The Left

Auburn is already a success: We must have a public presence by any means necessary

Update: Due to the efforts of Atty. Sam Dickson (whose writing for TOO is referenced below), Auburn was forced to hold the event. A video of the event is posted in the TOO video corner.

It’s really great that the Alt Right, led by Richard Spencer, will be holding an event at Auburn today, even after getting canceled by the university. Having a public presence is absolutely critical to any political movement that intends to become mainstream. There is a fairly long history of the left shutting down public events by intimidating hotels, as happened several times with American Renaissance and recently with a proposed VDARE.com conference in Yosemite. And recently we have had the antifa rioting in Berkeley, shutting down the Milo talk, and antifa violence against Trump supporters in several places, most notably at the Trump inauguration and last weekend in Berkeley.

Too often antifa violence and intimidation have been successful. The forces of intolerance, intellectual conformity and hostility to Whites and their interests have succeeded. A sure sign that the left is in an impenetrable bubble is that we read about “Alt Right thugs” on blogs and Twitter feeds. No violence would have happened apart from antifa attacks. The antifa is all about shutting down free speech, Trump supporters, and the Alt Right “by any means necessary.”


And the fact is that, until last weekend in Berkeley, the antifa had been winning consistently. Police typically stood by and did nothing even as antifa were assaulting their victims and burning down stores. When arrests were made, little or nothing has come of it (see Sam Dickson’s “The assault on Richard Spencer: No punishment for crimes against White activists“). They are, indeed, pillars of the establishment. Or perhaps Storm Troopers of the establishment would be a better label. Read more

Antifa: An Obituary

“What’s equality? Muck in the yard,
Historic nations grow, from above to below.”
W.B. Yeats, Three Songs

If you listened carefully enough to the din of broken glass and shrill Leftist lamentations, you’d have heard another sound this weekend: the death rattle of Antifa. The cheap assault on Richard Spencer, along with the damage wrought in Washington DC, does not mitigate the fact that so-called ‘anti-fascism,’ in all meaningful respects, has been dying since the mid-1990s. What we witnessed in the weekend that has just passed was the desperate actions of a spent force. What occurred was disgraceful, and we should challenge it, but we shouldn’t be unduly disturbed about future prospects. Nor should we exaggerate the threat these people pose, or our response to it. In its death agonies, Antifa has been as noisy as it was in life, and this noise may have caused the less well-informed to conclude that there was vitality yet in this old hag.

The perceptive, however, will have noted that this noise only slightly masked the increasing senility of an obsolete movement that has struggled, staggered, and gasped its way to the pyrrhic victory of a cheap-shot and a few burnt trashcans. In this new era, the age of Trump, Brexit, Nationalist murmurings across Europe, and the rise of the Alt-Right, anti-fascism is politically dead.

No autopsy is required. ‘Anti-fascism’ was born with the defect that would ultimately carry it off — a deformation of its vital systems that for long periods rendered it heavily dependent on its adversaries for political oxygen. Part of this deformation arose from its internal divisions. On the one hand, a substantial element of Antifa activity consists of the peaceful, democratic type. These are the misguided vicar’s daughters and soccer moms who are inveigled into organizing, attending, or donating to ‘anti-racist’ demonstrations, music concerts, or similar public events. We witnessed much of its constituency in the Women’s March that followed Trump’s inauguration. This element has always been ideologically lightweight, and participates less out of ideological convictions than it does out of vague moral twinges and panics. Read more

Introducing Jacobin Magazine

Given how often Conservatism Inc. labels even the most milquetoast Democrats “socialists” and/or “communists,” it can be easy to forget about the continued existence of genuinely Marxist intellectuals and activists — the kind that hate Democrats for being sellouts, neoliberals, and imperialists. As bad as the Cultural Marxists of the mainstream left are, they still don’t hold a candle to the evil of those who openly admire Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky.

A good example of this school of thought is Jacobin Magazine, which was recently profiled by the liberal website Vox. Named for the French revolutionaries who killed over 40,000 people in ten months, the publication’s radicalism knows no bounds. Some examples:

—It is a measure of our current ideological morass that liberals, in their own enlightened and open-minded way, still masochistically embrace a throne-and-altar orthodoxy that subordinates the people’s will to a virtually unalterable diktat handed down by an ancient council of aristocratic, semi-deified lawgivers. — “Burn the Constitution” by Seth Ackerman

—[T]he standard liberal motto — that violence is never legitimate, even though it may sometimes be necessary to resort to it — is insufficient. From a radical emancipatory perspective, this formula should be reversed: for the oppressed, violence is always legitimate (since their very status is the result of the violence they are exposed to), but never necessary (it will always be a matter of strategy whether or not to use violence against the enemy).

— “The Jacobin Spirit” by Slavoj Žižek—The populist reactionaries of the world — Ron Paul, Marine Le Pen, and others like them — propose to re-nationalize capital, which is a complete impossibility. It is for the Left to square the circle the other way, by globalizing labor; that is, eliminating borders….The unification of the world’s workers demands this. — “The Case for Open Borders” by Jesse A. Myerson

Read more

James Edwards’ "Racism Schmacism: How Liberals Use the ‘R’ Word to Push the Obama Agenda"

James Edwards is becoming a very important force in the movement for White advocacy. He hosts the The Political Cesspool, a weekly 3-hour radio show where he interviews a range of personalities on their ideas (including me on more than one occasion). And he has become a director of the American Third Position, a political party that aims makes an explicit appeal to White identity and White interests.

James is exactly the kind of young person who is making a big difference for our cause. He is articulate and well-informed.

Now James has come out with Racism, Schmacism, an important book cataloging the ways that White people are intimidated by the charge of racism. This fear makes people like John McCain rather lose an election than be called a racist for bringing up unpleasant things about Obama:

John McCain lost, and he lost badly, because he decided it was better to lose the election than to be called a racist, no matter how unfounded the charges. So he went around denouncing people associated with his campaign who dared refer to Barack Hussein Obama by his legal name, and he denounced an ad run by a state GOP group that featured Jeremiah Wright screaming “God damn America!” And what good did it do him? Not a bit. All the cowardice he displayed in a desperate attempt to avoid being called the “R-word” was for nothing.

As you can see from this passage, Racism Schmacism is well-written. Very entertaining. But also very fact-based. There are numerous references to news events and articles if readers are interested in further information.

The book recounts a series of incidents that collectively show that White Americans have become cowering fools, terrified of being labeled a racist. There’s Keith Sampson, “one of the most vicious and despicable racists in the United States. In fact, Keith Sampson is so filled with vile racism that he couldn’t keep it to himself, but had to shove his hate down the throats of his black co-workers” by reading a scholarly book on how the University of Notre Dame defeated the Ku Klux Klan during the 1920s.

There are also hilarious accounts of Whites caving in to political correctness — hilarious if they didn’t show the depths to which White people have sunk in their abject, craven cowardliness. The federal “hate crime” investigation into the kid who ate a ham sandwich in school. The mayor who prohibited White police officers from eating bananas on duty.

But this fear of offending aggrieved minorities and other darlings of political correctness has very real consequences. It is the ultimate weapon of the left, and Edwards shows that it is being used to shut down free speech. Organizations like the $PLC and the ADL use the ‘r’ word very liberally to prevent the expression of ideas they don’t like. As he notes, “an ever-increasing number of articles in law reviews and academic journals make the argument that the First Amendment doesn’t protect ‘hate speech.’”

In the end, you are racist just by being White—it really doesn’t matter what you say or do:

Folks, you will never be able to understand politics and culture in today’s America unless you grasp this fundamental truth at the root of more and more political and cultural battles in this country: A racist is a white person.

Racist equals white person, and white person equals racist.

All white people are racist, and they’re always racist, and they will always be racist.

Period.

Write that down in your day planner, make a note of it on your Blackberry or iPhone, put little sticky notes all over your house, or whatever you have to do until this message sinks in. Because until you grasp this, less and less of what’s going on in this country will make any sense at all, and you’ll be at the mercy of the liberal mainstream media, aggressive and hostile racial pressure groups, and white liberals (who are deluding themselves by thinking they’re not racists.)

This book, while entertainingly written, has a deadly point. White people will be utterly defeated unless they can summon the courage to adopt an explicit identity as White people and an explicit concern about White interests.  We have to get over being terrified of being called a racist.

The fact is that everyone has ethnic interests — including people of European descent. A great many other identifiable groups in multicultural America have a strong sense of ethnic identity and interest. Only White people cower in fear of asserting their racial identity and interests.

Jewish groups have been very positive about the recent study showing that Judaism is much more than a religion but that Jews constitute a biological descent group. An article in the Forward crows “We Are One Genetically.” And, as everyone knows, Jews have a strong sense of their interests in maintaining an ethnostate. But Jewish activist organizations have been very effective in repulsing attempts to label Jews as racists. And Jews are completely unperturbed by being called racists. All this while at the same time leading the charge against White America.

We have to be able to do stand up proudly and explicitly assert our White identity and White interests. James Edwards’ book is definitely a step in the right direction. Information on the book can be obtained by clicking on this link, or click here to buy directly.


Bookmark and Share

Elena Kagan on the Jewish radical tradition in American politics

JudicialWatch.org has some important material on Elena Kagan. Judicial Watch President Thomas Fitton notes the “most disturbing”  parts of her senior thesis at Princeton are the following:

Through its own internal feuding, then, the SP [Socialist Party] exhausted itself forever and further reduced labor radicalism…to the position of marginality and insignificance from which it has never recovered. The story is a sad but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism’s decline, still wish to change America.

…if the history of Local New York shows anything, it is that American radicals cannot afford to become their own worst enemies. In unity lies their only hope.

As Fitton says, “Do we really need a Supreme Court Justice who once lamented the lack of unity on the part of the Socialist Party?”

Judicial Watch had a link to Kagan’s thesis but it doesn’t work as of today. Her senior thesis is consistent with other historical studies in showing that the Socialist Party in New York in the early 20th century was a Jewish phenomenon. She notes that Jews were the backbone of the Socialist Party and that other ethnic groups, such as the Irish and Italians, could not be motivated to join even though they were in a similar economic situation.

Not only were Jews the backbone of the Socialist Party, socialism was very mainstream within the Jewish community.  Her account parallels those of other historians who describe the Jewish community from 1890 to 1920 as “one big radical debating society” (see here, p. 71ff).

From [1886] on Jewish districts in New York and elsewhere were famous for their radical voting habits. The Lower East Side repeatedly picked as its congressman Meyer London, the only New York Socialist ever to be elected to Congress. And many Socialists went to the State Assembly in Albany from Jewish districts. In the 1917 mayoralty campaign in New York City, the Socialist and anti-war candidacy of Morris Hillquit was supported by the most authoritative voices of the Jewish Lower East Side: The United Hebrew Trades, the International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union, and most importantly, the very popular Yiddish Daily Forward. This was the period in which extreme radicals—like Alexander Berkman and Emma Goldman—were giants in the Jewish community, and when almost all the Jewish giants—among them Abraham Cahan, Morris Hillquit, and the young Morris R. Cohen—were radicals. Even Samuel Gompers, when speaking before Jewish audiences, felt it necessary to use radical phrases.

The result was a radical mainstream Jewish culture that persisted in New York and elsewhere into the 1960s and beyond. With the success of the Bolshevik Revolution, many Jews opted out of the Socialist Party, resulting in a Jewish Communist subculture that was also entirely mainstream within the Jewish community.

Kagan’s comments in her thesis suggest a sympathy with this radical Jewish culture — even a desire to carry it to fruition. Everything we know about her indicates that she continues to be immersed in a Jewish culture whose attitudes are well to the left of the American mainstream–a subculture that was hostile to the  traditional people and culture of the US and has now become a hostile elite.

This fits well with Kagan’s childhood in New York’s Upper West Side — described by Dan Freedman as “as conservative’s worst nightmare.” During her college years she wrote, “Where I grew up _ on Manhattan’s Upper West Side _ nobody ever admitted to voting for Republicans.”

Elena Kagan and many of this culture’s children emerged from the Upper West Side political cauldron as committed to making the world a better place for all, mindful that everyday people can affect change as teachers, doctors, lawyers _ and, yes, even journalists _ and make government work for the common good.

There is no indication that Kagan has changed her views, and there’s not much doubt that indeed she will be a judicial activist on the left. Fitton quotes from her Oxford thesis:

As men and as participants in American life, judges will have opinions, prejudices, values. Perhaps most important, judges will have goals. And because this is so, judges will often try to mold and steer the law in order to promote certain ethical values and achieve certain social ends. Such activity is not necessarily wrong or invalid.

Well, at least we know what we can expect when Kagan gets on the court.

Bookmark and Share

Jousting with CSULB students

The Daily 49er, the student newspaper at CSU-Long Beach, asked me write an op-ed giving my side of things. This was after a big push by radical students to my disrupt classes and get me fired, including quite a few letters and articles in the Daily 49er. My article is here. Whoever writes the headlines changed it from its original: “Academic left opposes free speech, academic freedom and the legitimate interests of White Americans” to “Academic ‘left’ opposes free speech, academic freedom.” ‘Left’ is now in quotes, suggesting, I guess, that it doesn’t really exist, and ignoring completely the main topic of the article: the legitimacy of White interests. The headline writer will go far in journalism.

Probably not a lot new about it, except I am trying to emphasize more how the left changed in the 1960s from being pro-working class to being pro-multicultural and pro-mass immigration. The deep structure there, although I don’t mention it in the article, is that the Jewish intellectual movements that became dominant had given up on the revolutionary potential of the White working class because they had supported fascism. The only solution was to import an entirely new people.

There are some interesting comments on the article. Two Mexican activists seem bent on getting rid of Whites as fast as possible. I should hope that would alert White students that their future is not too bright in Mexifornia if things continue as they are. Then there’s the one by Doug Kauffman. I think he’s the one who called me a Nazi in front of my students. He seems quite concerned about Jewish issues.

Bookmark and Share

"It’s Not the Arguments"

A recent TOO piece offered an argument for the importance of solid funding for the success of any media venture, TOO included. The basic idea is an important one to discuss — that high status confers influence. Indeed, the importance of high status is a critical ingredient of theories of influence in sociology, and psychologists have argued that attraction to high status is part of our evolutionary heritage.

We see this repeatedly in the key institutions throughout the West, including the media and the academic world. Jewish influence basically stems from their influence on all of the high ground of the culture. The revolution of the Left was a top-down revolution that began in the most prestigious academic and media institutions and then spread to the lower reaches of the media and the K-12 educational system.

For all its espousal of egalitarianism, the academic world is a hierarchical system in which the highest levels are rigorously policed to ensure ideological conformity because any leak in the system would mean that non-conformists would benefit from institutional prestige. This, of course, is exactly why John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt caused such a panic attack in the ranks of the Israel Lobby. Mearsheimer and Walt weren’t just two easy-to-ignore guys from some college no one heard of; nor were they members of an easily marginalized group, such as Arabs. They were well-known and academically productive professors from prestigious institutions — the University of Chicago and Harvard respectively. This resulted in a full-fledged smear campaign emphasizing “shoddy scholarship” (typically made by Jewish activist organizations or others without the least experience as scholars) and charges of being anti-Semites on a par with the authors of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. When all else fails, …

Another example is E. O. Wilson, the Harvard biologist who in 1975 stunned the academic left with the publication of Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Wilson included a chapter applying evolutionary thinking to humans — a topic that had been expunged from the social sciences ever since the triumph of Boasian anthropology in the 1920s. Wilson was already well-known as an entomologist and ecologist, and his position at Harvard gave him immense authority.

The Left went into full-fledged moral panic mode, led by high-profile attacks from Richard Lewontin and Stephen Jay Gould — both of whom were also at Harvard and were discussed in Chapter 2 of Culture of Critique as examples of leftist Jewish intellectuals who undermined evolutionary and biological approaches in the social sciences.

The Israel Lobby and the Left won these battles ultimately. Politicians are loathe to cite Mearsheimer and Walt, and it is unthinkable that they could attain positions in the government where they could directly influence US foreign policy. Tamer versions of evolutionary psychology are tolerated, but arguments related to ethnic interests (Salter), the reality of ethnic and racial differences (Jensen, Lynn, Rushton), and my writing on Jewish influence on culture have been expunged from the mainstream media. I have sometimes thought that my ideas would be more influential if I held a position at Harvard. But the reality is that occasional lapses from decorum have been managed quite effectively.

The result is that Whites are intellectually and culturally insecure. Any cultural confidence they have must buck the tide of elite opinion which is constantly telling them they are racists who owe whatever success they have in life to “White privelege” or other inventions of the Left. As I noted elsewhere, “one of the greatest triumphs of the left has been to get people to believe that people who assert white identity and interests or who make unflattering portrayals of organized Jewish movements are morally degenerate, stupid, and perhaps psychiatrically disturbed. Obviously, all of these adjectives designate low status.”

The revolution may well begin because of the rage of non-elite Whites. But it won’t be successful until the elite bastions of anti-White opinion are breached. And that will not be an easy fight to win.

Bookmark and Share