but by no means apolitical) organizations get hold of private persons, on the one hand, while confronting the state under the guise of various legal titles (people, society, free bourgeoisie, producing proletariat, public opinion, etc.), on the other. Such nongovernmental, but, as mentioned, thoroughly political associations, come to dominate both (via the legislature) the will of the state as well as (through social and “purely private law” coercion) the single individual whom they turn into a media subject. They are actual and real political decision makers and manipulators of the levers of state power.”[v]
Does this sound familiar? What is now derisively named as deep state was well anticipated by Schmitt, although this term did not exist during his lifetime. In their criticism of the liberal Weimar Constitution German nationalists introduced and popularized all over Europe the term (das) System, a term that can easily be substituted today for the modern liberal deep state. Surely, in a Liberal System where power is decentralized, known in academia as the “power-sharing” process, a dissident citizen can only fantasize about toppling the government by force in his resident state. At first sight this may sound like a noble freedom-protecting trait of the Liberal System. However, the atomized nature of dispersed power in Liberalism, resulting from its famed checks and balances policies, inevitably leads to a dispersed mutual distrust and hatred among citizens, in which the line between the victim and the perpetrator gradually disappears. The late Claude Polin, who was one of the best observers of liberal contradictions, raises a haunting question: “How is it possible that one fears a king exercising his power, and why is it that one has less fear when the same power is conferred on millions of little kings?”[vi]
Hundreds of nongovernmental kingly figures and hundreds of private agencies in the US and EU, including scores of ethnically based pressure groups, each displaying often a bizarre victimhood, and each controlling its own turf, have their own methods of repression against dissident voices. Surely most NGOs in the US and EU, do not hide their deep aversion of the strong state and are quick to denounce any sign of populism in the government bureaucracy. Yet they do not shy away from exercising their own repressive policies against other out-groups, while begging at the same time the state for generous subsidies. ADL, SPLC outlets in the USA, dozens of antifa and transgender foundations, including government-funded Chistian and Jewish institutions in the EU, such as Crif, LICRA or Amadeu Antonio Stiftung operate very similar to former Soviet local people’s commissariats. They all take for granted, however, that they are entitled to a slice of government, i.e., the taxpayers’ cake. In the name of abstract “tolerance” and “the rule of law” they consider their democratic and legal duty to spy and denounce their fellow citizens who are critical of liberal judicial dogma. The postmodern liberal democracy, although bragging about being the best of all the worlds, is increasingly reminiscent of the early medieval states-in-the-making.
The Liberal System, i.e., the deep state in contemporary US and EU, being basically an oligarchic system, did not drop from the moon, nor is it made up of conspiratorial monolithic gangs of self-declared thieves bent on subverting the state. The Liberal System in the West is just a logical outcome of different, often mutually feuding groups that willingly—and sometimes unwittingly—as in the case of Christian religious groups promoting liberal refugee policies—work on the social, racial and national decomposition of the state and its people — a trait inherent in the very dynamics of the liberal (mis)rule of law.
[i] T. Sunic, “Historical Dynamics of Liberalism: From Total Market to Total State? “, The Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies 13, no. 4, (Winter 1988), p. 455.
[ii] C. Schmitt, „Fünf Leitsätze für die Rechtspraxis“ in Deutsches Recht, 3, Nr. 7 (1933), S. 201–202, reprinted in Gesammelte Schriften 1933–1936 (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2021), p.56. (also: https://archive.org/details/carl-schmitt-gesammelte-schriften-1933-1936)
[iii] C. Schmitt, Der Rechtsstaat, first published in Nationalsozialistisches Handbuch für Recht und Gesetzgebung (München: Zentralverlag der NSDAP, 1935, S. 24–32) reprinted in Gesammelte Schriften 1933–1936, p.286-287.
[iv] C. Schmitt, „Die Verfassungslage Deutschlands“ in Preußische Justiz – Rechtspflege und Rechtspolitik, Nr. 42, 5. Oktober 1933, pp. 479–482, reprinted in Gesammelte Schriften 1933–1936, p.74.
[vi] Claude Polin, “Pluralisme ou Guerre civile ?” Catholica (winter, 2005–06), p. 16.
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png00Tom Sunic, Ph.D.https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.pngTom Sunic, Ph.D.2024-02-02 06:24:512024-02-02 06:24:51Weimerica? — Carl Schmitt on the Rule of Law
In one of the more famous Zen Buddhist riddles, or koans, an army officer meets with a monk and attempts to frustrate the contemplative monastic. “A man has been raising a goose in a bottle since it was a tiny gosling,” the officer explains. “Now it is fully grown and has no space left in the bottle. Without hurting the goose, and without breaking the bottle, how can the man get it out?” The monk doesn’t answer the question and instead moves the conversation to the weather. A little while later, the meeting coming to an end, the officer stands up to leave and approaches the door. As he reaches for the handle, the monk cries out “Oh officer!” As the officer turns, the monk smiles and continues, “There. It’s out!”
This particular koan is a good example of koans in general, in that the reader or student is presented with an impossible riddle, an intellectual trap that is totally unsolvable by logic. The goal is to sublimate the thinking mind to the instinctual mind that takes precedent in living “in the moment,” or “being present.” The koan came to mind recently while I read the horrifying news from Britain that a man has been found guilty of incitement to hatred merely for producing stickers bearing such non-aggressive slogans as “Reject White Guilt”, “Nationalism is Nurture”, and “We will be a minority in our homeland by 2066.”
How has British speech legislation been used to secure this criminal conviction and, to return to the idea of the koan, how can pro-White advocates advocate for anything when even the more passive elements of their argument have been criminalized? The riddle is straightforward: What can be said when saying anything runs the risk of imprisonment?
The Public Order Act 1986: A Jewish Contrivance
Samuel Melia, a long-serving activist and a figure apparently well-known and liked in British nationalist circles, has been convicted under section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986, which makes it a criminal offence to publish or distribute “written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting.” In the wording of the legislation, someone is guilty of an offence if “(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or (b) having regard to all the circumstances, racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.” Melia was also convicted of “encouraging or assisting the commission of the offence of racially aggravated criminal damage,” presumably because, in an act of race terrorism, the stickers may have left tiny residues of glue upon removal.
As far as legal texts go, there is much left to interpretation in the Public Order Act 1986. It’s a highly subjective piece of work. Consider, for example, the necessary but inevitably tendentious speculation on a defendant’s intentions. This is to say nothing about “regard to all the circumstances” or how exactly the likelihood of “stirring up hatred” is to be measured. The document has always been vague, and because it has remained unaltered for almost 40 years, we might assume that this was by design.
Britain’s speech law is demonstrably Jewish in origin and design. The impetus behind the Public Order Act 1986 can be traced back to the 1910s with early murmurings among Britain’s Jewish elite about the potential criminalization of anti-Semitism. Following the Jewish bombing of the King David Hotel, then British administrative headquarters for Mandatory Palestine, in 1946, Jewish delegates attempted to pass a resolution “outlawing anti-Semitism” at that year’s annual Labour Party Conference.[1] However, the bombing cost the Zionists a great many non-Jewish friends within the Labour movement, and the proposal was crushed. Following the notorious Sergeant’s Affair, in which Jewish terrorists murdered British soldiers in barbaric fashion, another explicit proposal to outlaw anti-Semitism was introduced in the House of Commons, but was rejected at its first reading in 1948. Direct and explicit efforts such as these continued to fail. In Race Politics in Britain and France: Ideas and Policy Making Since the 1960s, Erik Bleich notes that “during the late 1950s and early 1960s Jewish groups sought laws against anti-Semitic public speeches made during this era, but there is little evidence that this pressure achieved substantial results.”[2]
Further attempts to achieve speech laws were attempted through stealth, in that they concerned race more generally rather than Jews explicitly. These measures were also introduced, though unsuccessfully, with the assistance of willing White M.P.s with a track record of assisting Jews. Bleich notes that “a small number of individual Labour Party Members of Parliament repeatedly proposed anti-discrimination laws. In the early 1950s, Reginald Sorensen and Fenner Brockway each introduced ‘color bar bills’ designed to prevent discrimination against blacks on British soil.”[3] Brockway attempted no less than nine times over nine years to achieve laws against ‘discrimination’ and free speech. Although the full extent of the involvement of these politicians with Jews is unknown, a record of Parliamentary debates shows that Sorensen had been involved in assisting Jews since at least the 1930s, even participating in a 1945 symposium titled “The Future of the Jews,” where he gave a lecture to his mostly Jewish audience on “Our Common Humanity.” We have evidence that around the same time, Brockway was breaking the law by assisting Jews with forged passports and documents enabling them to enter Palestine.[4]
Since 1945, the Board of Deputies of British Jews had also been working on drafting a “group libel law” that it eventually hoped to get passed in Parliament.[5] Efforts to further tighten libel laws were made in 1952, when Jewish M.P. Harold Lever introduced a Private Members’ Bill modifying Britain’s libel laws for the first time in over fifty years. However, Lever’s efforts were later mauled by a hostile Parliament to such an extent that by the time his Bill became an Act of Parliament, his provisions were not extended, as he and his co-ethnics had hoped, to cover groups.[6] Britain’s first legislation containing any such provision as prohibiting ‘group libel’ was introduced in Parliament by Frank Soskice, the son of David Soskice — a Russian-Jewish revolutionary exile. Scholars Mark Donnelly and Ray Honeyford state that it was Soskice who “drew up the legislation” and “piloted the first Race Relations Act, 1965, through Parliament.”[7] The Act “aimed to outlaw racial discrimination in public places,” though it was soon felt, in Jewish circles, that it hadn’t gone far enough. Crucially, the 1965 Act created the Jewish-led ‘Race Relations Board’ and equipped it with the power to sponsor research for the purposes of monitoring race relations in Britain and, if necessary, extending legislation on the basis of the ‘findings’ of such research.
In 1985, another Jew moved to criminalize expressions of White racial solidarity when M.P. Harry Cohen introduced a “Racial Harassment Bill” to Parliament. Sociologist Rob Witte reports that Cohen’s attempt only failed because of “lack of parliamentary time.”[8] The following year, Cohen made a second attempt, which failed, only for Jews to return to more stealthy methods when racial elements were included with the much broader Public Order Act (1986).
The Public Order Act had been introduced to Parliament by Leon Brittanisky (renamed Leon Brittan) and supported primarily by Malcolm Rifkind, a descendant of Lithuanian Jewish immigrants. It was another clever piece of work. Brittan’s team had been tasked with drafting a White Paper on Public Order to deal with a series of miners’ strikes and demonstrations. Although issues of race were not remotely related to the events provoking the White Paper, Brittan saw that the government was eager to pass legislation restricting the miners as soon as possible and, sensing that the wide-ranging bill would endure little opposition, he ensured that additional elements were included, such as the criminalization of “incitement to racial hatred.”[9] It is Brittan’s clever little addition which has posed problems for more vocal racial nationalists in Britain today, and has led to the criminal conviction of Samuel Melia for “stickering.”
Legislative Evolution
In the early years of the Act, sentencing on conviction was a maximum of two years in prison and this was normally reserved for blunt expressions of animosity towards non-White groups. John Tyndall for example, founder of the British National Party, was one of the earliest victims of the Public Order Act and was sentenced in 1986 to 12 months in prison, serving four. In 1998, Tyndall’s successor Nick Griffin was given a nine-month suspended sentence for publishing his Who Are The Mindbenders? pamphlet in the course of which he pointed out Jewish influence in the British mass media and how this had flooded the nation with “anti-British trash.”
The Act was problematic, and had a gagging effect on British nationalism, but its reach was sufficiently blunt, and sentences relatively short, for Jonathan Bowden to remark during one of his speeches in the late 2000s that one could still discuss many controversial topics in public so long as this was done in an abstract or slightly indirect way. This seemed partially proven in 2004 when Nick Griffin was arrested and charged again, this time for remarks he made in a pub about Muslims and Islam. Although subjected to a trial, both Griffin and his co-accused Tyndall were found not guilty. Today, however, we can have no doubt that Bowden’s analysis no longer applies.
The vague wording of the Act has allowed the transformations in British culture to carry it to greater extremes without the need for an entirely new law. And there can be little doubt that culture has shifted radically further to the Left in the last 20 years. An amendment led to the extension of the maximum sentence from 2 to 7 years, with the result that sentences are now averaging 3–4 years rather than 10–12 months.
More important, the law has been gradually reinterpreted in light of new cultural ‘understandings’ of hate. ‘Hate’ used to mean that you had extreme and quasi-violent feelings of animosity towards a particular individual or group, but we now live in an age where hatred can be something as simple as insisting on the biological basis of gender, or conducting a survey of intelligence or crime alongside racial taxonomies. Hate has moved from being understood as an active and aggressive position against a given entity, to being something as banal as adopting a neutral or non-radical position on a sensitive cultural question treasured by the Left. Crucially for Mr. Melia, ‘hate’ now also encompasses the position that Whites as an ethnic group have interests and should defend them. Stickers with slogans like “No White Guilt” are seen as hateful, and part of an extreme and dangerous ideology. In such a context, we can assert that Britain has criminalized White self-defense.
Hate Crime Entrepeneurs
The increasingly extreme reach of British hate speech law has led Civitas: Institute for the Study of Civil Society, to call for the government to “hold an inquiry to determine, review and potentially repeal all elements of the law that conflict with freedom of speech, for example: Section 127 of the Communications Act, offences of stirring up hatred under the Public Order Act 1986, and the offence of ‘indecent or racialist chanting’ under the Football (Offences) Act 1991.” Of particular concern to Civitas are what it calls “hate crime entrepreneurs,” or “groups with a vested interest in presenting their members as victims of hate crime” and are thus able to “influence hate crime legislation.”
Civitas point out that the very concept of hate speech has led to a loss of freedom orchestrated by an unelected elite of lawyers and intellectuals.
Each new Act of Parliament and clarification of police guidance introduces a more subjective element into the law. The state, either through the Crown Prosecution Service or the police, comes to define what is offensive, threatening or abusive. Such understandings are grounded in a perception of the ‘lived experiences’ of ‘victims’ as members of historically oppressed groups and a belief that words can have an impact as harmful as an act of physical violence. … Every aspect of people’s lives will come under legal scrutiny in order to promote a set of state sanctioned values that have been determined by lawyers rather than voted on by the electorate.
Civitas explain that “identity groups are represented by ‘hate crime entrepreneurs’ who are incentivized to report ever increasing harms experienced by members of their community. The law comes to play a role in affirming the identity of victim groups, recognising suffering, re-educating offenders about the ‘correct’ way to think and sending a message to the rest of society about the values deemed ‘appropriate’.” In other words, society is undergoing an incentivised brainwashing and the reduction of freedom across the board. All minority identity groups have a vested interest in expanding definitions of hate crime to encompass the groups they represent, and obviously they have a vested interest in seeing increased reporting of hate crimes committed as a basis for their own future fundraising.
The groups insinuate themselves, in undemocratic fashion, into the police and legal structure, with one group noted by Civitas as boasting “we have also established joint training between the police and Crown Prosecution staff to improve the way the police identify and investigate hate crime.” So the very manner in which the police see crime and speech is being determined by non-elected minority agents. Civitas also make some comments which match up well with the historical and contemporary record of Jews ensuring their place as a privileged and protected elite within Western societies.
Such organizations lobby for better protections for their members. In order to secure these protections, they are incentivized to increase the reporting of hate crimes committed against members of their particular identity group. This lends itself to ever looser definitions of hate crime and ever more expansive cohorts of victims. Furthermore, many groups that lobby on behalf of particular communities receive government funding for their work. For example, Challenge It, Report It, Stop It reports on plans to support a range of groups such as the Jewish Museum, Show Racism the Red Card, Searchlight Educational Trust [founded by a Jewish communist] and Faith Matters’ Measuring Anti-Muslim Attacks (MAMA) project.
Jewish, Muslim, and other groups hold almost constant “meetings with legal and academic experts, police and the Crown Prosecution Service (‘CPS’), charities and civil society groups, and numerous individuals with an interest in hate crime laws.” The hate crime entrepreneurs thus “play a significant role in determining the assumptions and theoretical underpinnings for the Law Commission’s analysis.”
In other words, it is the activities of these groups, as well as the problematic Jewish-led Public Order Act 1986 itself, that have led to the current predicament of Samuel Melia for mere stickering. Mr Melia is the victim of a vast and corrupt “hate crime” industry that is fuelled both by material greed and by a seething and entirely genuine hatred of the native peoples of the British Isles. To that extent we can say that the nation is in fact host to a hate crime of gargantuan nature and scope, but that it is totally forbidden, and now illegal, to speak its name.
[1] P. Medding, Studies in Contemporary Jewry: XI: Values, Interests and Identity, 108.
[2] E. Bleich, Race Politics in Britain and France: Ideas and Policy Making Since the 1960s, 42.
[4] C. Knowles, Race, Discourse and Labourism, 172.
[5] D.S. Wyman, The World Reacts to the Holocaust, 617.
[6] C. Adler (ed), The American Jewish Year Book, 1953, 234.
[7] M. Donnelly, Sixties Britain: Culture, Society and Politics, p. 115, & R. Honeyford, The Commission for Racial Equality: British Bureaucracy Confronts the Multicultural Society p.95.
[8] R. Witte, Racist Violence and the State: A Comparative Analysis of Britain, France, and the Netherlands, p.71.
[9] T. Brain, A History of Policing in England and Wales Since 1974, p.104.
Most of my thoughts these days don’t pertain to the political realm, rather I tend to focus on the level of spiritual depravity that has led to our fallen state—our fallen state as individual people, due to our fallen state collectively as a people. To paraphrase Dostoevsky, there is a spiritual war going on between good and evil, and the battlefield is the heart of man. Nietzsche predicted the outcome for this battle with his statement, “God is dead.” He envisioned a post-theological society, the likes that would produce a nihilistic existence where every year 106,000 people die of drug overdose and 50,000 people commit suicide (70% of those are White men). That’s a million White men every 8 years that would rather kill themselves than exist within the status quo, and those numbers are rising. What a tragedy! It’s not a coincidence that God and White people are simultaneously dying off. Our existence has to have meaning for our children to have a future. Thus, the importance of faith.
What is faith? According to scripture, it is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1). Faith transcends reason, insofar as reason begets faith. Everything requires some degree of faith, we just take most of it for granted. Every aspect of religion is faith-based, and everyone is religious.
Religiosity is a fundamental essence of the human condition. Our individual belief-system is hierarchical, with our primary belief being not only our religion, but our central identity. You are mostly what you believe most.
To compare and contrast different religions is futile, and typically paved in self-righteousness. More precisely, it’s a discussion often rooted in pride (e.g., “My God is the real God, because that’s what I believe.”; “I’m too smart to believe in God.”). For Christians, pride is the root of all sin. It was Eve’s pride to “be like God” (Genesis 3:5) that introduced sin into the world. God’s letter to his people (the Bible) explains the origin of our sinful nature. Whether you choose to believe it or not is irrelevant to its validity. But if you want to analyze it philosophically, why has nobody (excluding Jesus) been able to lead a sinless life? Seems like it would be a simple thing to do.
Aside from the existential crisis and predispositions that lead to religion, why would a person in the Western world be a devout Christian? It’s certainly not cool or trendy. Why would one have the desire to pray, go to church, repent and attempt to live a life that rejects our fundamental human nature, which is sinful? What provokes that desire? Is it just a coincidence that you feel drawn to God? Jesus said, “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last…” (John 15:16).
Christianity preaches rejection of the world. To be connected to the world is to be disconnected from God. The Bible says, For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world (1 John 2:16). Christianity dislikes the world just as much as you do. And the world hates Christianity just as much as it hates you. Jesus said as much 2000 years ago, “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.” (John 15: 18–19). You can belong to the world, or you can belong to God, but you can’t belong to both.
As I mentioned in the opening sentence, I don’t ponder politics much these days. As a result, I don’t read from the political sphere as much as I used to (honestly, it’s depressing). But I recently came across an article titled, “Christian Nationalism Has Made Me Agnostic” by Jason Kessler, which prompted me write this piece. The purpose not being a prideful critique rooted in “My God is the true God,” but rather an antithesis which attempts to make the assertion that fundamentalist Christianity is essentially White Nationalism, as well as the direct link between God and the achievements of White people, which have undeniably brought humanity out of darkness.
Christianity brings forth a message known as “the good news.” It’s a miraculous message that inspires hope through God’s promise of salvation. God packaged that salvation unconditionally as a covenant (contract) which developed into a contract with a race of people—White people, who since have changed (blessed) the world inconceivably. Just for a second, try to imagine a world without White people.
Most White Nationalist-types are pessimists. So they will instinctively find reasons to discredit Christianity. Usually it’s something related to the “Jews.” And while from a theological perspective, that’s somewhat understandable, it’s not very pragmatic. The “Jews” referenced in the Bible aren’t the same people we call “Jews” today. While I assume that most people reading this will agree with that statement, it is also clearly stated in the prophesy of Christ, “I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.” (Revelations 2:9).
The intent here wasn’t to go down a rabbit hole, but rather to focus on the compatibility of Christianity and White Nationalism. If you were to walk into a fundamentalist Christian church on Sunday morning, what would you see? Predominately, you would see White families who reject modernity (i.e., the world). If you were to ask them about their values, what would they say? They would typically say that they are family-orientated, against abortion, against homosexuality, adhere to gender roles, despise pornography, don’t watch much TV, vote Republican, work hard and want to lay a good foundation for the future of their children. How is that not White Nationalism? Sure, the majority probably aren’t explicitly racial or have negative opinions about Jews. And they probably don’t read White Nationalist websites, but so what? If these aren’t the people that you ideologically go to bat for, then who are? Why are you a White Nationalist?
I would posit that fundamentalist Christians are better representatives of White Nationalism than the vast majority of self-proclaimed White Nationalists. White Nationalism in the realm of practical politics should be based on actions and behaviors, not words and ideas. All the words, ideas, mantras and essays are redundant at this point. White Nationalists have been saying the same things over and over for 70 years.
For pro-Whites who have no interest in Christianity, the question is this: How serious are you about the future of White people? Do you think you’re just going to vote your way into an ethnostate? Are you waiting for minority status to reclaim your glory by way of a victim card? Do you just want to read essays that always focus on problems, yet never propose solutions? This isn’t intended to be a personal attack, the point being that there’s just not a lot of viable options. Here’s the fact of the matter: the modern world is unapologetically anti-White, and that’s not going to change anytime soon.
Speaking of essays, 10 years ago I wrote one titled, Is White Nationalism Real?. I concluded that paper with the following observation:
In conclusion, the term “real” is defined as having actual physical existence. With a very few minor exceptions, the White Nationalist movement would be better defined as a hobby of like-minded idealists. The reality of an all-White homeland in the foreseeable future (in America) is comparable to finding the end of a rainbow….
“Nothing ever becomes real until it is experienced” ~ John Keats
Back then I had this idea that White Nationalism could only be “real” on an explicit, macro level. That’s where I was wrong. White Nationalism only exists (with rare exceptions) on an implicit, micro level. It starts with community. It’s building communities within communities. Like Christianity, it takes effort. White Nationalism isn’t lingo or essays; It’s faith and family. It’s not hating Jews and blacks; It’s loving God and your people. In fact, these are the first two commandments of Jesus as stated in the gospel of Mark:
And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. (Mark 12:29-31)
You have millions and millions of “neighbors” in the US who think just like you do, they just might not say it the way you say it. There are lots of churches in the US who don’t approve of the world, they just might not do sermons in opposition to interracial marriage. Christianity is centered around the premise that God loved his people so much that he sent his Son to die by torture for your sins. How much do you love your people?
When Eve brought sin into the hearts of mankind, a perfect world ceased to exist. So, if you’re a White Nationalist waiting for the perfect storm to take us back to the glory days, then good luck. But if you’re looking for a savior and a pro-White plan, one exists that’s simple and effective: repent, join a fundamentalist church, reject the world, make babies and put your faith in God.
Love your God and love your people.
God bless!
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png00Hewitt E. Moorehttps://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.pngHewitt E. Moore2024-01-28 07:40:252024-01-28 07:40:25Christianity Is White Nationalism
Eurowhiteness: Culture, Empire and Race in the European Project
Hans Kundnani
Hurst Publishers, 2023
Eurowhiteness is one of those books that immediately catches the attention of a “racist”. With a bright orange cover and a title like Eurowhiteness displayed in large block letters, how could it not? Curiosity compelled me to take it down from the bookshop shelf and browse the introductory remarks. After a brief Google search to confirm my suspicions of the mixed-race origins of the author, I was ready to groan and roll my eyes at what I presumed to be a vapid book that deconstructed European identity by arguing that “blackness” or “brownness” somehow has just as much place within Europe as “whiteness.” What emerged from its pages instead was a novel left-wing polemic against the European Union (EU) *because* of its perceived Whiteness.
Author Hans Kundnani was born to an Indian father and a Dutch mother and grew up in the United Kingdom. As with most mixed-race people who struggle to place their identity, he believes this background gives him a unique perspective on European history and identity. His first post-university job was for the Commission for Racial Equality, the enforcement body established by the UK Race Relations Act 1976, and by 2009 he was working for the European Council on Foreign Relations, a think tank dedicated to Pan-European ideas. As Kundnani describes it, Eurowhiteness is the culmination of his shift in thinking from a pro-European convinced of the moral good of the EU, to a critic who has abandoned the myths that once informed his worldview.[1]
Kundnani does not present a bibliography, but his ideological debt to leading thinkers in critical race and post-colonial theory is apparent. His endnotes draw from well-known figures in this sphere such as Charles W. Mills, Gurminder K. Bhambra, Paul Gilroy, and historical forebears Frantz Fanon and W.E.B Du Bois. The acknowledgements section reveals Kundnani’s “particular debt” to Swedish post-colonial scholar Peo Hansen. Hansens’ book Eurafrica, which explores the African strategic fantasies of early Pan-European thinkers — notably Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi — are what seemingly began Kundnani’s path towards euroscepticism.
Eurowhiteness is well-paced and I can offer no criticism of Kundnani’s cogent writing style. Other reviewers have affixed the word “challenging” to the book, but to those of us not inflicted with colour-blind thinking and who already see the intrinsic link between Western civilisation and the White race, the themes parsed out in Kundnani’s book are hardly cause for discomfort. His claim that the EU has recently taken a “civilisational turn” towards the protection of European identity and that as a result the institution could just as easily be used as a vehicle for racist purposes is also familiar. Way back in 2017 Richard Spencer was pouring cold water on the euphoria over the Brexit vote, arguing that the European Union could instead become a potential racial empire, a counter to NATO and Atlanticism.
The value of this book for readers of The Occidental Observer lies principally in understanding the intellectual journey of the author and discerning the potential for the emergence of a popular left-wing critique of the EU in the Anglosphere and beyond. Kundnani’s transition from EU booster to EU sceptic is instructive, as well as revealing the anti-White perspectives and motivations that can lie behind soft-spoken academics. Despite the myriad of anti-racist measures, tolerance initiatives, and hate speech laws that encompass the modern EU, Kundnani has turned on the European Union because it is just still too White, too Western. After all, the EU’s history is rooted in Europe and much of its historical and present-day motivations are the defence of European people and Western values. That alone is enough to condemn it in Kundnani’s eyes.
Regionalist Racism
Kundnani’s critique of the European Union begins with the dismantling of what he sees is the common misunderstanding of its structural nature. Rather than conceptualising it as an inclusive cosmopolitan project that has renounced nationalism — a position held by both supporters on the left and critics on the right — Kundnani attacks the EU as a project analogous to nationalism. According to Kundnani, it is better understood as a form of “regionalism.” That is, nationalism on a more continental scale, and imbued with all the same chauvinistic impulses, power dynamics and histories of colonial dispossession that nation-states are saddled with.[2] The same impulse towards nation-building is found in the ‘region-building’ of the EU.
Building on this concept of regionalism as nationalism on a larger scale, Kundnani draws upon Jewish academic Hans Kohn’s theory of nationalism. Kohn invented the concept of civic nationalism as distinct from ethnic nationalism ideally suited for facilitating non-White migration. Just as a nation can have strands of civic and ethnic nationalism, so too does the regionalist EU. It possesses both a civic and an ethnic component that waxes and wanes in strength across time; secularism, civil institutions and liberal rights weighed against Christian, illiberal, civilisational and racial ideas. For Kundnani, it is “disturbing” that the EU continues to draw upon such ethnic/cultural elements from Europe’s history.[3]
Chapter 2 briefly traces the history of European identity from its ethnic and cultural origins at the time of the Battle of Tours, where the word was first used by the victorious Franks in order to “other” the external enemy, the Muslims. From the seventeenth century onwards, ideas of Europe began to shift from being strictly synonymous with Christianity. At this point, a rationalist, enlightenment notion of Europe with a civilising mission to the rest of the world emerged, and finally the notion of whiteness or the racial identification of the European peoples as Whites.
Kundnani’s critique of the Enlightenment values that form the basis of the EU follows the now standard deconstruction of its universalism, positing that it is instead of being based in Whiteness and in the particular systems of White supremacy:
… while Enlightenment ideas like the “rights of man” — the antecedent of what we would today call “human rights” — were potentially universal, they emerged from a particular European context, and moreover, were put into practice in a racialized way. … [C]olonialism and slavery were carried out in the name of enlightenment ideas.[4]
The Enlightenment is presented (or problematised, to use the lingo) in the most debased terms possible, as the output of White supremacists. Immanuel Kant, whom Kundnani points out wrote an early appeal for European unity that is now celebrated by the EU, is lambasted for his racial theories. Rousseau is condemned because his writings did not speak directly to the plight of Black slaves in French colonies.
Next, the alleged colonial origins of the EU are fleshed out — the “original sin” of the EU as Kundnani likes to call it. Rather than being anti-colonial, the early movements towards Pan-European unity developed the concept of Eurafrica, which envisioned the African continent as a yet undeveloped source of raw material for a future European power-bloc. Many of the founding states of the EU also held onto their colonial possessions after the formation of the European Economic Community (EEC), the formal precursor to the EU. France and Belgium in particular factored these colonies into their economic considerations for a post-war redevelopment enmeshed into wider Europe. Predatory relations further continued after the formal independence of these colonies, in the form of exploitative labour schemes and guest worker programs.
Kundnani argues that from 1945 onwards, civic regionalism came to dominate as a reaction to the ethnic conflicts of World War II. This was not the clean break from Europe’s past that many claimed it to be, with the older ethnic/cultural regionalist tendencies still pushing through into Pan-European rhetoric. The civilising mission remained, as did the belief in the superiority of European values and the claim of their universality. Even the holocaust is not spared from critique. The EU, Kundnani contends, has used holocaust remembrance as a cover for forgetting colonial injustices, patting themselves on the back for upholding “Never Again” whilst continuing to refuse to engage in decolonisation or recognise Europe’s true original sin. The foundational memory of the holocaust has obscured Europe’s foundational history of colonialism, and thus the EU is a project of political amnesia that has forgotten, or choses to ignore, its origins as a quasi-colonial institution.[5]
The end of the Cold War reignited the civilising mission towards incorporating the EU’s more “backward” eastern Europeans neighbours, those who were European but not quite yet *in* Europe in cultural or political terms. More than halfway through the book, we finally encounter the meaning behind its title, derived from Hungarian sociologist József Böröcz, who proposed a spectrum of Whiteness within Europe. “Eurowhitness” is associated with the centre of Europe in the West and “dirty whiteness”, the less immaculate and somewhat less West European version to the East. Kundnani repurposes the term to refer to the ethnic/cultural version of European regionalist identity. Eurowhiteness, used as a pejorative or a negative by Kundnani, simply means to identify as European in a non-civic (that is, “racist”) way.
With the arrival of the Eurozone crisis in 2010 and the chaos of the refugee influx of 2015, Kundnani argues that the European Union has swung towards a defensive position, focused on countering the external threats to the stability of Europe:
By the beginning of the 2020s, the civic element of European regionalism seemed to have become less influential and the ethnic/cultural element more influential in “pro-European” thinking. In other words, whiteness seemed to be becoming more central to the European project.[6]
Kundnani sees little distinction between pro-European politicians who posit a defence of the “European Way of Life” or who worry about the future of Western civilisation and far right “extremists” who invoke the supposed trope of the great replacement. In the face of these threats to EU stability, those who fear the decline of EU power and sovereignty are the international political equivalents of the those who fear White replacement.[7] After all, both positions are “pro-European.” For Kundnani, the EU’s dramatic response to the war in Ukraine, opening its arms wide for Ukrainian refugees compared to what he sees is the closed-door policy to non-White refugees at its southern borders, is just further proof of the return to Eurowhiteness.
By far the weakest point of the argument is the evidence (or general lack thereof) provided to attribute Eurowhiteness motivations to current EU leaders or bureaucrats. As an outsider, the civic European component still seems predominant and the appeals to European civilisation are mere scraps thrown to a public increasingly disillusioned by the failure of the EU to respond to issues of mass immigration. It feels like a stretch to widely attribute chauvinistic views to the EU leadership, but the impulse to defend Europe as Europe, as some kind of distinct entity of a distinct group of people, does certainly exist enough for the label of Eurowhiteness to stick.
Kundnani believes that a different Europe is needed than the one we currently have.[8] Nearing the conclusion, he briefly hints at the EU itself being a barrier to overcoming Eurowhiteness. He claims that engaging with its colonial past could in fact be a danger to the EU because Eastern European member states with no colonial history or collective guilt over colonialism would resist such initiatives, which could in turn have a disintegrative effect on European identify and the structure of the EU. However, the narrative abruptly ends there and is not further expounded upon, and we are left wondering what his true feelings about the future of the EU are. Kundnani at least admits in the introduction that he is only offering critiques, not solutions — at least not for the EU.
Reconsidering Brexit
The final chapter, Brexit and Imperial Amnesia, changes gears and presents us with a revisionist account of the Brexit Referendum, aimed at the British left still reeling from the 2016 vote. Kundnani challenges the dominant narrative of the Leave vote as a racist vote yearning for a White fortress that shuts the door to migrants. The true nature of the Brexit vote is presented as more complex and less binary, highlighting that one in three members of Britian’s ethnic minority population also voted to leave. Kundnani expands upon the angst of many non-White Britons regarding the EU and their perception that continental Europe is still more racist than the UK. Given the persistence of Eurowhiteness, it remained hard for Britain’s Black and Asian populations to truly feel part of the European project and they have struggled to identify with its history. Kundnani is also captive of these feeling towards the EU, mentioning in the introduction that he could never bring himself to feel “100% European” due to his mixed-race background.[9]
Another area of hostility outlined towards the EU is the discrimination many felt from the changes that entrance into the project brought to immigration. Following the admission of the UK into the EEC, Commonwealth citizens from Britain’s former colonies suddenly found it was harder to enter the UK than continental Europeans. The story is familiar to Australians, who too felt abandoned by the mother country when the border control lines at the airport no longer privileged the peoples of New Brittania.
With the Brexit vote reconceptualised, the Leave decision is transformed into an opportunity, offering the chance for Britain to rebalance its identity. Eurowhiteness and ties to the EU have allowed the UK to escape from its colonial history by focusing on the national identity narratives of Europe and World War II. Through engagement with former colonies, Britain can shift its national story away from Europe. Here, in the final two paragraphs of the book, we finally come to the vehicle of this reimagining of Britain and what perhaps Kundnani sees as the best way to combat Eurowhiteness: immigration policy.
The corrective is a policy which amends the turn away from Commonwealth-based immigration — a form of reparations issued on the path to becoming a less Eurocentric country:
It would be possible to go further in the rebalancing of British immigration policy that has taken place since Brexit — in particular, by making it easier for citizens of Britain’s former colonies to come to the UK. … such a policy — what might be called “post-imperial preference” — could even be thought of as a form of reparations.[10]
Once again, the great replacement trope is an evil conspiracy theory when observed by a critic and an obvious political good when advocated for by a supporter.
Yes. And?
Kundnani’s thesis can be pulled apart on a number of technical levels. The appropriateness of the notion of regionalism as applied to the EU and its analogy to nationalism can be questioned, and in turn there is often a conflation of concepts, with “Europe”, “the European Union” and “EU Member states” used interchangeably as suits his argument. A rather weak critique of neoliberalism also flows underneath the main critique of Eurowhiteness and the linkage between the EU and colonialism feels forced. By the time the EEC came along in the 1950s, European colonialism was in its death throes, far from the height of its power. However, lacking a detailed understanding of the history and functioning of the EU and of the political conceptions of its leadership class, my review of the narrative of Eurowhiteness turns elsewhere.
Much of the book is perplexing if you don’t have a pathological sense of White guilt or an inferiority complex about the success of European civilization. This is without a doubt a book produced from decades spent ensconced in an academic world brimming with anti-White narratives, plundering the rancid depths of post-colonial theory for a vector to attack an institution that even most die-hard progressives support — until they read Kundnani’s book perhaps. The extent of White guilt that a reader must have to agree with his conclusions is altogether frightening when considering that the book has received a generally positive response in the British left-wing press.
To me, the arguments presented in the book elicited a kind of “Yes. And?” reaction, a sense of confusion or bemusement as to why a historical fact or a political reality has been presented as a negative. Kundnani considers it damning evidence of Eurowhiteness that the EU draws upon figures such as Charlemagne and continues to award the Charlemagne Prize in his name. Why is this damning? Because he is European? At its heart, Kundnani’s critique is that the European Union only brings together European nations and peoples, European ideas and values, and strives for European interests and goals. Yes. And? Is this a bad thing? Are Europeans not allowed to do this? The EU was certainly never constituted in any way other than as a continental union, no different than similar unions that now exist in the other regions of the world. The fact that some of the original member states still possessed leftover colonial territories is beside the point.
It is hard to shake the feeling that Kundnani feels there is something inherently dangerous with the European Union setting its geographic limits as Europe and bringing Europeans together. The flat refusal issued to Morocco’s request to join the EEC in 1987 is transformed by Kundnani from an obvious rejection issued to a country trying to simply cash in on proximity to Europe into proof of a malign identity embedded within the EU. Does Kundnani think it was wrong to reject Morrocco’s application? As a country with a long historical link to the African continent, would Spain being rejected from joining the African Union also be couched in such negative framing?
A Union, if you can keep it
Eurowhiteness raises questions regarding the long-term durability of the EU project. If the demographic trends away from a White majority in European nations continue, will we start to see more Euroscepticism from the left, more anti-White reactions against the EU like that which has captivated Kundnani? Whilst it would be comforting to believe that Eurowhiteness is an isolated product of the distinctly British detachment from the EU that has no currency elsewhere, Kundnani draws upon a global range of anti-EU perspectives, both historical and current-day. It’s not hard to see conclusions such as his, presented in an accessible form, from developing in popularity.
Non-whites living in the West have stepped up their rhetoric in recent years, rallying against the presence of White faces and White ideas within their living spaces. Statues have been removed, the Western canon expunged, and names of places and institutions changed for the sake of diversity and anti-racism. Their actions have shown that they believe that all Eurocentric ideas must be challenged, and above all that diverse faces must be predominant in public life. To a degree it is surprising that critiques of the EU along these lines have not emerged before to a significant degree. Perhaps that is simply due to the political left adopting a reflexive pro-EU stance in the face of the right-wing anti-EU stance —a reflexive response that Kundnani is now seeking to correct.
Ultimately, the impulse behind Eurowhiteness is a sense of exclusion by Europe and a feeling of discomfort in Western civilisation, one certainly shared by others of non-European background. Kundnani admits as much himself when he states that: “European identity is externally exclusive — that is, it excludes those who are not European or who cannot think of themselves as being European.[11]” To those of us comfortable with European identity, Charles Martel or Charlemagne are inspirational warriors of our history, men who shaped and fought for the Europe we have and cherish today and without whom we may not even exist.
The Battle of Tours in October 732 — by Charles de Steuben (1788–1856)
All that people like Kundnani seem to see are exclusionary figures who upheld Christendom or who waged wars to defend Europe from dark-skinned Muslims — detestable characters they cannot feel an affinity with and whom they believe only a racist would celebrate. They survey the history of Europe and all the cultural touchpoints behind the EU and find that it just doesn’t represent them. From a racialist perspective, they cannot really be faulted for this. It is a natural impulse to seek out the familiar and to desire to live in an environment that accords with your being and your own racial identity. The problem was always in letting them into the West in the first place.
In all, Kundnani’s polemic against the EU reads as a fear of White unity writ large. Whiteness (or Eurowhiteness) is the threat to overcome. That much is clear when he advocates for non-White immigration as the solution to Britain extracting itself from Eurocentrism and frets about the possibilityof the far-right moderating its Euroscepticism and accepting the EU[12].
The center right, it turns out, doesn’t have a problem with the far right. It just has a problem with those who defy E.U. institutions and positions. …
The blurring of boundaries between the center right and the far right is not always as easy to spot as it is in the United States. …
[T]oday’s far right speaks not only on behalf of the nation but also on behalf of Europe. It has a civilizational vision of a white, Christian Europe that is menaced by outsiders, especially Muslims. …
But as the union unites around defending a threatened European civilization and rejecting nonwhite immigration, we need to think again about whether it truly is a force for good.
Any form of White identity, and any association of Whites together as Whites, even if only implicit, must necessarily be a dangerous thing. As Eurowhiteness proves, even Western institutions that we may have once considered safe by virtue of being perceived as progressive are now suspect.
[1] By his own admission this did not however cause him to vote Leave in the Brexit referendum of 2016, presumably because it still felt racist to do so
[2] At this point, Kundnani posits the Marxist theory of nationalism (Hobsbawm, etc.), which claims that national identities only emerged during the Enlightenment era, but it doesn’t impact the argument much.
[3] Kundnani, H 2023, Eurowhiteness: Culture, Empire and Race in the European Project, Hurst & Company, London, 42.
[4] Ibid., p.53—55
[5] For all the complaints about European universality or that “Europe is not the world”, Kundnani conveniently fails to mention the empires and colonial histories of the non-European world, which were every bit as exploitative and arguably more barbaric.
[6] Kundnani, Op. Cit., p.126
[7] Ibid., p.146
[8] Ibid., p.3
[9] Ibid., p.1
[10] Ibid., p.178
[11] Ibid., p.20
[12] Kundnani, H 2023, ‘Europe may be headed for something unthinkable’, New York Times, December 13, retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/13/opinion/european-union-far-right.html
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png00Jason Cannonhttps://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.pngJason Cannon2024-01-24 06:59:102024-01-25 12:02:06The Problematic History of the European Union: Review of ‘Eurowhiteness’
The Welshman Aled Jones (born 1970) did something remarkable as a boy. He enchanted and astonished millions with the purity of his voice and depth of his musical talent. After that, he grew up and deservedly became a rich media star. Then he himself met a remarkable boy. Back in the 1980s, Jones had been remarkable in a White way. The boy he met in London in 2023 was remarkable in a non-White way:
A machete-wielding teenager who threatened to cut off singer Aled Jones’s head as he robbed him of his £17,000 Rolex watch has been detained. The Welsh baritone was attacked by the 16-year-old boy on Chiswick High Road, west London, on 7 July [2023].
The teenager pointed a machete in his face and told him to remove the watch, Ealing Magistrates’ Court heard. He was given a 24-month detention and training order after admitting robbery and possession of an offensive weapon. Vijay Khuttan, prosecuting, told the court Mr Jones and his son were out for a walk when they were “spotted” by the youth who had seen the high-value watch on his arm. “He crossed the road and followed them down the high street,” Mr Khuttan continued. “He pulled out a machete and ran towards Jones and his son with the machete brandished.”
The youth told Mr Jones: “Give me your Rolex or I will cut your arm off,” the prosecutor said, adding that the defendant then pointed the machete in the singer’s face. When the teenager noticed Mr Jones was still following him from a distance, he told him to “walk the other way or I will cut your head off”. … The court heard the teenager had previously stolen a gold Rolex watch worth £20,000 from a man in his 70s at Paddington railway station.
Chairman of the bench Rex Da Rocha told the teenager his record was “appalling”, adding: “Pointing that machete at an innocent person is totally unacceptable.” (“Aled Jones: Boy who threatened singer with machete detained,” BBC News, 3rd October 2023)
That vibrant vignette from 21st-century Britain was reported by the BBC, but the BBC didn’t, of course, point out its deep racial significance. However, it wasn’t just a case of a talented White musician being robbed by a predatory non-White psychopath. It was an encounter between White civilization and non-White savagery, between a race capable of ascending the greatest heights and a race capable of plumbing the worst depths. Aled Jones had ascended to the greatest heights of culture in his singing and love of classical music. The watch he was wearing represented the greatest heights of technology and ingenuity. That’s why it was so valuable and prestigious. And that’s why the non-White robber — almost certainly a Black — was ready to plumb the depths of savagery for possession of it.
Malevolents with machetes: the Rolex-rippers who contribute Black savagery to White civilization
What Blacks don’t have the brains to build, they certainly have the savagery to steal. The London Metropolitan Police have recently conducted an undercover operation against the theft of expensive watches by so-called “Rolex-rippers.” They have now issued photos of all the criminals old enough to be publicly identified. It’s a miracle of migration that almost all are Black and that most have obviously Muslim names. On their own, Blacks in Africa never even invented the wheel, let alone any true kind of machinery. The Jewish scientist Jared Diamond (born 1937) attributes this Black failure to purely bio-geographical factors in his Pulitzer-prize-winning best-seller Guns, Germs and Steel (1997). After all, according to leftists like Diamond, race does not exist and Blacks are just as capable of high intellectual achievement as anyone else. Therefore we must explain Africa’s failure by something external to Blacks — their natural environment. It couldn’t possibly be anything to do with Black evolution or genetics.
Black genius stymied by Mother Nature
That’s what Diamond claims. He says he’s interested in revealing the truth and removing unfounded prejudices. I don’t believe him. As I explained in my article “Destroy the Goy: The Metaphysics of Anti-White Hatred,” I think he’s really interested in concealing the truth and denigrating Whites. I think Diamond’s primary motive is goyophobia, or hatred of White Europeans. When he tries to explain why Europe conquered Africa rather vice versa, he obviously derives great satisfaction from the alternate history of militarily superior Africans conquering Europe:
All of Africa’s mammalian domesticates — cattle, sheep, goats, horses, even dogs — entered sub-Saharan Africa from the north, from Eurasia or North Africa. At first that seems astonishing, since we now think of Africa as the continent of big wild animals. In fact, none of those famous big wild mammal species of Africa proved domesticable [this isn’t true]. They were all unqualified by one or another problem such as: unsuitable social organization; intractable behaviour; slow growth-rate, and so on. Just think what the course of world history would have been like if Africa’s rhinos and hippos had lent themselves to domestication! If it had been possible, African cavalry mounted on rhinos or hippos would have made mincemeat of European cavalry mounted on horses. But it couldn’t happen. (Why Did Human History Unfold Differently on Different Continents for the Past 13,000 Years?)
You can see the same goyophobia in Guns, Germs and Steel when Diamond presents the alternate history of “bedraggled” Spaniards being “driven into the sea” by Aztec cavalry:
That’s an enormous set of differences between Eurasian and Native American societies — due largely to the Late Pleistocene extinction (extermination?) of most of North and South America’s former big wild mammal species. If it had not been for those extinctions, modern history might have taken a different course. When Cortes and his bedraggled adventurers landed on the Mexican coast in 1519, they might have been driven into the sea by thousands of Aztec cavalry mounted on domesticated native American horses. Instead of the Aztecs dying of smallpox, the Spaniards might have been wiped out by American germs transmitted by disease-resistant Aztecs. American civilizations resting on animal power might have been sending their own conquistadores to ravage Europe. But those hypothetical outcomes were foreclosed by mammal extinctions thousands of years earlier. (Jared Diamond, Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies [1997], ch. 18)
Kevin MacDonald has described seeing Diamond in full anti-White flow: “I went to a talk by Diamond at a large packed lecture hall at Cal Tech in the early 2000s. When he gleefully fantasized about Africa conquering Europe, the crowd burst into applause. Being a reasonably respectable academic at the time, it was a good introduction to the anti-White hatred that boils just below the surface of the moralistic rhetoric of anti-racism.” But Diamond’s goyophobia is illogical by his own principles. There is no room for moralism or the unique malevolence of Whites in the “All by Accident” school of history. If all human groups are equal in moral and intellectual potential, then no group can be superior or inferior, more virtuous or less evil. Consequently, human history must be explained by the chance factors of biogeography.
The hidden aims of anti-racism
Indeed, Diamond’s thesis or something like it follows with inexorable logic from the fundamental axiom of anti-racism. If race does not exist and we are all the same under the skin, differences between human groups must arise from external factors beyond human control and not susceptible to moral judgment. If the historical dice had rolled another way, then Blacks would have enslaved Whites and Jews would have committed genocide against Germans. Victims in our time-stream are villains in an alternate time-stream, and villains are victims. Who oppresses whom is entirely a matter of chance and historical contingency. There is no other logical conclusion.
But anti-racists don’t reach that conclusion, because the ideology of anti-racism does not obey logic. Anti-racists follow their fundamental axiom only so far as it suits them. Although they claim that all human groups have equal potential, they blame the failure of non-Whites on Whites without any mention of chance or historical contingency. Rational anti-racism would be a much more sober and much less ambitious ideology than anti-racism as it presently exists. Rational anti-racism would not be strident or self-righteous, and it would not seek to bully, brow-beat or instil guilt in Whites. In short, it wouldn’t deliver what anti-racists really want: power, privilege and revenge.
Roche’s revenge
And self-proclaimed anti-racists take revenge precisely by importing non-Whites into the West. Some of the Black faces and names in the police photos above are obviously Somali or from closely related groups. But why does Britain have so many predatory Somalis living on its soil? Step forward the migration-maven Barbara Roche, the intensely ethnocentric Jewish minister who opened Britain’s borders to the Third World during the New Labour government:
One of Roche’s legacies was hundreds more migrants camped in squalor in Sangatte, outside Calais, where they tried to smuggle themselves onto lorries. News about the new liberalism — and in particular the welfare benefits — now began attracting Somalis who’d previously settled in other EU countries. Although there was no historic or cultural link between Somalia and Britain, more than 200,000 came. Since most were untrained and would be dependent on welfare, the Home Office could have refused them entry. But they were granted ‘exceptional leave to remain’. (Conman Blair’s cynical conspiracy to deceive the British people and let in 2million migrants against the rules, The Daily Mail, 26th February 2016)
It’s no coincidence that Jared Diamond and Barbara Roche are both Jewish. Jews like Diamond supply the anti-White propaganda and Jews like Roche supply the anti-White practice. The great White writer Horace (65–8 BC), by contrast, supplied the truth. Two millennia ago he expressed the folly of importing savages into civilization with eight words of crystal-clear Latin: Caelum non animum mutant qui trans mare currunt — “They change their skies, not their souls, who rush across the sea.”
A humbly born White genius
Horace’s poetry is still something to marvel at, a miracle of White genius that has proved far more lasting than bronze. Aptly enough, the word “miracle” comes to us from Latin. It was originally miraculum, meaning “thing of wonder, marvel.” That’s why I called those police-photos of Black savages a miracle of migration. They were something to marvel at, a vibrant vision from the capital city of a nation that once imposed civilization on Blacks and would never have dreamed of importing Blacks to impose their savagery on us. Then Jews like Jared Diamond began to pump out anti-White propaganda and Jews like Emmanuel Celler (1888-1981) began to destroy pro-White immigration law. The results are plain to see across the West.
But there’s another kind of miracle in the story of Aled Jones and the machete-wielding savage who threatened to cut his head off. That savage was after the miraculum mechanicum, the mechanical marvel, that Jones was wearing on his wrist. There are many centuries of White ingenuity and effort behind even the cheapest watch, but how many of the rich White men who wear the most expensive watches stop to think about that? How many of them think about the humbly born Yorkshire genius John Harrison (1693–1776), who contributed more to watchmaking, technology, and navigation than all the Blacks who have ever lived? Alas, too many White men wear expensive watches only as a celebration of themselves and their success. They never stop to think what those watches represent. Or what the robbery of a watch by a Black represents. The marvellous watch represents civilization and the Black robber represents savagery. How many of the White victims of Black Rolex-rippers have recognized that? Very few, I’m afraid. And while rich Whites are happy to spend huge sums aggrandizing themselves with the shiniest products of White civilization, from Rolex watches to sports-cars to private jets, how much are they prepared to spend defending the civilization — and the race — that gave them those things?
Blacks and Muslims not needed
But the non-White savage that Aled Jones encountered in London was a threat to much more than the marvel that Jones carried on his wrist. He was also a threat to the marvels that Jones carried inside his head. Jones has great musical talent and a profound knowledge and appreciation of the glories of the Western classical tradition. He can read music and commune with the genius of White giants like Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven. And his mother-tongue is Welsh, part of the true and organic diversity of the British Isles that is threatened by the artificial and imposed diversity of Third-World migration. We don’t need any Blacks or Muslims in Britain at all. They are a curse on us, not a blessing as the left so loudly and mendaciously proclaim.
All of that is obvious in the story of the Welsh musician and the non-White savage who threatened to cut his head off with a machete. It was one small encounter between civilization and savagery that symbolized a much bigger migration disaster. But the BBC and rest of the leftist media won’t tell you that. Even as they report clear proof of the evil insanity of Third-World migration, they go on supporting it and blaming all problems on White racism. They’re not sane or rational and they’re certainly not well-intentioned. That’s why we have to fight them, defeat them, and ensure that civilization survives.
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png00Tobias Langdonhttps://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.pngTobias Langdon2024-01-22 06:50:112024-01-22 06:51:33Miracles of Migration: From Mechanical Marvels to Malevolents with Machetes
It is often said by the [many] haters of the White race that there is no White culture, whether those haters be avowed wokeshevik elites or modern conservative rubes unwittingly attempting to please them. Just as these doofuses aggressively spread the lie that race is just skin deep, they also strive to reduce Whiteness to absurdity, arguing that differences between European populations vary so much that there is no commonality between them. But is this really true? It is not, thankfully. It is but another lie peddled by the predatory Western/Globalist power class, another fiction imbuing and animating Cultural Marxist propaganda, all meant to unpeople our people.
So what are these common traits, this culture common to all European peoples? Let us begin, shall we?
1) It must start in antiquity of course. No analysis of the issue would be complete without reference to the Ancient Greeks and Romans, but especially the Greeks. It is in Greek philosophy and math that Western history truly begins. The Greek canon is unparalleled in its intellectual accomplishments. From drama (Homer, Sophocles) to mathematics (Euclid, Diophantus) to philosophy (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle), Ancient Greek contributions to the world’s knowledge base are at least as impressive or more so as any other people’s or period’s. Of course anyone can learn or learn to appreciate Ancient Greek genius, but it is really only White people who identify with it, who say, “That is my history. Those are my people.” There is a connectedness there that can not be taught or manufactured. It is a matter of identity and of cultural and genetic continuity. No amount of state or semi-state propaganda will ever make anyone named Mesut Ozil, Mohamed Saleh, or even Giannis Antetokounmpo identify with that history or that tradition. It is ours. It is not the glorious history or tradition of any other people, whether they be Turks, Arabs, or Nigerians. The same is true of various Renaissance and Enlightenment thinkers from Descartes and Kant to Locke and Nietzsche, but it is especially true of the Ancient Greeks. There is, without a doubt, a certain continuity of thought in Europe stretching back over 2,000 years.
2) Second on the list is foods. There are certain foods common to all of Europe. These foods vary regionally, but there are foods that are distinctively or at least massively European. Whites dominate the production and sale of these foods. They have more or less always been widespread in Europe and we globalized them. Whites created/invented these foods themselves or borrowed them in early antiquity or prior and turned their production into an art form. They made them theirs, in other words.
The first food type on this list is cured meats: Pastrami, Prosciutto, Speck, Salami, Chorizo, Serrano, Bacon. Indeed, the European tradition of meat prepping and curing may be part of the reason Europeans have such a visceral reaction to the “eat the bugs” propaganda emanating from World Economic Forum types and other predatory capitalists and banksters. We are a meat-eating people. We are the masters of meat and of animal husbandry, and we have been ever since our people wandered off the Pontic-Caspian Steppe.
Second on this list must be dairy generally, but cheese especially. Remember, a love of milk is basically White supremacy, folks. The White love of dairy explains why lactose intolerance reaches its lowest levels in the Whitest of all places (Schleswig-Holstein). Indeed, this may be a major contributor to why Whites tend to grow bigger and stronger than other groups, and not just physically, but mentally. European cheese is unrivaled in its quality and flavor. Nobody makes cheeses like Whites make cheeses: Gouda, Havarti, Emmentaler, Gruyere, Cheddar, American, Stilton, Roquefort, Gorgonzola, Parmesan, Mozzarella, Manchego. Whites are the cheese masters.
There are just some foods Whites love and are masters at crafting. Cheese and cured meats have to be the top two on this list. And while other things could be placed on the list of distinct European culinary specialties (like bread for instance), I think beer belongs in the third spot. Beers are produced in nearly all regions of the world today largely on account of contact with Europeans and the movement of Europeans to new places and continents. East Asia and Latin America are premier examples of this. Nonetheless, no one makes beers like the White man makes beers. No one. Even here in America, Whites love their beer. They drink very crappy beer for the most part, since Americans are not really known for their sophistication in anything, but they love their beer. No matter who is brewing it and no matter where, aspiring brewers are copying the European masters when it comes to brewing beer. Sometimes they may be trying to emulate Guinness or Newcastle, but as a general principle, brewers the world over are trying to recreate something crisp, smooth, and balanced in its overall hoppiness, like the pilsners and helles beers of Central Europe, from southerly and easterly German or former German regions specifically. I have found that as a general rule, the longer a brewery has been in existence, which is to say perfecting its craft, the better the beer. Spaten is my brew of choice (1396), though I can swing a Weihenstephaner (original helles) from time to time. The latter has been brewing its beer for just under 1,000 years. There are some quality kolsches about too, to be fair.
3) There is a certain aesthetic outlook that is more or less unique to White, Western civilization. It is one that emphasizes two things primarily: discipline and fertility. Those are the traits that define classical European art, from the Renaissance and before: beautiful, proportionate men, and beautiful, fertile women (see Rubens or Botticelli). These things are prized in White societies. Indeed, fertility is prized in almost all traditional cultures, whether Christian or pre-Christian. It is only our degenerate modern culture which treats reproduction and motherhood/fatherhood as an onerous burden rather than a wonderful, even liberating gift. Again, this may not be unique to Europa, but it is a central part of our culture. That is why even today body sculpting/building is so popular on the political right and even in the smallest, Whitest towns in the far interior. You will uncover these aesthetic values in most any work of art from the Renaissance period. This aesthetic specifically values our looks and our beauty. You are not going to get Bantus and Indonesians to deeply appreciate values that aren’t theirs or images of beauties that aren’t common to their ethnies. Moreover, wherever you see Whites promoting fatness or fat inclusion or denigrating motherhood and celebrating careerism, you should know you are listening to someone who has been deracinated from their roots, from their culture. The farther we wander from a love of self-control and self-discipline and the veneration of fecundity and fruitfulness, the farther do we stray from the European tradition.
The same goes for classical music. Does it not seem to you that it is only our ear that appreciates it? You will never get large segments of most other populations to identify with or appreciate classical music. That is why classical orchestras are still dominated by White people, a fact which has of late become but another cause for non-White/anti-White griping, consternation, and calls for more equal representation. They don’t like our music and they don’t identify with it. You can’t make aspiring rappers into cellists, no matter how much propaganda you peddle. Classical music is a White thing and it always will be. Anyone can play it to be sure, but not everyone will. Our artistic geniuses are ours. Bruegel and Vermeer are, most of all, appreciated by our eye, as Beethoven and Chopin are, most of all, appreciated by our ear—because they are part and parcel of our White culture, and no one else’s. They speak to our nature and our spirit, no one else’s. Should we even let non-Whites play this music? Should we tolerate this? Is this not cultural appropriation? Western music and Western painting are White culture, full stop.
There is even a uniquely White architectural tradition. It may be diverse and variegated, but there is a continuity there. The fact that the architecture in our nation’s capital (I am talking of course of the Capitol Building and the White House and the other major architectural structures/buildings) draws so heavily on ancient architectural concepts (think of all the Ionic columns in D.C.) proves that there is continuity—ethnic, moral, spiritual, cultural—between Ancient Greece and America. Our people are not all the same, but there is a commonality and continuity there. Well, dipshit, that is White culture. That is it, and it is very real. So, the next time someone asks, “what is White culture?”, or declares that “there is no White culture!”, point them to this article. Because there clearly is a White culture and we are immersed in it, though many White westerners seem disturbingly unaware of that fact.
4) A fourth distinctive trait of White culture is a deep respect for objective truth. What has driven unrivaled White accomplishment and contribution in so many scientific and intellectual fields is an abiding respect for truth, and the noble, relentless pursuit of the universe’s mysteries. Cultural Marxist Western leaders wish to weaken the ties between our minds and reality, because it renders ordinary people easier to tyrannize. When you can’t discern between blatant falsehoods and obvious truths, you can’t effectively resist. Belief is necessary for action, particularly impassioned action. If you will believe boys can be girls, you will believe literally anything at that point. Nothing is worth fighting for, let alone dying for, if nothing matters, if nothing is true. Anyone who would assent to the most obvious of lies is three quarters slave already. He has already lost any sense of self-respect and probity. He will go along with most anything at that point. Of course, our vile overlords still think some things do matter and are true. Racism is the most evil thing that ever happened to the world. This is self-evident of course. White racism that is. We are told this every day, and we must repeat it as a kind of mantra, as an implied oath to the great and glorious Cultural Marxist state. Our overlords are very selective about these things. Morality is relative, but their moral values are objectively and indisputably and absolutely correct, and they enforce them with the vigor of crazed Jihadists. One wonders how we have allowed ourselves to be vassalized by such shallow nitwits.
5) Fifth on the list has to be an enduring respect for freedom of speech and expression. Westerners have understood since the Enlightenment is that there is no genuine science or the possibility of an informed public without free speech, and no real democracy without it either. Tied to an enduring belief in free speech and expression and a willingness to use state violence to protect that right, is a healthy respect for self-actualization and individuation. This respect can of course devolve into a shallow degeneracy, a gaudiness as it were, including excessively revealing clothing and the like. There has always been a balance in Europe between the traditional value of modesty, and respect for and tolerance of individual expression. However, this respect for the right of people to say what they want and wear what they want is distinctively European. It is deeply rooted in the Enlightenment. It extends even to body art and sexuality. Other peoples are by and large far more inclined to crush individual self-expression of all sorts. This is because the natural impulse to use authoritarian tools and tactics to crush individual uniqueness is not as well tempered by the European respect for the individual. In less stable, more dysfunctional, more mistrusting societies, nonconformity is viewed as a threat to tradition, to the government, to the often comfortable social order. It is therefore more feared than honored.
To make matters worse, criminal governments, such as ours, are keen to exploit the divides and anxieties of mistrusting and disordered societies, so as to enlarge themselves and their powers, and secure their positions thereby. Diversity is therefore the gift that keeps on giving for our tyrannical governments and their tyrannical police state apparatuses. Our governments are deliberately sowing low-level chaos amongst the people so as to gain from it. Terror act? The government needs more powers. Organized retail theft? The government needs to put more of its soldiers on the streets. They import our replacements and all the poverty and problems our replacements carry with them, and they use natural or even engineered fears about social instability and crime and the like, as a never-ending excuse to crack down on us, on any White person who dares to complain about being replaced, displaced, and/or dispossessed. There are too many orthodoxies to count now. “Cancel culture” and “hate” laws are but symptoms of these lamentable trends. We are not becoming freer in the West, but in fact we are far less free in recent decades.
6) Also emanating from these speech and expression rights are the defense of oneself, one’s property, and other essential rights. As you see these rights falling by the wayside in Europe and America, these regions are becoming effectively less White and less European. We are losing our culture to more primitive cultures. The American police state’s drive to punish wrongthinkers/racists is overwhelming our longstanding legal tradition of permitting men to defend themselves from wrongdoers and transgressors, among other rights and traditions. Much of the law today is being sullied and subverted by alien peoples and very bad ideas, from critical race theory to disparate impact to no-knock warrants to mass surveillance to the plea bargain system, the grand engine of American tyranny. Equality under the law, consent of the governed, and due process are largely alien concepts to other peoples. Even today, most non-White populations do not uphold these principles to any meaningful degree in their own nations. Even when they are trying to, openly and committedly at that. They know about them, they may even wish to emulate them, but they cannot realize them. White Westerners took them for granted throughout the 19th and 20th Centuries. And that is why we are losing our societies as our values wither away. We didn’t realize how valuable these things were. So we lost them. We did this in two ways primarily. In the first place, we created a massive police/security state that gobbled them all up. We were brainwashed by the government into believing that this was how we uphold these principles. The way you make yourself strong and free is by enlarging the government and enabling it to amass massive armies of government soldiers, which get to walk the streets and harass you about most anything. Pretty transparent trickery of course, but with the aid of the news media, they pulled it off. In fact, a massive police presence does not uphold rights, it obliterates them. The CIA and FBI and law enforcement officers from the national all the way down to the local, couldn’t care less about equality before the law or the consent of the governed. They don’t care about your rights. They care about power and the preservation of power [in their own hands]. They care about keeping their jobs as well, and following commands from above. Your rights are really not high on the list, if they are on the list at all. This is as true in America today as it was in the Soviet Union under the terroristic reign of the secret police.
The other way we did so was by believing obvious race egalitarian lies. Westerners were propagandized into thinking that any people could sustain their ideals. But they can’t. Because we replaced ourselves by subscribing that everyone is an interchangeable economic unit, we are surely losing our culture and even a secure biological existence . We placed the valuing of diversity and the worship of markets over the bedrock principles of our civilization. The spirit and genes of our people are the bedrock of our civilization. As they go, it all goes. And it has. When Whites abandoned their sense of race pride, without knowing it they were basically throwing their civilization in the trash heap of history. No one can sustain Western civilization but us. If we do not retain a dominant position in our societies, we cannot preserve our civilization.
7) A healthy respect for markets, and by extension, property rights, are fundamentally White, western values. But there is a big difference between a healthy respect for a thing and a blind faith in it. It is really only in America where this healthy respect has become very unhealthy. Capital markets are like meat. It is quite healthy to eat meat, red meat even. On the other hand, it is quite unhealthy to eat cheeseburgers every day for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. A diet, like a society, needs more than just free markets. Fundamentalist capitalism is a cancer eating away at everything in the country, from democracy to living wages to the safety net to the border itself. It turns out, you don’t need completely free markets to enjoy the many benefits of markets. A multitude of European nations prove this definitively. But the excesses of markets can be very destructive to society at large. Just look at how 18–30 year-old women are selling their bodies all over the internet today. When only the dollar is sacred, nothing is sacred, everything is for sale. Even democracy itself. And of course there have been European nations that have adopted communist economic systems and the like, at least temporarily, but for the most part these foolish experiments have been all but abandoned. However, every year it seems there is a new crisis that Republicans/Conservatives refuse to even try to address in the name of fiscal austerity and responsibility, and letting markets sort it out. And every year the problems get worse! Of course there is always plenty of money for the weapons manufacturers and the refugees and fancy new FBI/KGB buildings/headquarters, just not for the problems actually afflicting ordinary Americans.
The White race is a race of industry and action. If there are trees about, we may well cut them down and build homes—although we also have pioneered conservation and the national park movement. If there is some resource under the ground, we find a way to get it to the surface and use it. These are good things. But we should not confuse this healthy impulse with the false, largely superstitious belief that markets are always perfectly rational or efficient. They are not. Yes, some people who get very wealthy are very skilled and intelligent. But many are neither skilled nor intelligent. Take the Kardashians for instance. A healthy respect for markets is a good thing, but the free market is not god and should not be treated as a god. We should never let a foolish belief in the wonders of markets get in the way of feeding the poor or making sure people are housed. Most all White populations know and understand this. All should. No majority White state should resemble the Congo, as some American states are starting to do.
8) The religion of Christianity and all of its intellectual offshoots are inseparable from White culture. Almost all Medieval, Renaissance and Enlightenment thinkers rooted their thinking in Christian ideas. Even the philosophy of natural law, is grounded in Christian thought. White lands were once more or less coextensive with Christendom itself. Remnants of folk religions—religions arguably healthier, more organic, and more truly native and natural for White peoples than modern Christianity—persist in various forms in White culture, but the effects of Christianity are far larger and far more recent. Christian values and thoughts are the fruit of White culture. They may not end at Whiteness exactly, as Christianity has really devolved into a global, universalizing religion, to the detriment of the race that founded it and developed it. But these values and mores are inseparable from Whiteness. Whiteness can be distanced from Christianity substantially, but it can never be entirely separated from it, just as Whiteness cannot be separated entirely from the Ancient Greek canon. Christianity can be distanced from Whiteness, as it is often is today, in awful and destructive ways, but it cannot be removed from Whiteness entirely. The form Christianity took historically, its ideals, its spirit, this all is inseparable from the genetic and cultural substratum of the European continent and diaspora. Indeed, there is a difficult chicken-and-egg problem here: What role does the unique European genetic constitution have in predisposing Europeans to the cultural values of Christianity in times past and present?
9) No list would be complete without including these: Heroism, self-sacrifice, war, & conquest. Unfortunately, the military technologies our own people created through a combination of genius and will, are now being turned inward on our own populations, and used to subdue and enserf the people themselves. Still, there is no discussion of Whiteness and White history without a discussion of our unrivaled military successes. The White race is the champion of warfare and weaponry. Killing and conquering are certainly part of that systematization. Our people killed and conquered everything and everyone, before giving it all up in the name of “human rights” or “loving diversity” or some such hogwash. I guess when you reach the top there is nowhere to go but down, eh? Still, that curiosity, that life drive, that love of expedition and conquest, has been applied to so many domains, even space. Exploring new domains, no matter how challenging, no matter how far one has to reach, is White culture. Grabbing the lowest hanging banana is the culture of other peoples. The ability and desire to do great and heroic things, which the entire species esteems and benefits from, is inseparable from the White western spirit and from the culture which springs from that spirit.
10) Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, “White culture” is anything non-Whites and anti-Whites and Western power structures generally struggle to define precisely, but detest as either “vestiges” of or “pillars” of White supremacy. If Western governments loathe it and are trying to replace or dismantle it, from traditional sex roles to knowledge of firearms, chances are it is some part, lesser or greater, of White culture. Resist it, because they hate you and are trying to destroy you. They can dress their genocidal intentions up in the language of social justice or whatever else, but the truth is they are just trying to eliminate you, your race, and your culture And they are succeeding.
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png00D. F. Mulderhttps://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.pngD. F. Mulder2024-01-21 06:11:332024-01-22 08:27:17What Is White Culture? Flushing anti-White genocidal rhetoric down the drain once and for all.
Editor’s note: Almost a year ago I posted a video by American Krogan titled “On Emma Lazarus.” He now has a Substack (please subscribe) under the name Wilhem Ivorsson and he has made the video into a written version, complete with citations. Enjoy.
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…” These lines are now inseparable from the Statue of Liberty. They are part and parcel of the postwar American identity. They speak to our nature as a so-called, “nation of immigrants,” and are wielded as a weapon to silence anyone concerned about endless, unchecked immigration into submission. As far as our modern national mythos goes, the aforementioned words might as well have been uttered by our Founding Fathers, and going against their spirit is almost tantamount to treason against “our democracy.”
In reality, the lines are from a sonnet called The New Colossus, written in 1883 by Emma Lazarus, a Jewish writer and social activist. Unbeknownst to most Americans, the poem had no official association with the statue until 1903, when Georgina Schuyler, one of Emma’s friends, led a civic campaign to have the sonnet cast onto a bronze plaque and mounted inside the lower level of the pedestal, 17 years after the statue was first dedicated. The poem was rarely mentioned in the mainstream press until several decades later.
Emma Lazarus
The New Colossus appears to have gained traction once Slovenian author and socialist immigrant Louis Adamic began quoting it in his writings during the late 1930’s to combat the Johnson-Reed act of 1924, which set restrictive immigration quotas in order to maintain America’s ethnic homogeneity. Adamic was an avid Marxist who advocated for ethnic diversity in the US, and coincidentally, his publisher, Maxim Lieber, was named by the Soviet spy Whittaker Chambers as an accomplice in 1949. Lieber fled to Mexico in 1951 and eventually back to Poland. Louis Adamic committed suicide in 1951 under suspicious circumstances.
Over time, the poem’s association with the statue has grown to the point of absurdity. Again, today, questioning, altering or rejecting the poem and its meaning is a kind of political blasphemy. For example, back in 2019, the press berated the Trump Administration for supposedly “rewriting” Emma Lazarus’s words when Ken Cuccinelli, Trump’s head of Citizenship and Immigration Services, tried to reorient the poem’s meaning.
All these accusations of “rewriting” Emma’s poem were ironic, since essentially it was Emma’s poem that was used to rewrite America’s identity and its stance on immigration. Concerning the period of the Johnson Reed Act of 1924, leading up to the Hart Celler act of 1965, Hugh Davis Graham wrote in his book Collision Course:
Most important for the content of immigration reform, the driving force at the core of the movement, reaching back to the 1920s, were Jewish organizations long active in opposing racial and ethnic quotas. These included the American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, and the American Federation of Jews from Eastern Europe. [1]
Curiously, in 1883, when a fundraising committee asked Emma Lazarus to donate an original work to an auction intended to help pay for the pedestal’s construction, Emma declined saying that she would not write about a statue. She only changed her mind after Constance Cary Harrison convinced her that it would be of great significance to immigrants sailing into the harbor. [2]
As Harrison later recalled, her ploy to win over the young writer involved highlighting the plight of immigrants from a very specific ethnic background:
Think of that Goddess standing on her pedestal down yonder in the bay, and holding her torch out to those Russian refugees of yours you are so fond of visiting at Ward’s Island. [3]
These “Russians” were in fact Emma’s fellow Jews fleeing pogroms in Russia after Czar Alexander II’s assassination in which Jewish radicals had been implicated. In any event, It seems that just as the Anglo-Saxon founders of America had a preference for immigrants of a certain ethnic background, Emma had her own preferences too. She didn’t write poems about Irish or Italian gentiles who were immigrating in large numbers at the time. Nor did she write about emancipated slaves in the South or Chinese railroad workers out west. To the extent that she wrote about any people, it was almost exclusively Jews.
Frédéric Auguste Bartholdi
The greatest tragedy in the history of Lady Liberty is that more people know who Emma Lazarus was than the Frenchman who designed it; Frédéric Auguste Bartholdi. The statue was a gift from France to celebrate the nations’ friendship and alliance. It was modeled after Libertas, a roman goddess who was often associated with freed slaves in antiquity. But the monument really had nothing to do with the emancipation of African slaves in the US, and great care was taken in the design to avoid such associations. [4]
A Roman coin with Libertas. Circa 125 BC.
The meaning behind Lady Liberty is no where near as convoluted as popular media makes it out to be. The Roman goddess, Libertas, has been used in various forms by many European peoples for centuries. There’s a version of her on top of the Capitol building that was put in there in 1863. France used her on their seal for the second French Republic in 1848. There’s also the Dutch Maiden, the United Kingdom’s Britannia, and the Italia Turrita.
In the American setting, the figure of Libertas was used as a symbolic reference to the freedom the British colonists had gained from their English monarch, King George. The date written on the statue’s Tabula Ansata is July 4th, 1776, the date of independence from England. This is also the date mentioned numerously in French fundraising pamphlets which, as far as I am aware, never spoke of emancipated slaves or immigrants.
It is true that Édouard Laboulaye, one of the key impetuses behind the statue, was a passionate abolitionist who advocated on behalf of emancipated slaves, but his motivation for building the monument was to further solidify the historic Franco-American alliance.
In 1875, he launched a subscription campaign for France’s half of the funding saying:
This is about erecting in memory, on the glorious anniversary of the United States, an exceptional monument. In the middle of New York’s harbor, on an islet that belongs to the Union, and opposite Long Island, where the first blood for independence was spilt, here will stand a colossal statue, framed on the horizon by the great American cities of New York, Jersey City and Brooklyn. On the threshold of this vast continent full of a new life, where all the ships of the world arrive, it will emerge from the heart of the waves, it will represent: Liberty enlightening the world. At night, a luminous halo emanating from her forehead, will radiate in the distance on the immense sea. [5]
The idea of Liberty enlightening the world was that others could achieve what America had by following in its example as a republic. Laboulaye and others didn’t see Lady Liberty as a call for endless, unqualified immigration, and it was not a statement that anyone could be American regardless of national origin.
To drive home the absurdity of claims to the contrary, four years prior to the the statue’s dedication, America had passed the Chinese Exclusion act thereby barring an entire racial bloc from immigrating.
Shortly before being assassinated in 1865, Lincoln, the great emancipator, had told General Benjamin Butler:
“I can hardly believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can get rid of the negroes…I believe that it would be better to export them all to some fertile country…” [6]
In the 1880s, race riots were common. Most Americans continued to share Lincoln’s sentiments and saw ex-slaves as an unresolved problem with many politicians and private citizens continuing to argue for them to be repatriated to Africa.
The Cleveland Gazette, an African American newspaper wrote the following regarding the Statue of Liberty’s dedication:
“Liberty enlightening the world,” indeed! The expression makes us sick. This government is a howling farce. It can not or rather does not protect its citizens within its own borders. [7]
Such language is often highlighted to assert that America was failing to live up to its supposed ideals, but the reality is that America’s first naturalization act in 1790, in no uncertain terms dictated that citizenship was reserved for “free white person[s]…of good character.” When Thomas Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal,” he was speaking in a political sense to King George, a monarch, and not a literal sense to mankind as a whole.
Other contemporary state documents remove the ambiguity for the modern reader, such as that of Virginia’s Declaration of Rights in 1776:
“…all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights…”
None of the sentiments outlined in any of our founding documents sought to convey that all men, regardless of racial background or national origin, were equal and interchangeable in a literal sense commensurate with modern notions of “diversity, equity and inclusion.”
Thomas Jefferson, despite being a slave owner himself, did support emancipation, but he qualified this in his Notes on the State of Virginia:
“Among the Romans emancipation required but one effort. The slave, when made free, might mix with, without staining the blood of his master. But with us a second is necessary, unknown to history. When freed, he is to be removed beyond the reach of mixture.” [8]
Of note here is that the definition of “Civil Rights” has changed substantially over time. In 1866 when the first Civil Rights Act was passed, John Wilson, a member of the Radical Republicans, described what the legislation was intended to encompass when he presented it before congress:
It provides for the equality of citizens of the United States in the enjoyment of “civil rights and immunities.” What do these terms mean? Do they mean that in all things civil, social, political, all citizens, without distinction of race or color, shall be equal? By no means can they be so construed. Do they mean that all citizens shall vote in the several States? No; for suffrage is a political right which has been left under the control of the several States, subject to the action of Congress only when it becomes necessary to enforce the guarantee of a republican form of government (protection against a monarchy). Nor do they mean that all citizens shall sit on the juries, or that their children shall attend the same schools. [9]
Let’s return to Emma Lazarus’s poem, The New Colossus. It’s quite short so let’s read it:
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
In her biography of Emma Lazarus, a fellow Jewess, Esther Schor, considers the meaning that can be gleaned from these lines:
Perhaps, too, these words issue a mild command that a new-world statue must embody a new ideal. But before her vision takes shape, she pauses to smash an idol of the Old World: Helios, the sun god, a figure of imperial conquest, “astride from land to land.” Given that Bartholdi’s statue was intended to ennoble enlightenment, her reference to Helios’s lust for domination is indecorous, to say the least.
In “Progress and Poverty,” she had already impugned the lit lamp of Science for being complicit with exploitation. Now, renaming Liberty Enlightening the World “Mother of Exiles,” she relieves this giant female form of a heavy inheritance of tyranny. At the same time, she places a new burden upon her, asking that she nurture and protect conquest’s victims.
The “imprisoned lightning” of her flame, an emblem of captive, not liberating light, insists that true enlightenment must wait on freedom. Until then, all light glows against a scrim of darkness, the same darkness in which the ignorant slaves of “Progress and Poverty” toiled. [10]
Esther Schor seemingly acknowledges that Emma profaned Bartholdi’s original intent and yet embraces Emma’s view as the more legitimate one anyway. She continues:
Defying the “storied pomp” of antiquity, precedent, and ceremony, the statue speaks not in the new language of reason and light but in the divine language of lovingkindness. To worldly power, she sounds a dire tattoo: “Keep, ancient lands”; “Give me your tired.” To the abject, she offers the silent salute of her lamp. What it illuminates are shapes of human suffering, the “huddled masses,” the wretched refusés on the Old World’s “teeming shore.” Emma Lazarus had finally arrived, from a glimpse of the “undistinguished multitudes” in her elegy to Garfield, at a more radical, embracing vision of American society, and she had been led there by her Jewish commitment to repair a broken world. She knew well that for these homeless throngs, becoming individuals—becoming free Americans—would not be easy. But it was their destiny. In time, the Mother of Exiles assures them, that is what they would grow to become. [11]
Putting aside that the base inspiration of the Statue of Liberty was the Roman goddess Libertas and that Helios wasn’t really associated with conquest, the Colossus of Rhodes, was literally built using the siege equipment left by the Macedonians after their failed attempt to take the city, and, like its modern female counterpart, was a monument to continued independence.
Now, one could make the case that Esther Schor, is anachronistically imbuing Emma with 21st-century interpretations of tikkun olam, but it seems fairly obvious that Emma was driven, at least in part, by a kind of Jewish ethnocentrism, and a resentment of Western society and her place in it as a Jew.
Again, Emma didn’t write about the plight of blacks in the South, nor did she spend her time protesting the Chinese Exclusion act. Before the term Zionism had even been coined, Emma was traveling around Europe advocating for a Jewish ethnostate in Palestine. Her line “keep ancient lands your storied pomp” in defiance of European antiquity, precedent and ceremony is ironic since a great deal of her other literary works focused on exalting Jewish antiquity, precedent and ceremony. In fact, Emma is considered by many to be the archetypical American Zionist. Oddly enough, Esther Schor admits as much in the preface of her book:
These days, Lazarus’s dictum that “Until we are all free, we are none of us free” is widely taken to be a universalist credo; similar statements are attributed to Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. In fact, Lazarus addressed this comment expressly to the privileged, emancipated Jews of the West, taking them to task for “not [being] ‘tribal’ enough”—that is, for failing to recognize the persecuted Jews of Russia as their brothers and sisters. [12]
But in the same preface, she asserts that Emma’s behavior was more or less a proto-universalist movement gearing up to include all of humanity.
For Emma Lazarus, being Jewish meant acknowledging one’s bonds to people distant in both place and time. Being a free Jew, in a world where Jews were being persecuted and expelled by the thousands, sometimes even killed and raped, was to incur the obligation to bring freedom to others. It was Lazarus’s genius to understand that the obligations of freedom pertained not only to Jewish Americans, but to all Americans. [13]
Needless to say, I find this highly disingenuous and self-serving. If we look deeper into Emma’s family history, such notions of her being some proto-archetypal form of modern “diversity, equity, and inclusion” becomes somewhat absurd. Her family was among the original twenty-three Portuguese Jews who moved to New York in 1654 when it was still called New Amsterdam and was controlled by the Dutch. [14]
They were fleeing the return of the Inquisition in their settlement of Recife, Brazil. So yes, her family was fleeing persecution, but Recife, Brazil was one of the most important colonies in the New World in terms of establishing the Transatlantic Slave Trade and the infamous Middle Passage.
According to Jewish author Herbert Bloom:
The Christian inhabitants of Brazil were envious because the Jews owned some of the best plantations in the river valley of Pernambuco and were among the leading slave-holders and slave traders in the colony. [15]
In reference to slave colonies in Brazil and the West Indies, Jewish historian Marc Lee Raphael wrote that:
Jews also took an active part in the Dutch colonial slave trade; indeed, the bylaws of the Recife and Mauricia congregations (1648) included an imposta (Jewish tax) of five soldos for each Negro slave a Brazilian Jew purchased from the West Indies Company. Slave auctions were postponed if they fell on a Jewish holiday. In Curacao in the seventeenth century, as well as in the British colonies of Barbados and Jamaica in the eighteenth century, Jewish merchants played a major role in the slave trade. In fact, in all the American colonies, whether French, British, or Dutch, Jewish merchants frequently dominated. [16]
In 1522, according to Jewish professor, Arnold Wiznitzer, Jews exiled from Portugal established sugar plantations and mills on the island of São Tomé off the West African coast, “employing as many as 3,000 Negro slaves“, thereby allowing the Portuguese to “dominate the world sugar trade.” In reference to the early colonization of Brazil he says that:
It is a historical fact, supported by documentary evidence that a consortium of Jews, headed by Fernnão de Norohna, had obtained in 1502 a three-year lease from the Portuguese Crown for the exploration and settlement of the newly discovered Brazil. The lease, constituting in reality a monopoly, was extended for an additional ten years in 1505. [17]
The 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia also states that Jews “monopolized” the sugar industry in the 17th century. [18] In reference to the late 17th century and early 18th century, Seymour Liebman said in his book New World Jewry that:
… The Jews were the largest ship chandlers in the entire Caribbean region, where the shipping business was mainly a Jewish enterprise. The Jews were the principal purveyors to the government, although there never were more than two thousand Jews in Curacao. It is conservatively estimated that the Jews owned about two hundred vessels during the first sixty years of their settlement in Curaçao. [19]
Regarding Jewish slave ownership in the United States during the 1800s, many Jewish historians and advocates point out that most Jewish slave owners only possessed a few domestic slaves whom they employed as house servants. This is likely true but doesn’t warrant any special consideration, in my opinion.
As the Economic History Association points out, this was essentially the standard for slavery in America at the time:
Most Southerners owned no slaves and most slaves lived in small groups rather than on large plantations. Less than one-quarter of white Southerners held slaves, with half of these holding fewer than five and fewer than 1 percent owning more than one hundred. In 1860, the average number of slaves residing together was about ten.
Jewish historian Jacob Rader Marcus asserted in his book United States Jewry 1776-1985 that in 1820, 40% of Jewish households owned slaves. [20] The population of Jews at that time was considerably lower than it is today both in number and in proportion, however, by 1860 Jews in America numbered between 150,000 and 200,000, out of a total population of 27,000,000. Or roughly 0.7% of the population. The total amount of slave owners in 1860 was a little less than 400,000, per the 1860 census. If we assume that the percentage of Jewish slave ownership in 1860 was the same as it was in 1820, then Jews would’ve accounted for between 10-15% of total slave owners at the height of American slavery. 0.7% of the population accounting for up to 15% of slave ownership is a remarkable overrepresentation.
I will offer the caveat here, however, that there was an increasing influx of poor Jewish immigrants between 1820 and 1860, so it may be doubtful that all of them were able to afford slaves. But as a colleague of Jacob Rader Marcus once said:
…Jews who were more firmly established in a business or professional career, as well as in their family relation-ships, had every reason to become slave-owners… [21]
In addition to this, I would highlight that in reference to the early period of the 1700s in America, the Jewish encyclopedia also states that:
The Jews of Georgia found the production of indigo, rice, corn, tobacco, and cotton more profitable. In fact, many of the cotton plantations in the South were wholly in the hands of the Jews, and as a consequence, slavery found its advocates among them. [22]
To be clear, Jews were not the sole instigators or beneficiaries of the slave trade, but they were undoubtedly overrepresented in all facets of it whether directly in the form of ownership, or participation in ancillary industries. With this in mind, it is exceedingly unlikely that Emma Lazarus’s Brazilian ancestors didn’t own slaves, and while her immediate family in 19th century New York did not directly engage in slavery, her father, Moses Lazarus, was in the sugar refining and distillery industry. The raw sugar used in his factories came from slave plantations in the South owned by his business partner whom Esther Schor briefly comments on in her book:
Moses’s unsavory business partner, Bradish Johnson, a slaveholder from Louisiana, had been cited for the abuse of slaves on his plantation. The owner of a combination dairy/distillery in Manhattan, Johnson was also cited in an 1853 New-York Daily Times exposé for selling tainted milk: apparently, his cows had been lapping up alcoholic swill sluiced from the distillery. With such a disreputable partner, it was no wonder Moses gave out that he had retired from Johnston and Lazarus at the close of the Civil War. [23]
What Esther seemingly tries to brush aside here is that the distillery in question was called The Johnson & Lazarus distillery. Emma’s father was Johnson’s equal in their shared business firm and was every bit as responsible for this scandal as was Johnson. Moreover, Moses Lazarus didn’t just retire from The Johnson & Lazarus firm in 1865; he retired outright. Esther seemingly attempts to portray Moses Lazarus’s retirement as some moral epiphany 12 years after the scandal.
To put the scandal into perspective, during the 1850s between 8,000 to 9,000 children were dying, every year in New York City, due to “impure” or “adulterated milk.” [24] For reference, New York City had a population of about 515,000. So something on the order of 1 to 1.5% of the local population was dying from things like dysentery, cholera infantum, and marasmus.
Swill milk was the milk produced by cows fed a residual byproduct of alcohol production from nearby distilleries. After the extraction of alcohol from the macerated grain, the residual mash still contained nutrients, and it was an economic advantage to keep cows stabled nearby and feed it to them. The milk had a blue tint and was extremely thin, so it was whitened with plaster of Paris, thickened with starch and eggs, and hued with molasses.
Now, to be fair to Bradish Johnson and Moses Lazarus, swill milk was produced and sold all over New York at the time. However, as John Mullaly pointed out in his work The Milk Trade in New York and Vicinity, published in 1853:
The most extensive distillery in the city is that owned by a Mr. Johnson, at the foot of Sixteenth Street, on the North River. It produces more swill than any other in New York, and it is said, even more than any other in the United States. [25]
The truth is that Emma Lazarus’s family profited off human exploitation. It’s what paid for Emma’s fancy tutors, summer homes, and travel to Europe to advocate for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Emma was not an independent woman. She did not disown her family or its businesses. She lived with her family until she died unmarried in 1887 from Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
In fact, had it not been for Emma’s father, she might never have achieved any sort of notoriety. In 1866 Moses Lazarus paid to have Emma’s first works published:
In his accomplished seventeen-year-old daughter, Moses Lazarus had much to crow about, but Emma Lazarus’s debut volume, which he had printed “for private circulation,” took paternal pride to Olympian heights. Poems and Translations, Written Between the Ages of Fourteen and Sixteen ran to more than two hundred pages, comprising nearly thirty “Original Pieces,” two hulking romances each in excess of a thousand lines, and translations of forty-five short lyrics by Heine, Schiller, Dumas, and Hugo. Dedicated, unsurprisingly, “To My Father,” it appeared in November 1866. [26]
It was only after this that she was taken on as a protégé by famous writer, Ralph Waldo Emerson. Interestingly, her relationship with Emmerson appears to have deteriorated over time due to what Esther Schor called “the sense of entitlement her elite, Sephardic parents had instilled in her.” [27]
What motivated Emma in the 1880’s was probably not transcendentalism so much as it was an emerging sense of ethnic solidarity with her Ashkenazic counterparts in Russia. In an 1882 letter to a friend, she wrote:
Indeed, I would love to see you in your own home and visit dear old Concord again… But I may have imperative duties recalling me to New York in connection with work for the Russian Jews… The Jewish Question which I plunged into so wrecklessly and impulsively last Spring has gradually absorbed more and more of my mind and heart—It opens up such enormous vistas in the past and future, and is so palpitatingly alive at the moment…that it has about driven out of my thought all other subjects…. [28]
Author Bette Roth Young explains Emma’s view of Benjamin Disraeli, England’s only Jewish prime minister and founder of the modern conservative party. Using many of Emma’s own words she writes:
Emma continued her adulation telling the reader that no Englishman could ever forget that Disraeli was a Jew; Therefore “he himself would be the first to proclaim it, instead of apologizing for it.” Rather than “knock servilely at the doors of English aristocracy,” he “conquered them with their own weapons, he met arrogance with arrogance, the pride of descent based upon a few centuries of distinction, with the pride of descent supported by hundreds of centuries of intellectual supremacy and even of divine anointment.” [29]
In a New York Times article attributed to Emma Lazarus, after a visit to Ward’s Island, Emma wrote:
Never before were the prayer of gratitude and the impulse of joy more genuine, more appropriate, and more solemn than on this day of March, 1882, when after a new exodus, and a new persecution by the seed of Haman, these stalwart young representatives of the oldest civilization in existence met to sing the songs of Zion in a strange land. [30]
Note that Emma refers to Russian gentiles as the “Seed of Haman,” and by doing so she is imbuing Russians with a deeply rooted, millennia-old animosity that Jews felt toward their biblical enemies. In fact, much of Emma’s work and activism around the 1880’s was squarely centered on arousing sentiments of Jewish Nationalism in the Jewish diaspora. Take for example her poem, The Banner of the Jew. In it, she calls upon the nation of Israel to rise up and refers to the rebellion in 164 BC against the Greeks as a “glorious Maccabean rage.”
The Maccabean revolt lasted from 167 to 160 BC and was fought by Jewish nationalists against the Greeks for their Hellenistic influence on Jewish life in Judea. Hanukkah, the most famous Jewish holiday, is downstream of this revolt.
In the second century BCE, the Holy Land was ruled by the Seleucids, who tried to force the people of Israel to accept Greek culture and beliefs instead of mitzvah observance and belief in G‐d. Against all odds, a small band of faithful but poorly armed Jews, led by Judah the Maccabee, defeated one of the mightiest armies on earth, drove the Greeks from the land, reclaimed the Holy Temple in Jerusalem and rededicated it to the service of G‐d.
Honestly, Hanukkah sounds like something the authorities today would normally consider “hate speech,” since it celebrates armed violence against culturally enriching immigrants and seeks to drive them out. It’s easy to imagine how various Jewish interest groups and the European Union might react if native European poets started writing today about a “glorious Hyperborean rage.”
The Maccabean revolt also targeted Hellenized Jews who embraced Greek culture over Jewish laws and customs. (Mattathias ben Johanan famously killed a fellow Jew who had followed the order of a Greek official to offer sacrifice to the Greek gods.) That is to say, these Hellenized Jews thought that the incoming immigrant culture had something better to offer future generations. At least, that seems to be how Adam Kotsko views such situations, if we consider his frame describing the concerns white Americans have about endless non-white immigration and our dying culture. (See the screencap below) If Adam were consistent, he might condemn the Maccabean revolt as having “hitched everything on the empty claim to the superiority of [Jews] with no actual content or value.”
Adam’s tweets are now protected, so there is no link.
With this Jewish revolt against the Greeks in mind, it’s interesting that Emma Lazarus made it a point in The New Colossus to contrast the masculine Greek statue of Rhodes with her proto-feminist interpretation of Libertas. In her mind, Lady Liberty is a welcoming, “mother of exiles,” whereas the Colossus of Rhodes is an imposing male straddling his legs across the bay in a show of dominance.
Perhaps just as the Greeks defiled her peoples’ temple in the Levant, she was now defiling a temple of sorts belonging to the American “Seeds of Haman.” Either way, Emma Lazarus took it upon herself to hijack an otherwise noble gift from one nation to another, and make it about Jewish grievances.
In her weekly column, “An Epistle to the Hebrews” she describes the dilemma facing her Ashkenazic counterparts:
Either these Jews would submit to the inevitable and relinquish that fundamental piety and austerity which even in the degradation of their Russian Ghettos has preserved their moral tone, and given them a certain amount of dignity, or else, true to the traditions of their race, they would bulwark themselves within a citadel of isolation and defiance, and accept martyrdom and death rather than forego that which they consider their divine mission….For the mass of semi-Orientals, Kabalists and Chassidim, who constitute the vast majority of East European Israelites, some more practical measure of reform must be devised than their transportation to a state of society utterly at variance with their time-honored customs and most sacred beliefs. [31]
Naturally Emma’s language poses the question: How does one become assimilated to a state of society utterly at variance with one’s self? But, does Emma really sound like a woman advocating assimilation? What she wrote here is that Jews are a “race,” that is… a biological collective, that needs a nation of its own. But, more curious still, Emma argued another point in her weekly column:
There is not the slightest necessity for an American Jew, the free citizen of a republic, to rest his hopes upon the foundation of any other nationality soever, or to decide whether he individually would or would not be in favor of residing in Palestine. All that would be claimed from him would be a patriotic and unselfish interest in the sufferings of his oppressed brethren of less fortunate countries, sufficient to make him promote by every means in his power the establishment of a secure asylum. [32]
So, in other words, Jews are entitled to a homeland, if they so desire, or they can reside among the gentiles, if they so desire, but, according to Emma, Jews must always put the welfare of their fellow Jews, first and foremost.
Today Chuck Schumer can proudly stand before AIPAC, as a senator of the United States, and proclaim that he is, first and foremost, the guardian of Israel and its people, yet when someone like Jared Taylor proclaims, as little more than a private citizen, that he would like the right to pursue his destiny alongside his ethnic brethren without outside interference, he is immediately branded a hateful “supremacist.”
If we don’t stop their entry, the problem that currently stands at 60,000 could grow to 600,000, and that threatens our existence as a Jewish and democratic state.
In 2018, he said that without a stronger border fence along the Sinai border:
…we would be faced with … severe attacks by Sinai terrorists, and something much worse, a flood of illegal migrants from Africa…
In her efforts to arouse sentiments of Jewish Nationalism, Emma Lazarus sometimes quoted the Talmud saying: “let the fruit pray for the welfare of the leaf.” [33] In a 2001 article entitled The Jewish Stake in America’s Changing Demography, Steven Steinlight expressed an indirect concern over the welfare of the demographic leaf of white American gentiles:
Is the emerging new multicultural American nation good for the Jews? Will a country in which enormous demographic and cultural change, fueled by unceasing large-scale non-European immigration, remain one in which Jewish life will continue to flourish as nowhere else in the history of the Diaspora? In an America in which people of color form the plurality, as has already happened in California, most with little or no historical experience with or knowledge of Jews, will Jewish sensitivities continue to enjoy extraordinarily high levels of deference and will Jewish interests continue to receive special protection?…
…For perhaps another generation, an optimistic forecast, the Jewish community is thus in a position where it will be able to divide and conquer and enter into selective coalitions that support our agendas. But the day will surely come when an effective Asian-American alliance will actually bring Chinese Americans, Japanese Americans, Koreans, Vietnamese, and the rest closer together. And the enormously complex and as yet significantly divided Latinos will also eventually achieve a more effective political federation.
While Jews do not monolithically share Steinlight’s sentiments, they do curiously always seem to see things through a strict cost-benefit analysis of “Yes, but is it good for the Jews?” While they have no trouble recognizing the collective interests of their own people, they refuse to acknowledge that white gentiles have legitimate collective racial, ethnic and cultural interests of our own. In fact, they seem to insist on pathologizing the conveyance of any such sentiments or beliefs on our part.
With this in mind, I assert that Esther Schor closes her book on Emma Lazarus in a most frustrating fashion. She states that:
Emma Lazarus did what America’s makers have always had to do, be they the children of religious refugees, slaves, Native Americans, or immigrants: not surrender themselves to America, but leave their mark on it. In works like the cherished “New Colossus” and the neglected “Little Poems in Prose,” in the great poem of her life, she remade America in the image of a Jewish calling—a mission to repair the world. [34]
If it’s venerable that Emma Lazarus “remade” America in the image of a “Jewish calling,” then why are people upset that white Europeans remade North America into our calling? If we are to celebrate “not surrendering to America, but [leaving] their mark on it”, then why are many Jews so upset with Palestinians who refuse to surrender to Israel?
I won’t claim that Judaism doesn’t have a wide array of thought and disagreement on a number of topics including tikkun olam and the Noahide laws, but Maimonides, a renowned Jewish philosopher whose teachings on the Talmud are highly regarded, once said that:
Moses our Teacher was commanded by the Almighty to compel the world to accept the Commandments of the Sons of Noah. Anyone who fails to accept them is executed. Anyone who does accept them upon himself is called a Convert Who May Reside Anywhere. He must accept them in front of three wise and learned Jews. However, anyone who agrees to be circumcised and twelve months have elapsed and he was not as yet circumcised is no different than any other member of the nations of the world.
Let’s return to the topic of the so-called “Russian refugees,” of whom Emma was so found. Why were Russian gentiles persecuting the Jews in the 1880s? As it turns out, a young Russian contemporary of Emma’s wrote an article on this very topic. Zénaïde Alexeïevna Ragozin reveals in her 1881 Century Magazine piece, Russian Jews and Gentiles, that the Russian Jews had been abusing the local gentiles via the Qahal, a semi autonomous system of governance for Jews within non-Jewish societies. Technically, Nicholas I of Russia, had it abolished in the 1840’s, but Jewish apostate, Jacob Brafman, who had converted to Russian Orthodox Christianity insisted that the practice continued in secret. Ragozin quotes him in her article which I will now quote in a slightly altered form for clarity to modern readers.
[He writes that Jews view the] Gentile population of its district as ‘its lake’ to fish in, the Kahal proceeds to sell portions of this strange property to individuals on principles as strange. To one uninitiated in Kahal mysteries, such a sale must be unintelligible. Let us take an instance. The Kahal, in accordance with its own rights, sells to [a Jew] a house, which, according to the state laws of the country, is the inalienable property of [a Gentile], without the latter’s knowledge or consent. Of what use, it will be asked, is such a transaction to the purchaser? The deed of sale delivered to him by the Kahal cannot invest him with the position which every owner assumes toward his property. [The Gentile] will not give up his house on account of its having been sold by the Kahal, and the latter has not the power to make him give it up. What, then, has the [Jewish] purchaser acquired for the money paid by him to the Kahal? Simply this: he has acquired khazaka—i.e., right of ownership over the house of the [Gentile], in force whereof he is given the exclusive right, guaranteed from interference or competition from other Jews, to get possession of the said house, as expressly said in the deed of sale, ‘by any means [whatsoever.]’ Until he has finally succeeded in transferring it to his official possession, he alone is entitled to rent that house from its present owner, to trade in it, to lend money to the owner and other Gentiles who may dwell in it—to make profits out of them in any way his ingenuity may suggest. This is what is meant by khazaka. Sometimes the Kahal sells to a Jew even the person of some particular Gentile, without any immovable property attached. This is how the law defines this extraordinary right, which is called meropiè: ‘If a man [meaning a Jew] holds in his power a Gentile, it is in some places forbidden to other Jews to enter into relations with that person to the prejudice of the first; but in other places it is free to every Jew to have business relations with that person, for it is said that the property of a Gentile is hefker [free to all], and whoever first gets possession of it, to him it shall belong. [35]
Rather than blame so-called “antisemitism” entirely on irrational jealousy, hatred, or religious intolerance on the part of gentiles, it seems much more reasonable to entertain the notion that aggregate, or subsets of, Jewish behaviors have played a significant role in periodic “antisemitic” reactions throughout the ages.
Whatever the case, Emma Lazarus certainly was not the woman modern Jewish advocates and others assert she was. Not only did Emma hijack and taint the meaning of the Statute of Liberty, but her modern proponents often misrepresent and reorient her character for modern political aims.
Emma was a staunch Jewish identitarian whose motives were almost wholly particularistic in nature. She drew on a long, rich historical Jewish tradition and in doing so she often saw her American hosts, Russian gentiles, and the ancient Romans and Greeks as analogues for the “Seed of Haman.” She saw America as a strange land, and she sought to reimagine the world around her into one that was more amenable to her Jewish sensitivities and interests.
Citations:
[1] -Hugh Davis Graham. Collision Course. Oxford University Press, USA. 2002. (p. 56-57)
[2] -Deborah G. Felder Fifty Jewish Women Who Changed the World. (p. 45)
[3] -Constance Carry Harrison. American Hebrew, 9 December 1887, p. 69.
[4] Khan, Yasmin Sabina. Enlightening the World: The Creation of the Statue of Liberty. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press. 2010. (p. 105-108)
[5] – Souscription pour l’érection d’un monument commémoratif du centième anniversaire de l’indépendance des États-Unis, Union franco-américaine, signé E. Laboulaye, Paris, 1875.
[6] – Charles H. Wesley, “Lincoln’s Plan for Colonizing the Emancipated Negroes,” The Journal of Negro History, Vol. IV, No. 1 (January 1919), p. 20.
[7] – The Cleveland Gazette. Cleveland, Ohio. November 27, 1886. p. 2.
[8] – Thomas Jefferson. Notes on the State of Virginia. Query XIV.
[9] – Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 39th Congress, 1st Session, p. 1117 (March 1, 1866).
[14] -Neva Goodwin. Encyclopedia of Women in American History (July 17, 2015). (p. 370) and Phyllis Appel. The Jewish Connection. Graystone Enterprises LLC. Retrieved January 7, 2019.
[15] – Herbert Bloom. The Economic Activities of the Jews in Amsterdam in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. (p.133)
[16] – Marc Lee Raphael. Jews and Judaism in the United States: A Documentary History pp. 14, 23-25.
[17] – Arnold Wiznitzer. The Jews in the Sugar Industry of Colonial Brazil,” Jewish Social Studies, vol. 18 (July, 1956), pp. 189-90.
[35] – Zenaide A. Ragozin. The Century Magazine, April 1882, pp. 905-920
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png00American Kroganhttps://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.pngAmerican Krogan2024-01-19 08:22:022024-01-19 08:22:02Liberating Lady Liberty A closer look at Emma Lazarus and her “New Colossus”
We may request cookies to be set on your device. We use cookies to let us know when you visit our websites, how you interact with us, to enrich your user experience, and to customize your relationship with our website.
Click on the different category headings to find out more. You can also change some of your preferences. Note that blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience on our websites and the services we are able to offer.
Essential Website Cookies
These cookies are strictly necessary to provide you with services available through our website and to use some of its features.
Because these cookies are strictly necessary to deliver the website, refusing them will have impact how our site functions. You always can block or delete cookies by changing your browser settings and force blocking all cookies on this website. But this will always prompt you to accept/refuse cookies when revisiting our site.
We fully respect if you want to refuse cookies but to avoid asking you again and again kindly allow us to store a cookie for that. You are free to opt out any time or opt in for other cookies to get a better experience. If you refuse cookies we will remove all set cookies in our domain.
We provide you with a list of stored cookies on your computer in our domain so you can check what we stored. Due to security reasons we are not able to show or modify cookies from other domains. You can check these in your browser security settings.
Other external services
We also use different external services like Google Webfonts, Google Maps, and external Video providers. Since these providers may collect personal data like your IP address we allow you to block them here. Please be aware that this might heavily reduce the functionality and appearance of our site. Changes will take effect once you reload the page.
Google Webfont Settings:
Google Map Settings:
Google reCaptcha Settings:
Vimeo and Youtube video embeds:
Privacy Policy
You can read about our cookies and privacy settings in detail on our Privacy Policy Page.
Malevolents with machetes: the Rolex-rippers who contribute Black savagery to White civilization
Humbly born Yorkshire genius 
