White Racial Consciousness and Advocacy

The Shaman of the Radical Right: Jonathan Bowden

/16 Comments/in , /by

In 2009, at a secret and un-filmed Occidental Quarterly meeting in Atlanta, a portly, middle-aged Englishman with a slightly whining rural accent delivered what, according to multiple witnesses, was the best speech ever made. Certainly, they all agreed, it was the best nationalist speech ever made. It was all the more impressive if you consider that when this man ascended the stage he apparently had no idea what he was going to say. A so-called mediumistic speaker, he told friends that, prior to an oration, he would effectively enter a trance in which he would dissociate — almost split in two — and then hear the words from the ether before saying them. This man was Jonathan Bowden.

Since his untimely death in March 2012 aged just 49, a process which had already commenced towards the end of his life has accelerated and continues to accelerate. Bowden has become a cult figure on the internet, especially among the increasingly rebellious and anti-Woke zoomers who have known nothing other than Clown World throughout their young lives. Bowden, despite or possibly because of his multiple flaws as well as obvious talents, is a nationalist folk hero; a kind of “based shaman” who inspires young people, and increasingly (though they won’t mention it in public) some rather prominent and influential older people, to at worst “Ride the Tiger” of Kali Yuga and to, at best, find the courage to fight against it, personal consequences be damned. Such is the clamour to understand more about this incredible man that I have just published his official biography: Shaman of the Radical Right: The Life and Mind of Jonathan Bowden. I have been flabbergasted, to be frank, by the level of interest in it, especially among Generation Z.

It was a book that almost never got written. Various people asked me to write it in 2019 but it turned out that a friend of Bowden’s had been doing-so since 2012. In 2021, he was still blocking others from writing it, clearly unable to produce it but also unable to admit that he couldn’t do so. In September 2024, I was a meeting of what I would call a “purple-pilled” magazine in London; one of those magazines that is slightly too frightened to fully go where the empirical evidence leads. I got chatting to a female philosopher who suddenly produced a book of Bowden’s speeches from her handbag (purse in American) and gleamed at me with undisguised pride. If I had been a cartoon, a light bulb would’ve appeared above my head: “Bowden is a lot more popular and influential than I thought,” I said to myself. Bowden’s heir (to whom he bequeathed all his property) and I gave his “official biographer” a week to write back, he didn’t, so off I went; determined to do Bowden justice.

A key question remained, though: Why has Bowden become such a phenomenon? What was it about him? Can we pick apart the assorted intertwined factors that led to my semi-respectable philosopher carrying around a book of speeches by this open “Fascist” in her handbag?

There was something inherently fascinating about Bowden’s breadth of knowledge, delivered without notes; the way in which he could reveal unusual connections or elucidate the previously obscure; from Julius Evola to Judge Dredd. Bowden was, to some extent, the Weberian charismatic; the man gifted with certain skills that, for a people feeling a sense of crisis or meaninglessness, is able to make a cold world seem warm again. When there is no crisis, such a person is perceived as a crank, or is a charismatic only for a small group of troubled followers (as he was in his lifetime), but as a sense of crisis spreads so does his role as the charismatic. As German sociologist Max Weber (1864–1920) put it, “The term ‘charisma’ will be applied to a certain quality of an individual personality by virtue of which he is considered extraordinary and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities. These are such as are not accessible to the ordinary person, but are regarded as of divine origin or as exemplary . . .”  The Charismatic comes to lead, inspire and embody the community.

Bowden’s extraordinarily engaging talks were, in some ways, a kind of performance art. His lectures are not meant simply to be read, and the internet has allowed them to be preserved and widely disseminated in a way that could not have been true of people like Bowden from an earlier generation. Recorded, often in an amateur way, in rooms above pubs, an aura of the genuine, of the English struggle against tyranny, of the mysterious is added to them.

Bowden used his real name despite the obvious financial and social dangers of being a dissident against the Woke regime. This indicated bravery and self-sacrifice. Bowden espoused a kind of Nietzsche-inspired philosophy: We must reject weakness, resentment and being part of the grievance hierarchy. We are in an evolutionary and spiritual battle in which, ultimately, the powerful will triumph. We must embrace power openly and fight, eternally, against weakness, such that we can bring about the triumph of our people.

Another attractive dimension to Bowden is that he took chances, particularly in terms of his nightmarish faux-Kandinsky abstract art; his unreadable and opaque stream-of-consciousness novels, but also in his unscripted speeches. One of Bowden’s friends referred to his prose thus: “His novellas and short stories are almost unreadable, but all the same the prose is incredible, uniquely pyrotechnic . . . in its use of metaphor, vocabulary, and striking juxtapositions.”  This risk-taking in pursuit of what he feels and believes has the potential not to pay off, but he was fervent enough to take the risk and it paid off not in terms of his novellas but in terms of his speeches. This risk-taking can be inspiring and certainly signals a kind of genuineness.

Bowden was an artist as well as a thinker, so he understood, explicitly from his reading, how to successfully transmit his ideas; the brilliant teacher, he could make the world make sense for his audience. Bowden had a way with words; he would leave other speakers thinking, “I wish I’d said that!” He was acerbically witty. Some of the radical right’s favourite phrases—such as “Clear them out!” (with reference to the Labour Party) —originate from him.

Most importantly, Bowden, in a sense made the ultimate sacrifice by dying and dying prematurely. This would have imbued him with a prophet-like status; an aura of the other-worldly. In this regard, studies have found that when a charismatic leader dies, and especially if he dies suddenly, then he is suffused with greater charisma. He is perceived as being “one with the group” and representing the group to a greater extent. Death renders him, somehow, fused with the collective.

In addition, there is an extent to which Bowden seemed, in some respects, slightly childlike and helpless. Studies have found that people who sometimes make mistakes are regarded as more relatable, that childlike traits, including slight helplessness, make people more engaging, and that charismatic leaders often have a childlike enthusiasm and naivety.  In comparing her husband, the leader of the British Union of Fascists Sir Oswald Mosley (1896–1980), to Hitler, Diana, Lady Mosley (1910–2003) observed that Hitler possessed this attractive quality of slight helplessness: “When people met Hitler they thought: here is this wonderful but unfortunate man who seems to have all of the cares of the world on this shoulders, so we must do all we can to help him.”

Bowden also had an “identifiable flaw:” He was short and overweight. It has been argued that, counter-intuitively, this is an aspect of charisma; of gaining a following. It allows ordinary people to identify better with you and so bond more strongly with you. Bowden also suffered from serious mental health problems and was, essentially, penniless. A childless bachelor, Bowden lived alone in a decrepit caravan in a caravan park in Reading, never really worked, had an old mobile phone and didn’t have the internet where he lived, so he used to research his essays at the local library.

For some this might add to his charisma: he sacrificed the worldly so that he could dedicate himself to his research, his art and to promulgating his ideas. Diogenes the Cynic (412–323 BC) lived in a barrel in Sinope in what is now northern Turkey; Bowden lived in a mobile home in dreary Reading. As Bowden put it in his 2009 interview “Why I Am Not a Liberal,” “I’m probably a Bohemian. There’s an artistic element in me. I don’t care for bourgeois respectability. It doesn’t bother me. That’s where the leaders of the extreme right often come from. They actually come from the arts as much as from the academy or from the intelligentsia, and the arts are a psychologically very radical part of the society, and therefore you don’t care as much for, you know, being regarded as a bit of a demon.”

But, certainly, these are identifiable flaws. They all contribute to his charisma. Posthumously, though the process had already commenced during his lifetime, Bowden has become an “influencer,” with YouTube channels and Twitter accounts dedicated to him. He has become a meme, with inspiring videos of his speeches produced all the time. Were he alive today, I imagine he’d have a huge channel, but he is a dead, and, naturally, this has made him even more influential; for so many younger people he is a kind of based prophet.

Destination 1982: Wilmot Robertson’s “Ventilations” Then and Now — Part 1 of 2

/2 Comments/in , , , /by

3152 words

The Context

Absolutely true event — not a joke: My former neighbor, whose parents emigrated from the nation of Georgia to Israel to the United States, introduced me for the first time to his parents on a family visit. I cordially spoke, “Hello, my name is Sigurd, and I live next door.”  The mother immediately fired back with the strangest reply in her strong foreign accent, “Have you heard about the new holocaust movie?” “Why no, I haven’t. And what was your name again?” I answered. While geography and family economic status had me surrounded by Jews since early childhood onward, and having developed an understanding of what I might expect in their social behavioral traits, this mother’s opening line finally confirmed my midlife curiosities that these people were wired differently, despite the often-similar skin color. This was my turning point where I scrutinized our social, cultural and political situation with a much keener eye. Human diversity was a fact, and as my worldview evolved along with the internet, I came across a book — a quasi-underground classic — that attempted to spell it all out on behalf of the European-American’s perspective: The Dispossessed Majority, by Wilmot Robertson, published in 1972[1] (henceforth TDM).

President Trump is found on cover of the latest paperback edition of The Dispossessed Majority

Robertson’s magnum opus is an eloquent attempt to bring racial consciousness to the American Majority before it’s too late! As its dust jacket introduction states, “this mind-rousing book hammers home the theme that America has changed, and changed for the worse…the Americans of Northern European descent — the American Majority — have been reduced to second-class status.” It continues, “the sickness of America…is presently racked by a double infection: (1) the moral debility of liberalism [and] (2) the rampant virus of minority racism.” The concluding paragraph here finally describes the American Majority as “the loser in a racial war.”

Wilmot Robertson’s life experiences and extensive education brought him the great clarity to coin the term “The Dispossessed Majority.” But while even the mainstream Fox News channel will carry today’s similar term “The Great Displacement,” they dare not credit the author whose book forewarned Americans and is still available on Amazon (hardcover, $224 and paperback for $35). For Fox News, delving into what they’d consider extreme right-wing literature is far more violent and hateful than tacitly approving the America-funded-and-condoned bombing of defenseless women, children, and non-combatant male civilians in the Middle East (continued by Trump).

As abhorrent and devastating as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict had already been by the writing of TDM, this subject comprises but a small chapter within a larger section on “The Foreign Policy Clash.” In fact, after addressing racial dynamics, racial composition, and the predicaments of the Majority, the core substance of its original 538 pages carefully describes the Minority groups within our nation that have interests that conflict with those of the Majority. The factor of assimilability is stressed in Robertson’s writing long before the Diversity-Equity-Inclusion movement celebrated the differences of all groups and sub-groups of peoples apart from the nuclear family which is indigenous to Whites and rare in the rest of the world; nor was the heterogeneity of Whites acknowledge in an effort to paint all Whites as cut from the same (evil) cloth. Chapters V–VIII emphasize Majority-Minority “Clashes” — culturally, politically, economically, and legally, and the book concludes with Prospects and Perspectives. It is here where Robertson’s nine pages titled “Toward a Pax Americana” foreshadows concepts for his final book, “The Ethnostate,” a 1993 utopian journey that he professed would be most beneficial for the civilizations of all races — not just those of European descent — since multi-cultural societies always degenerate into discord.

Social Science Bookshelves Today

TDM has sold hundreds of thousands of copies in over fifty years despite the challenges promoting a book that defends and advances the uniqueness of Northern Europeans and their American descendents. Indeed, the quality of Robertson’s writing and the rationality of his intellect present (in this author’s opinion) the most profound and sagacious appeal ever accomplished on behalf of the White race. TDM would easily have sold millions if abundantly stocked on the Social Science shelves of a Barnes & Noble book store today. This is where you should find this well-thought-out discourse in defense of Western peoples and culture. Robertson’s the book is both exemplary and thorough, but instead of carrying TDM or other like-minded books, instead, this last bastion for brick-and-mortar book sales carries titles like: Rich White Men, by Garrett Neiman, White Fear, by Roland S. Martin, White Fragility, by Robin Diangelo, Nice Racism (How Progressive White People Perpetuate Racial Harm), also by Robin Diangelo, Nice White Ladies (The Truth about White Supremacy, Our Role in it, and How We Can Help Dismantle It) by Jessie Daniels, and of course Critical Race Theory, Fourth Edition, by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic. Today’s mainstream social science topics certainly do not shy away from the topic of “race.” It’s just that “racial justice” today means tipping the shelves over with multi-pronged anti-White attacks from every direction![2]

Typical books found in the “Social Science” section at popular book stores

One book that was also displayed prominently in the Barnes & Noble social science section was Uncomfortable Conversations With A Jew, by Emmanuel Acho and Noa Tishby, both “New York Times Bestselling Authors.” The back cover of Uncomfortable Conversations brings up a multitude of topics on Jews that I’m confident Wilmot Robertson would loved to have opined on — topics which today’s critical-thinking youth of all races are probably questioning amidst the escalations of Israeli (read: Jewish) deadly aggression (read: war crimes) and student protests against it (read: last vestige of American freedom of speech). We find:

  • Is a “Jewish race” a thing?
  • Is it true that people don’t believe the Holocaust really happened?
  • Are Jewish people white? Do they have access to the privilege that comes with that?
  • If Zionism is Jewish people’s right to have a country, what’s the counter?
  • Is it possible to be an anti-Zionist and not be antisemitic?[3]
  • In whose life am I the oppressor?
  • Why are there so many Jewish people in Hollywood?
  • Could the Holocaust happen again?
  • Is ending antisemitism even possible?

And most relevant to what we see and hear today in everyday news and media:

  •  Calling things antisemitic is the quickest way to shut down a discussion. But if there are no discussions, how can we ever reach a place of understanding?

Everybody on the book shelves is a “New York Times Bestselling Author.” Wilmot Robertson devoted a chapter in Ventilations to why he didn’t garner this accolade.

If equity or egalitarianism[4] referred to any notion of fairness for all races, this book and the previous social science bestsellers already mentioned would alone justify mainstreaming of TDM. It should sit side by side on the shelf next to Uncomfortable Conversations at Barnes & Noble, since Robertson’s book represents the uncomfortable racial realism issues confronting Majority Americans — whether they know it or not. Instead, TDM receives “The Censorship of Silence.” And a decade after its first edition print, this would become the title of the third chapter in a new Wilmot Robertson book that provided his essays and commentary on TDM:  Ventilations.

Anti-White books dominate brick & mortar book store shelves for “Social Science.”

Wilmot’s Observation: More Pronounced Domination = More Separateness

Robertson wrote 45 pages on “The Jews” as a separate chapter within “The Minority Challenge” section of TDM, and it was the longest chapter regarding minorities while representing less than ten percent of the book.[5] After reading the book twice, I found his treatment of Jews and their history to be just a small side story in the overall message and lessons he was trying to convey, and I wondered if the Uncomfortable Conversations authors would even approve TDM on the same shelf as theirs? But for today’s young adults with curiosity on how our government and nation ticks, having no clue as to how a William Ackman[6] can summon up a congressional hearing to confront campus free speech, or how people like him, such as Idan Ofer, Len Blavatnik, or Leslie Wexner, can earn or accumulate vast sums of money and a great deal of power, this TDM chapter instructs us:

To sum up the phenomenon of Jewish affluence, what is happening in the United States today is what has been happening throughout much of Western history. The Jews, finding themselves unrestricted and uncurbed in a land rich in resources and labor, are rapidly monopolizing its wealth. It is almost certainly the same historic process that took place in Visigothic, Arabic and Catholic Spain, in medieval England, France and Germany — and most recently in twentieth-century Germany. Yet no one cares — or dares — to notice it.

He emphasizes that so many people seem to be

concerned about labor monopolies or business cartels, about the influence of the Roman Catholic Church or the military-industrial complex, about the WASP domination of the big corporations or the international Communist conspiracy,

but these same critics are

strangely silent and utterly unconcerned about the activities of an ever more powerful, ever more dominant, supranational ethnocentrism with almost unlimited  financial resources at its command.

Here are Robertson’s comments on anti-Semitism — comments that prefigured Uncomfortable Conversations and provide a quite different perspective:

Instead of submitting anti-Semitism to the free play of ideas, instead of making it a topic for debate in which all can join, Jews and their liberal supporters have managed to organize an inquisition in which all acts, writings and even thoughts critical of Jewry are treated as a threat to the moral order of mankind. The Tartuffe[7] of the contemporary era turns out to be the Jewish intellectual who believes passionately in the rights of free speech and peaceful assembly for all, but rejoices when permits are refused for anti-Semitic meetings and rocks crack against the skulls of anti-Semitic speakers.

More than fifty years later we find our U.S. House of Representatives passing an outrageous anti-Semitism bill aimed at preventing criticism of Jews and Israel;[8] and we find that “punching Nazis” has become normalized and society-approved form of violence. Robertson saw it all coming, but then he also understood history. He emphasizes that “Jews seem bent on destroying the very political, economic and social climate that has made their success possible.”

But how does Robertson really feel about Jewish history?

As if in the grip of a lemming-like frenzy, they have been in the forefront of every divisive force of the modern era, from class agitation to minority racism, from the worst capitalistic exploitation to the most brutal collectivism, from blind religious orthodoxy to atheism and psychoanalysis, from total dogmatism to total permissiveness.

The TDM chapter on “The Jews” ends with Robertson admonishing the reader “to transcend, for the first time, the ancient racial infighting by submitting the Jewish problem to reason and full disclosure, not to the harsh and inconclusive solutions of the past.” His appeal is fundamentally moral. But this last paragraph incorporated a pre-condition for this to occur: “When and if a resuscitated American Majority has the strength and the will to put a stop to the Jewish envelopment of America,” he wishes that we learn from, and not repeat history. And with (1) new laws on the near horizon combating anti-Semitism and possibly even “hate speech,” with (2) a newly elected President Donald Trump ostensibly supporting such crackdowns,[9] and with (3) politically-right-leaning citizens resting (all too) comfortably within the Republican Party that now has four more years in control, it remains doubtful that Wilmot Robertson’s reasoning and “full disclosures” will see daylight any time soon.

Most Americans read very little, and very few have heard the term “The Jewish Question” or “The JQ,” and even fewer “The Jewish Problem” despite these societal conflicts having existed for millennia.[10] Mainstream media and academia create the historical, political and cultural narrative that we consume. Most of the Majority haven’t a clue as to how many influential people in America identify as Jews, and so a book like TDM might open the eyes of a typical under-informed American and change his or her worldview, adding both wider and sharper focused lenses. 

A Decade after TDM: An Open Discussion on Race and Politics

In 1982 Wilmot Robertson published Ventilations, a short 113-page gem that is no longer available in print. It can, however, be downloaded from colchestercollection.com, the archival work created by a former writer/White advocate from The Occidental Observer, Russell James. I call it a gem because Robertson elucidates so many topics that occupied “the current events” of my teens and early adulthood, giving them a fresh perspective that complements and affirms the significance of TDM as we fall ever more downward in The Decline of the West.[11]

Wilmot Robertson was also the founder and publisher of the magazine Instauration, which presented articles that TDM readers likely found important and insightful. For instance, one issue featured the sensational 1913 Georgia trial of Leo Frank and the murder of 13-year-old Mary Phagan, “Pardoning the Unpardonable.” But it was in a 1982 issue where he finally commented on pro-Spenglerian metaphysical white knight “Francis Parker Yockey and the Politics of Destiny,” and especially regarding his book, Imperium, for it was the definitions of “race” that caused splits between the two camps of right-wing movements supporting America and Western Civilization. Per author Kerry Bolton’s biography on Yockey,[12]

The two types of race theory according to Yockey are ‘horizontal race’ and ‘vertical race’. The first is the race of the ‘spirit’, culture and soul, expounded by the German Idealists, Herder, Goethe, Fichte, et. al. The second is biological and materialistic, measured and tabulated, influenced by Darwin, and introduced to Germany by Haeckel.

Wilmot Robertson’s TDM definitely embraced the vertical race concept, as Bolton also describes as ‘zoological’ race theory. The quotes of the Instauration article provided in Bolton’s book are important if an advocate for “Westernkind and White Wellbeing”[13] wished to learn the history and inner conflicts of the movement resisting Majority dispossession:

In the six years since its existence, Instauration has not once touched upon the problem of Francis Parker Yockey. We say problem because it’s hard to know exactly what to make of this mysterious character, who has become a cult figure of certain hermetic elements of the American right. His much touted and much thumbed through Imperium (Noontide Press) is part twentieth-century Book of Revelations, part post-script to Oswald Spengler, part revised and updated edition of Mein Kampf. His suicide or murder in a San Francisco jail makes him a candidate for martyrdom in some future century, provided that in the meantime his writings and his tragic life story have not been scourged out of the West’s consciousness.

Towards the end of the article, Robertson sheds his positive viewpoint on Yockey:

[Yockey’s] great selling point is that amid all the despondency of the present age, he is one of the very few thinkers who offers us Balm in Gilead, some shreds of hope, some possibility of white resurgence. Expectedly, it is not the deep space of the cosmos that Yockey is interested in, but the equally deep and equally mysterious space of the inner man. This is all to the good because in these days anyone who writes seriously and earnestly about the soul, about the Western soul, strikes a bell that reverberates most pleasantly up and down our increasingly spineless spines.

So more power to Yockey. He is still alive and kicking in the hearts of a sizeable number of true believers. Despite his shortcomings, his life and his works are proof that no matter how far they get us down, we will never be out.[14]

Yockey was profoundly spiritual, Robertson was rational and more pragmatic. They also viewed Europeans differently, Yockey being the ultimate ‘inclusive’ proponent of all Europeans — including Western Russians — while Robertson favoring Nordics. And while they may have viewed race differently, they did share an updated view on the Soviet Union, particularly regarding the decline of Jewish power and influence in that communist state. Apparently, this topic tended to divide the right-wing movement from the 1940s onward, and Ventilations presents this topic as its first chapter, “The Kremlin and the Jews.” Given a similar divide in Majority opinions today on Russia and Putin, good or evil, Robertson’s 1982 commentary (contesting that the U.S.S.R. was under Jewish control by that time) provides amusing quips and forgotten events:

Jews themselves have reason to be suspicious about Russian racial policies when the foremost Jewish world organizations, which used to sing the praises of Russia openly or in secret, now issue frequent press releases accusing the Soviet government of anti-Semitism. When the United States Senate rejects most-favorite nation treatment for Russian trade, when Jewish publishers and reviewers in America heavily promote books by Khrushchev, Stalin’s daughter, Svetlana Alliluyeva, and the dissident Yugoslav Communist, Djilas, pointing out instance after instance of Stalin’s anti-Semitic speeches and cheer Yasser Arafat, when Russia gives or sells huge amounts of arms to Syria, Iraq, and Libya, Israel’s bitterest enemies, when Jews flee the Soviet Union by hundreds of thousands, it is difficult for anyone to say that Russia is a pro-Jewish country.

With all of the recent American uproar against Russia and our arming of Ukraine, Robertson’s view predicts the 2024 victory for Donald Trump and his campaign promises:

If we want to protect ourselves from the Russians — and we should never close our eyes to the possibility of a sudden Russian assault on Western Europe or on the oil fields of the Middle East — we should clean up our domestic chaos, which is an open invitation to Soviet aggression everywhere.” (my emphasis)

When millions of Americans go out after dark without running the risk of being mugged, raped or murdered by bands of roving young blacks who haven’t the faintest notion of what a Communist is or what communism stands for, it hardly seems logical for the Birch Society, William F. Buckley, Jr. and other assorted ‘patriots’ to harp on the Red Menace while carefully avoiding the far greater domestic menace.

Fast forward to today and we hear Republican pundits constantly harping on “Chinese Communists” while BLM/AntiFa rioters have recently burned our cities down ostensibly with federal agency immunity. Russia recently failed to support the Syrian government against Israeli and U.S. intervention, but in 1982, Robertson wished to straighten out the geo-political beliefs of right wingers:

When Jewish propaganda mills are cranking out anti-Russian articles day and night, it is some-what mind-boggling for our rock-ribbed anti-Semites to inform us that Jews and Russians are joining in a secret alliance. These fossilized patriots cannot seem to get it out of their heads that Jewish support for world revolution has now been withdrawn from the Russians and funneled into the New Left, the Maoists, the Zionists, militant liberalism and noisy Kosher conservatism.

Go to Part 2.

[1] The Dispossessed Majority, Howard Allen Enterprises, Cape Canaveral, FL, 1972. Wilmot Robertson was the pen name of John Humphrey Ireland (1915–2005), who studied at Yale, served in the Army during WWII, studied Physics at U.C. Berkeley, started a small scientific company, and had a successful career in journalism and advertising. Obviously, he was an intelligent man whose written words on racial matters could not be easily dismissed as simply “bigoted racism” (as leftists and mainstream conformists would describe), but rather an intellectual counter-argument that had to be censored by The System.

[2] It does appear, though, that Wilmot Robertson’s TDM might be purchased online in the new edition paperback from the https://www.barnesandnoble.com/.  On searching availability of this paperback, however, this author’s effort yielded nothing. It certainly wasn’t available on store shelves.

[3] Uncomfortable Conversations With A Jew uses the spelling “antisemitism” instead of the more commonly presented “anti-Semitism” on the book’s back cover.

[4] Robertson’s TDM frequently refers, instead, to ‘equalitarianism’.

[5] For comparison, Robertson wrote 25 pages on “The Negroes” in “The Minority Challenge” section.

[6] https://www.thenation.com/article/society/william-ackman-harvard-donor/

[7] Tartuffe, or The Impostor, or The Hypocrite, was a French theatrical play (by Molière) first performed in 1664 that included a character with the same name. The word Tartuffe now is used to mean a hypocrite who gives a false impression of caring for what is virtuous.

[8] https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/6090

[9] See CNN’s story: “Trump Vows to ‘Remove the Jew Haters’…”, https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/08/politics/trump-remove-jew-haters-october-7-event/index.html

[10] But when Americans do read non-fiction, they do flock to the social science section of the book store in search for answers to the crazy world we are living in.

[11] The Decline of the West, Oswald Spengler, original publications: Volume 1 (1918), Volume 2 (1922), available by Arktos Media Ltd (2021)

[12] Yockey: A Fascist Odyssey, Kerry Bolton  (Arktos Media Ltd., 2018), https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/38741770-yockey

[13] Jason Kohne, Go Free: A Guide To Aligning With The Archetype of Westernkind, (2017)

[14] Yockey, A Fascist Odyssey, Kerry Bolton, p. 502 (Resurrection)

Preserving the White Majority in the United States: My 10-Point Plan

/14 Comments/in , , /by
From Counter-Currents, with permission.

Preserving the White Majority in the United States: My 10-Point Plan

Since Donald Trump was re-elected in November, many things that were rarely said in the mainstream are now being floated in public and taken seriously. Great examples include mass deportations, the US buying Greenland, Facebook ending its fact-checking algorithms, the phasing out of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs, flipping New Jersey red, and restricting immigration from India. Three months ago, who in the mainstream was discussing, let along debating, such topics? Whatever faults Trump has—and he has many—being wholly part of the Washington uniparty elite is not one of them. And that is a good thing. This reminds me of the Khrushchev Thaw period following the death of Josef Stalin in 1953. For a time, ordinary people and Soviet elite alike were let out on a longer leash, and could engage in discourse that had previously been frowned upon or forbidden. Yes, it was more of a Thermidorian reaction than anything real, but it still opened the door for at least some changes and improvements to the Soviet Union.

Of course, it didn’t last. Mostly likely Trump’s thaw won’t either (they never do, do they?). This is why white advocates should take advantage of this period of greater openness while we can. In other words, it’s time to push the envelope, even if that means getting the enveloped shoved back into our faces by a president who might identify more as orange than white.

My suggestion, beyond what David Zsutty has given us in his excellent three-part series “What White Nationalists Want From the Trump Administration,” is to propose a bill in Congress which would, on paper at least, protect the US white majority in perpetuity through selective immigration bans, mass deportations, and pro-natalist policies. Outlandish, I know. A white US minority is the very thing the Left craves and the mainstream Right is too afraid to talk about—a political third rail indeed. However, there are upsides to attempting to sell such legislation to US congressmen during the second Trump term—aside from it actually succeeding, of course.

For one, whites these days are waking up to anti-whiteism, and so a proposed bill to protect the dwindling white majority at least won’t be unpopular among whites in red areas of the country. Such a proposition in 2025 would certainly not come out of left field, and would make sense to many. Trump has recently spoken against anti-white racism, and so have conservative mainstream pundits such as Charlie Kirk, Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, Laura Loomer, Michelle Malkin, Matt Walsh, and Mark Dice. The Hodge Twins as well as former MMA world champion Jake Shields recently featured longtime white advocate David Duke on their podcasts. Jared Taylor had his Twitter/X account restored and has garnered tens of thousands of followers. Patrick Bet David recently hosted Patriot Front leader Thomas Rousseau. And here’s a report from February 2024 about a Michigan lawmaker Steve Carra who led a sit in outside the Michigan House Speaker’s office to protest his state’s anti-white spending policies.

So if there ever was a good time to go public with a pro-white initiative like this one, it’s now.

Secondly, even in defeat, such a proposal will provide a surfeit of rhetorical victories for the Dissident Right and pro-white camps. Any congressman who ignores or opposes such a bill can be fairly branded as anti-white. Not only this, they can be accused of not just wanting a white minority, but actually contriving to attain one. If you are not in favor of a white majority then you are in favor of a white minority. There is no middle ground. Yes, most Democrats would reject such a bill out of hand, gladly admitting that they look forward to the day that whites dip below 50 percent in America. Joe Biden did just that back in February 2015. With today’s whites being less likely to tolerate anti-whiteism than ever before, record of such a refusal would certainly help damage a Democrat ticket during a general election.

But the main use of such a bill would be to hector, bog down, or at best replace weak-minded Republican lawmakers who would also reject the bill. How much would it cost, really, to primary a Republican congressman who refuses to consider a pro-white bill because the mainstream narrative tells him it’s racist? How hard would it be for even mainstream Republicans with a little pluck to ding an incumbent over his purported hostility towards whites? Remember, we are in the Trump Thaw at the moment. So what seemed beyond the pale of public discourse three months ago, may no longer be. With enough energetic, well-funded, aspiring politicians beating the white majority drum, establishment Republicans would have to at least give lip service before rejecting the bill. And the more people talking about it, the better—even if much of that talk is negative. And for all we know it could even work well enough to reach a vote on the House floor.

You can buy Greg Johnson’s White Identity Politics here.

Finally, there is the metapolitical change that such a bill promises to make. They say the process is the punishment, but in this case the process would also the reward. The goal here should not necessarily be to get the bill passed (although that would be great). The goal should be to introduce the bill into the long and arduous lawmaking process in order to make it its own news item. The goal should be to get people talking about it in the way the Soviet public began discussing the gulags after the publication of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich during the Khrushchev Thaw. The goal should be to get ordinary, everyday whites to begin to want or even expect a white majority in this country. They should consider it their birthright, given how the Founding Fathers were all white and the vast majority of people who have fought and died in America’s wars have also been white. And why not? Is there anything in the US Constitution preventing this country’s founding race from legislating its perpetual majority? Can that even be called racist? In the Trump 2.0 era, what really is preventing a critical mass of whites from adopting such a perspective? Nothing, I’d say. As I’ve pointed out above, all the signs are actually quite encouraging.

If you are reading this because you have white identity—even a secret one—and you’re not a researcher from the Anti-Defamation League or Southern Poverty Law Center looking to squeeze the vitality out of the entire white race, then ask yourself, why not? Why can’t whites discuss these things? Why can’t we expect such things? Are our jobs and incomes and social standings worth so much to us that we cannot at least throw a few shekels at politicians and pundits willing to buck the anti-white system and stand up for ourselves? Do we really want to live in a world in which we are outnumbered by hostile non-whites in our own hometowns? Is this the kind of world we’d wish upon our children and grandchildren?

If not, then . . . what are we doing?

Assuming that we all understand that we need to do something, is there a better idea than crafting some sort of incipient law and presenting it to prospective lawmakers who are willing to promote it while running for office? Now, I am not an attorney, and have little influence irrespective of that. But maybe somebody reading this does have influence and can make a difference? If so, then I offer a rough 10-point plan as a starting point. And before I get outraged comments about how my plan is some cucked Magna Carta, please remember that this is not a White Nationalist wish list, but a proposal for a real-world document to effect real-world changes in the here and now that even non-whites in America today could abide. It will basically be a promise from whites to non-whites to share the United States with them in good faith as long as the current racial proportions remain the same. It will be an effort to halt the white demographic decline, not to turn back the clock or start a race war. Thus, there will be compromises in it which many white advocates (myself included) will find odious. Please don’t let these get in the way of seeing the overall value of the plan.

Such a plan can go two ways: it can work or it can fail. In the former case, great. We won’t be back to 1960, but it won’t be 2020 either. Let’s split the difference and call it 1990, not exactly a terrible year in the life of white people. In the latter case however—which is much more likely—the heightened racial awareness of whites will necessarily increase friction with American non-whites, and will lead to one of two things: red state secession, which is the first step towards a white ethnostate, or (God help us) Civil War 2.0. Again, in the former case, great. And in the latter, we would at least have a fighting chance. This means that of the three possible outcomes of a bill like this, two and a half are positive. Not bad, right?

Anyway, here are my 10 points, and if someone thinks they can do better and still be realistic, I’m all ears:

BILL TO ENSURE THE PERPETUAL WHITE MAJORITY IN THE UNITED STATES

  1. Require bi-yearly censuses.
  2. Define white by “one-half not black” rule (at least one white parent, and no fully-black parent). For the sake of this bill, “whites” would include people of white European descent, Jews originating in Europe, and Caucasians from Central Asia.
  3. Employ self-identification to determine race, and agreed-upon genetic markers to determine race in case of appeals.
  4. Establish African Americans and Indigenous Americans as “demographically exempt” populations. (This means that their populations can fluctuate naturally and are not counted when calculating the proportion of whites to the general population. This would be a good thing for both populations and should be promoted as such.)
  5. Require that the white majority remain no lower than 80% of the US population minus the exempt populations. (Using rough estimates taken from Wikipedia, the United States currently has 48 million blacks and 7 million Indigenous Americans, making 55 million demographically exempt citizens. Subtract this from the 340 million total population to get a denominator of 285 million. Divide the 205 million whites in America by that to get around 72 percent. If such a bill were to be signed into law, the main focus of government would be to push that number up to 80 percent as soon as possible.)
  6. Require that, among non-exempt non-whites, no more than 10 percent of the US population be of Mexican, Central American, or South American descent. All immigration from these places will stop if this proportion grows above this percentage.
  7. Require that, among non-exempt non-whites, no more than 10 percent of the US population be of Asian or Middle Eastern descent. All immigration from these places will stop if this proportion grows above this percentage.
  8. Require that pro-white immigration and pro-white natalist policies be put in place until whites reach 80 percent of the total non-exempt US population.
  9. Require that all illegal immigrants as well as legal immigrants with a history of violent or serious crimes be deported.
  10. Ban all immigration from places of origin of racially exempt populations (i.e., Indigenous peoples from the Americas or blacks from Sub-Saharan Africa).

Given how the Trump Thaw has already allowed whites more leeway to discuss their own racial interests (and Trump hasn’t even taken office yet), I think my 10-point plan might push the envelope far enough but too far in order to get white people to act their own racial interests as well.

Joyeux Noёl: The Beginnings of WWI and the Christmas Truce of 1914

/40 Comments/in , /by

MerryChristmasfilmPoster3

Editor’s note: Christmas is a special time of year, and over the years TOO has posted some classic articles that bear on the season. This article by F. Roger Devlin was originally posted in December, 2013. It is an important reminder of the disastrous intra-racial wars of the twentieth century—wars that may yet deal a death blow to our people and culture given the processes that they set in motion. 

With the hindsight offered by ninety-nine years, it is obvious that the outbreak of the World War I marked not merely the beginning of the most destructive war in history up to that time, but a fundamental civilizational watershed. While the fighting was going on, nearly all participants assumed they had been forced into the struggle by naked aggression from the other side. It took historians years to unravel what had actually happened.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, the German Army was the best in Europe, capable of defeating any individual rival. Yet Germany had no natural borders, and was vulnerable to a joint attack on two fronts: by France and Britain in the West and the Russian Empire in the East. A German defeat was considered virtually inevitable in such a scenario.

The Franco-Russian alliance of 1894, which became the Triple Entente when Britain joined in 1907, realized Germany’s worst fears.

However, there were important differences between Germany’s Western and Eastern rivals: France and Britain were modern, compact, efficiently-organized countries capable of rapid mobilization, while sprawling Russia with its thinly spread population and economic backwardness was expected to require up to 110 days for full mobilization. Taking advantage of this asymmetry, the German High Command developed the Schlieffen plan: upon the outbreak of hostilities, close to ninety percent of Germany’s effective troops would launch a lightning attack in the West; this campaign was to be completed within forty days, while lumbering Russia was still mobilizing. With the Western powers out of the way, massive troop transfers to the Eastern front were expected to arrive in time for Germany to face down Russia. Speed—of mobilization, of offensive operations, and of troop transfer—was critical to the success of this plan.

The assassination of the Austro-Hungarian Arch-Duke by a Serb nationalist in June, 1914, is the perfect example of an event which occasioned events which followed, but did not cause them; the men of Europe’s great powers did not slaughter one another for four years over a political assassination in the Balkans. Rather, the assassination occurred in the context of Russian guarantees to Serbia and German guarantees to Austria, which inevitably brought the Triple Entente into play. A diplomatic game of ‘chicken’ ensued, in which no side was willing to be the first to back down.

When Austria declared war on Serbia on July 28th, the Russian Tsar, conscious of his Empire’s military backwardness, ordered a partial mobilization. This action was intended merely as a precaution in case of a war that still seemed unlikely. But for the Germans, with their Schlieffen plan requiring utmost speed, the Tsar’s order had the effect of an electric shock. Germany felt it had to mobilize as well. Russia responded two days later by ordering full mobilization. Germany gave Russia an ultimatum; and the Tsar, unwilling to knuckle under, allowed the deadline to pass. Within hours, everyone was involved in a war that none of the parties had originally wanted or intended.

German historians call such a series of events a Betriebsunfall: a quasi-mechanical accident such as might occur in the machinery of a factory. Men were drawn into the gear work and crushed when no one was able to throw the emergency switch in time. It was a tragedy in the fullest sense of the word—a disaster brought on by well-intentioned but flawed men acting rationally under conditions of imperfect knowledge. The consequences are well-known: ten million dead, twenty-eight million more wounded or missing, Communism established in Russia, the Balfour Declaration setting the stage for today’s ongoing Middle East conflict, and the whole crowned by a shameful ‘peace’ treaty that all but guaranteed a future war of German revenge.

Yet, as we can see from newsreel footage of August 1st, the popular reaction to the outbreak was war fever on a scale not seen since the crusades. Europe had been enjoying forty-three years of peace and unprecedented material prosperity, and the young greeted the war as a romantic adventure.

The planned rapid German advance through the Low Countries into Northeast France was unexpectedly halted  in early September—the “Miracle of the Marne”—foiling the Schlieffen plan. On the 13th, the German Army responded by attempting a flanking action around the French lines; the French then rapidly extended their own defensive lines in what became known as the “race to the sea.” Since neither side could dislodge the other, and neither was willing to retreat, soldiers began digging themselves in to their positions—the beginning of trench warfare. By the time winter set in, the pattern of the next four years had been clearly established: a war of attrition involving trivial advances and retreats across a few acres of mud.

But as Christmas approached that year, something unexpected began unfolding. On the frontline sector south of Ypres, Belgium, German troops began decorating the area around their trenches for Christmas Eve. As Wikipedia describes it:

The Germans began by placing candles on their trenches and on Christmas trees, then continued the celebration by singing Christmas carols. The British responded by singing carols of their own. The two sides continued by shouting Christmas greetings to each other. Soon thereafter, there were excursions across No Man’s Land, where small gifts were exchanged, such as food, tobacco and alcohol, and souvenirs such as buttons and hats. The artillery in the region fell silent. The truce also allowed a breathing spell where recently killed soldiers could be brought back behind their lines by burial parties. Joint [religious] services were held.

The ceasefire spread to other sectors of the front, with as many as 100,000 men eventually participating. In some areas, soccer games between the belligerents replaced combat.

joyeux-noel

By December 26th, it was over. The authorities got word of the breakdown in discipline and intervened vigorously.

In 2005, an international consortium from France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Belgium, and Romania produced a film about the Christmas Truce: Joyeux Noёl. The film opens with scenes of children in French, British and German grade schools reciting rhymed curses they had been taught against the opposing side: the British child’s curse calls for the complete extermination of Germans.

The scene switches to Scotland, where an enthusiastic young man, William, rushes into his local Catholic church breathlessly to announce to his younger brother Jonathan that war has been declared; they are to begin basic training in two days. “At last, something’s happening in our lives,” he rejoices. The priest, Fr. Palmer, looks notably less enthusiastic.

At the Berlin Opera, a performance is interrupted by an officer walking on stage to announce that war has been declared. The lead tenor, Sprink, is quickly called up.

In a French trench, Lieutenant Audebert wistfully looks at a photograph of his pregnant wife moments before being called to lead an assault on the German lines. In the ensuing action, Scottish William is mortally wounded; his brother Jonathan is forced to leave him behind, a psychological trauma from which he never recovers. Audebert’s men pour into a German trench, but as they turn a corner, some one-third of them are mown down by a German machine gun.

Meanwhile, Sprink’s lover, the Danish soprano Anna, receives permission to sing before the Crown Prince of Prussia. Sprink is called back from the front to perform with her, and is impressed with the luxurious comfort in which the German commanders are living. When he returns to the front, Anna insists on accompanying him, determined to sing for the ordinary frontline soldiers as well as the officers at headquarters. (The presence of a woman at the front is poetic license on the filmmakers’ part.)

The German soldiers begin setting up Christmas trees along their trenches, to the bewildered suspicion of the French soldiery. After the singers conclude their first number, a cheer goes up from the Scottish trenches. Fr. Palmer plays the first few bars of another Christmas song on the bagpipes, and Sprink responds by performing the song, climbing out into No Man’s Land. Lieutenant Audebert motions to his men to hold fire. Soon, men are pouring out of the trenches on both sides, sharing food and drinks. Fr. Palmer holds a Christmas Eve Mass for all the men.

On Christmas morning, the officers renew the truce and arrange for exchanging their dead. Dozens of men are buried between the lines. A soccer match ensues. The officers realize the situation is untenable and attempt to restore discipline, but by this time the men are refusing to fire upon each other.

A bundle of soldiers’ letters is intercepted by the French authorities, alerting them to the situation. Fearful of having their war spoiled, they dissolve the division and repost its members to various unaffected sectors of the front. The Germans are transferred to the Eastern front to face the Russians. Fr. Palmer is replaced by a Bishop who preaches a sermon urging new recruits to exterminate German men, women and children.

A major theme of the film is music. Sprink’s superior officer begins by telling him that, being a singer, he is useless as a soldier. Then it is the incongruous presence of music that leads to the unplanned ceasefire. At the end, as the Crown Prince of Prussia informs his men of their punishment, he catches sight of a harmonica. He snatches it away and crushes it beneath his boot heel.

The Christmas Truce of 1914 did not change the course of the war very much. In future years, commanders were successful in suppressing similar occurrences. As the war progressed and especially after poison gas was introduced, soldiers gradually came to see their enemies as less than human, as was the intention of the higher officers on all sides. But it has continued to spark the popular imagination in the near-century since it took place. A Canadian historian has written:

It [was] the last expression of that 19th-century world of manners and morals, where the opponent was a gentleman. The ones who survived, who lived to see other Christmases in the war, themselves expressed amazement that this had occurred. The emotions had changed to such a degree that the sort of humanity seen in Christmas 1914 seemed inconceivable.

Joyeux Noёl lost money at the box office, and critics have complained of its “sentimentality.” I suggest seeing it for oneself this Christmas season.

Losing is No Reason Not to Fight

/22 Comments/in , /by

All is lost. Western Civilization is over. There is no point in fighting against it. Embrace defeat.

This was the thesis of an article published here on The Occidental Observer this weekend. The writer argued that fighting for the future of our race was pointless, because it would accomplish nothing and only lead to personal tragedy.

“Don’t take heed of anyone who tells you to fight. There is no fight to have, we have already lost…. If you start fighting, you will just be jailed, lose your job, and probably your family and your mental health.”

I disagree. I have done those things and I feel great.

I have lost my job, my family, lots and lots of money. I have been brought up on a politically motivated charge that took me almost four years to overcome. I have been attacked in the streets, betrayed and lied to by the authorities, investigated, been illegally searched and so on.

Many people have suffered way worse. They have done hard prison-time. They have lost more money, wasted more time in court. Many of the writers at this publication have sacrificed more than me.

Have we achieved anything in politics? Have we weakened Jewish power? Had any effect on the health of our race? I don’t know.

What I do know is, my mental health has never been better. I feel awesome. I LOVE fighting against Jewish power! If I had to have a normal job and never ever say what I really think… then I would be depressed. I know many others who feel the same. What is life worth if you can’t fight for something?

So the writer is dead wrong about that. If more people took up the fight against Jewish power, their mental health would certainly improve. And if all Whites took a stand, Jewish power would collapse that very day.

As to the author’s notion that “we have already lost” and should therefore do nothing. Not only is the conclusion wrong, but the premise is too. We have not lost. It’s not over. It’s never over until you and everyone like you is dead. History goes on. More people to fight, more empires to build and destroy, more art and literature to create and forget, more more more.

That people can fall for such simplistic and history-denying arguments tells me that they have no education in the humanities. This is a big problem in our civilization generally, with far too much emphasis being placed on technical subjects and statistics. People have become blind to “the human element,” that is, morale and will-power. They see a graph of a demographic trend and think “oh, the White line is going down, the non-White line is going up, therefore this will continue indefinitely until we are all dead.”

They would know better if they understood the difference between technical subjects and the humanities. History concerns itself with what men do and why they do it. In physics, you can predict with total accuracy the acceleration of a falling object given Earth’s gravity and no resistance. In history, you know what happened only after it has happened. You cannot predict the future with total accuracy, because you have to account for men’s intent. Even if you knew what all the historical actors intended to do, knowledge of other actors’ intentions would cause other actors to change their behavior, and thus, the outcome.

Americans in particular seem to fall into the writer’s kind of defeatism. This defect of our national character is attributable to the fact that (unless you’re a Southerner) our country has not fought a stronger enemy since 1812. We have no historical memory of being on the weaker side in any fight. Exceptions—the Alamo, Bataan, Bastogne—are all either well out of living memory, and they only occurred because a weaker enemy briefly achieved temporary superiority. In the last eighty years, all Americans have known is massive material superiority in any fight. Few of us even have enough experience in team sports to know what it’s like (and what it takes) to win against the odds. This is something we have to fix.

The first step is understanding that nothing is ever hopeless. If only material things matter—money, armies, natural resources, governmental and media apparatuses—history would have “ended” a long time ago. Sumeria or Egypt would have conquered the world and we would be under their heel even now. That didn’t happen, because great empires can and do collapse, and smaller and weaker—but more motivated—groups can beat bigger, stronger ones. That should be obvious, but it seems necessary to say it again. Whites need to keep things in perspective. What German in Caesar’s time could have imagined annihilating three legions a mere generation later, or conquering the whole empire in five centuries?

The next step is identifying and analyzing your opponent’s weaknesses, then exploiting them the same way that they have exploited our weaknesses. We could be doing this. Most Whites just aren’t trying. Everyone has either some money to give or some time to volunteer. Since White resistance against Jewish power is not well organized, the burden is on each of us to figure out how to make his contribution count. I’m constantly hearing about how good we Americans are at taking initiative and what individualists they are. Well, prove it!

So no. It isn’t over. The Jews can have all the money, all the government agencies, all of the media and they will still lose. The trait that got them into power will be their undoing—their monumental arrogance. Because it blinds them to the hidden moral power of their opponents.

I assume that the author of the dystopian vision isn’t a Jew or a political enemy trying to sew defeatism in our hearts. I assume he is acting in good faith. If so, at least he had the willpower to write an article, no matter how wrong he is and how damaging his attitude is to our cause. If he really believed that everything was hopeless, he would not have bothered lifting up the pen.

He does point out, rightly, that there are many charlatans trying to profit from our race’s grief. “There is an industry selling hopium [hope used as a drug] to the White man”.

Indeed. It is called conservatism. Conservatives will try to tell you that “This time it will be different,” Trump will expel all of the illegal Hondurans, he will put real men in charge of crucial government ministries, he will restore order in the military, he will root out the liars and thieves from academia, and a thousand other things.

We all know that Trump won’t do any of that. The writer is right in that regard. There is no hope for conservatism. Thousands of their writers, editors, fundraisers, Twitter-people and operatives are selling desperate White people false hope. They have been doing it for decades. You cannot trust anything they say, because they are always balancing truth with what gets them paid.

Conservatism is a pitiable delusion. We cannot settle for anything less than the complete overthrow of Jewish power in America and the West. There is no sense in hoping for lesser, easier to achieve goals. The Jews see us Whites as a dire threat, and they have no desire to offer us concessions. It’s either us or them in their minds. The only option we have is to tear down their power bit by bit. And since they have all of the material power, we have to have stronger willpower. We have to want it more, no matter the cost.

As Adolf Hitler pointed out:

When self-interest threatens to replace idealism, we notice an immediate weakening in the force that maintains the community. When the community breaks, so falls civilization. Once we let self-interest become the ruler of a people, the bonds of social order are broken. When man focuses on chasing his own happiness, he falls from Heaven straight to Hell. (Mein Kampf, vol 1, chapter 11. Trans. by Ford)

Of course, it will be an awful grueling fight. We will all have to face far worse things than losing our jobs or going to jail. We will have to prepare for pain and loss. “Embrace the suck.” We’re going to have to learn to love this unfair and uneven fight. That is the only true hope.

In the end, I’m here because I love to fight. Even if it’s not fair. Even if we can never have an honest White man’s fight, and we have to fight the Jews on their own turf like lawyering, or weird rhetorical maneuvering. It’s a lot more thinking and less physical exertion. But it is still fighting, because you have an opponent who hates you and wants you poor, imprisoned or dead. There is real danger. And not stupid purposeless danger like jumping off buildings or overdosing on Benadryl. This is not mere thrill-seeking.

The fight against Jewish power is meaningful, purposeful danger in pursuit of noble aims. I love it and I will never give it up.

Thank you to Doctor MacDonald for everything you do. It’s been 10 years this month since I came to understand the Jewish Question, thanks in no small part to this website. Thank you to all the writers and donors to The Occidental Observer. You have changed my life all for the better.

If you understand the problem of Jewish power and the lamentable condition of the White race, you have a choice to make:

Join us in the fight. Or get out of the way.

Why I voted for Trump

/37 Comments/in , /by

I realize that Trump is far from perfect, and some prominent figures on the dissident right have said they are not voting for him. His first term accomplished little (if anything) besides mobilizing the hate-filled left to combat the “fascist threat.” (And if he wins again, there will be rioting that will make the rioting of 2016 look like a picnic.) But I voted for him (I’m in an early-voting state). This is why.

Listening to Joe Rogan’s podcast with Trump, Trump admitted that he had no clue about how Washington worked when he got there. This resulted in lots of bad appointments, like John Bolton, who never saw a war he didn’t like. Christopher Wray, who has shown nothing but hatred toward all things Trump since being appointed. John Kelly, who now says Trump is a Hitler lover. He is quite aware of the problem: “Mr. Trump’s greatest regret from his first term is hiring staffers whom he came to believe were the wrong people.”

Because Trump seems aware of his mistakes, I trust it will be better next time, although having Robert Lutnick as co-chair of his transition team is certainly troubling. Lutnick has said that he is in close touch with Jared Kushner (a huge cancer in his first term), despite Kushner’s claim that he was not going to be involved. Scary.

And Trump has floated names like Tom Cotton and Mike Pompeo for Secretary of Defense or State. This is indeed worrisome—but far from assured. Given Trump’s much-advertised commitment to non-intervention and avoiding wars (i.e., the stance that alienated the neocons like Bill Kristol, Jennifer Rubin, and Max Boot in 2016), one would think he would have learned not to appoint neocon war mongers. His closeness with Tucker Carlson would certainly weigh against that, since Tucker has often railed against the neocons and their promotion of forever wars; he has loudly opposed the Ukraine war and the endless wars in the Middle East.

And yes, I realize that if anything, Trump is more wedded to the Israel Lobby than Harris. His campaign got $100 million from Miriam Adelson, widow of Israel-firster Sheldon Adelson who got Trump to appoint Bolton via the same kind of money as Miriam has contributed. Sheldon Adelson fervently hoped that his support would get Trump to make Iran into a nuclear wasteland. Didn’t happen, and I don’t think it will happen the second time around.

And the general point is that the Israel Lobby dominates U.S. foreign policy toward Israel, whether it’s the Democrats or the Republicans. Like Biden and only because of all those Arab voters in Michigan, Harris may criticize the Israelis more because of their ongoing genocide in Gaza (which now includes banning the UNRWA from the West Bank and Gaza), but there’s no reason to think that she would withhold the military aid from Israel and would continue to involve U.S. forces in shooting down whatever Israel’s enemies throw at them. Bottom line: No difference between the candidates. Effectively, it’s a wash.

But there are people would push back against the threats represented by the likes of Jared Kushner. People like Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon—recently freed from his bogus imprisonment, and Elon Musk. I think that Carlson truly “gets it,” although he is not as explicit as would be ideal (remember, the perfect is always the enemy of the good). Carlson has a huge following on his podcasts and live shows. He has definitely shown signs of getting off the Conservatism Inc. reservation. He has interviewed Trump and J.D. Vance, and he will be hosting an event at Mar-a-Lago on election night. A Trump victory would cement his status in the GOP—definitely a good thing.

Carlson’s April, 2021 monologue on his Fox News show is the most powerful and most explicit statement in the mainstream media that Whites—as Whites—have an interest in immigration. He portrayed the middle class as one of the victim groups of the Great Replacement as America is transformed into a society with a hostile, ultra-wealthy elite who are politically supported by a dependent mass of Democrat voters and college-miseducated White liberals. And he dueled with the ADL, pointedly discussing their hypocrisy on immigration to the U.S. vs. immigration to Israel. No wonder he was fired from Fox News.

Carlson’s interview with Darryl Cooper showed that he rejected some basic parts of the standard World War II narrative, such as the hero cult of Winston Churchill so dear to the neocons. And he was excoriated by the left for his interview with Viktor Orban, Hungary’s nationalist Prime Minister who is opposed to transforming Hungary away from its ethnic and cultural roots.

Cooper’s take on election fraud is spot on without going into what are widely considered on the left as conspiracy theories. Tucker read it verbatim on a 2021 show:

Elon Musk’s support for Trump — not only financially (at least $119 million which is greater than Adelson’s), but also happily appearing with him at rallies — is important because of Musk’s celebrity status and very large following on X, especially among young men. Musk is increasingly off the reservation in his tweets: “The damage was done,” [holocaust activist] Deborah Lipstadt remarked about a Musk post on X. “The endorsement of the Great Replacement theory was very harmful.” Lipstadt added that she disapproved of what she saw as any attempt to “mitigate” Musk’s earlier tweet, without criticizing ADL head Jonathan Greenblatt directly. “You can try to mitigate, but once you open the pillow, it’s like chasing the feathers,” she said.

Musk was replying to a user who wrote, “Jewish communities have been pushing the exact kind of dialectical hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them. I’m deeply disinterested in giving the tiniest s— now about western Jewish populations coming to the disturbing realization that those hordes of minorities [they] support flooding their country don’t exactly like them too much.”

Musk responded, “You have said the actual truth.”

Greenblatt joined a loud chorus in condemning that post. Other Jewish groups, including the American Jewish Committee, harshly condemned it. Later in the same thread, Musk went after the ADL itself, saying the group “push[es] de facto anti-white racism.” He apologized for a lot of this and made the mandatory visits to Auschwitz and Israel, but it’s hard to believe that he now rejects these ideas.

Steve Bannon is a strong and influential Trump supporter who got into a war with Kushner during the Trump presidency—a war that he lost. I suspect he totally gets it on the danger Kushner would represent to a new Trump administration.

Incidentally, the gender gap will be huge in this election, and Democrats are actively encouraging the wives of Trump-supporting husbands to vote for Harris. Trump Derangement Syndrome is especially common among White women—obsessed as they are with abortion rights, ignoring everything else. Women are more conformist because of fear of consequences—social ostracism — and departing from the moral consensus of the mainstream liberal media is certain social death in many social circles. White women are also more empathic than men and hence more likely to have empathy for all the victim groups created by our hostile elite.

And White women are much less prone to identifying with their race, at least partly because of fear of that same ostracism from the contemporary moral community (which is now a pathological consensus created and managed by our hostile elites that dominate the media and academia and aggressively police what politicians say). Moral communities are the social glue of Western societies.

White men, including many young White men, are beginning to see that everything is increasingly stacked against them—jobs, promotions, etc. DEI is completely opposed to their interests. They are attracted to Trump’s masculine persona in an age when the left rejects it. Trump’s interview with Joe Rogan definitely appeals to young men—they even talk about UFC stuff.

But the main reason to vote for Trump — the reason that, IMO, makes this a no-brainer — is that a Kamala Harris administration would be a complete disaster for our side:

Creating a Permanent Leftist Majority. The Left is clearly aiming at a permanent majority, and another four years would allow them to cement it. Despite Harris’s newfound claims that she will enforce the border, who can believe it when she has previously called for abolishing ICE and happily stood by as Mayorkas completely demolished the border? (I never blame Biden for anything because he was non compos mentis for pretty much his entire administration.) They blame Trump for not agreeing to a horrible “bipartisan” immigration bill (>1.8 million/year, not including ports of entry), that included lots of money for more border patrol officers so they could process illegals faster. All this when they could have stopped the onslaught at any time by simply reversing the policies they adopted on Day 1 of the Biden administration.

Another 10–15 million illegals in addition to the massive number already here would further change Congressional representation in favor of blue states—illegals affect elections even if they don’t vote. And Dems would have a massive amnesty to ensure that their new dependents (immigrants and their descendants are far more likely to be on welfare) would vote as soon as possible.  In fact, they have already made it virtually impossible to deport illegals, leading to what the House GOP called a “quiet amnesty.”

Another Democrat administration would also result in a push to end the electoral college, so states like California would have even more influence than they do now. California has already made it illegal to ask for voter ID. How can anyone believe that vote totals from California are remotely valid?

The result would be a permanent left majority, dramatically opposed to the interests of the soon-to-be-former White majority and funded as it always has been by Jewish money and reflecting perceived Jewish interests in a non-White America.

Censorship. The Left wants media censorship to silence the right, while the right’s proposals for censorship only involve LGBT+ propaganda directed at children, although admittedly, I and some others were banned from X in the post-Musk era. Nevertheless, X is much hated on the left because people like Nick Fuentes are still holding forth with oftentimes very anti-Jewish statements—far less subtle than what I was posting.

As Hillary Clinton noted, “Without censorship, we will lose control…” The lack of social media prior to the internet age led to the complete dominance of Jewish-owned media and their poisonous messages. The possible end of this dominance is a major problem for Jewish organizations and for the left in general—hence the hatred toward Elon Musk since he bought Twitter. The intolerance of the left even toward mainstream conservatives is well established. They are essentially banned from college campuses because of the well-grounded fear of leftist rioting.

Historically the move toward censorship has been led by the ADL and other Jewish organizations. In my 2002 Preface to The Culture of Critique, I wrote about the ADL’s already-robust attempt to pressure media corporations to censor the internet. This reached its apex in the 2020 election suppression of the Hunter laptop story and of dissident information on Covid, the former of which kept enough votes in the Biden column to swing the election, and latter of which dramatically changed voting procedures in a way conducive to fraud. Needless to say, both of these stories turned out to be true and together helped swing the election for Biden.

Promotion of censorship is now common in high places on the left and has resulted in a large body of legal scholarship promoting it. For example, leftist SCOTUS judge Elena Kagan is entirely on board, writing in 1993 that the Supreme Court “will not in the foreseeable future” adopt the view that “all governmental efforts to regulate such speech … accord with the Constitution.” But in her view, there is nothing to prevent it from doing so. Clearly, she does not see the protection of viewpoint-based speech as a principle worth preserving or set in stone. Rather, she believes that a new majority could rule that “all government efforts to regulate such speech” would be constitutional. All government efforts.

And because the present conservative majority is so distasteful to the left, many on the left are demanding that a leftist majority be created by Congress—i.e., by packing the Court.

More Leftist Judges. The left will continue to appoint radical judges prone to enforcing censorship and facilitating lawfare against White advocates (see the work of Gregory Conte on the trials resulting from the Charlottesville marches; or the travesty of the January 6 trials [Trump promises to pardon the protesters]; or the campaign against Vdare by NY AG Letitia James and liberal New York judges).

Reverting to the old GOP. Perhaps the greatest accomplishment of the Trump ascendency in the GOP is that it has threatened to destroy the old neocon-big business GOP. Neocons like the aforementioned Kristol, Rubin and Boot deserted early on, and the GOP became identified with the White working class. If Harris wins, the GOP will revert to the Conservatism Inc.-Paul Ryan-Liz Cheney-Adam Kinsinger-Bush party of war mongering and tax cuts for the wealthy. The result would be leftism lite: eternal war, pro-non-White immigration, and a conservatism that delays leftist agendas for a few years (Coming soon: “The conservative argument for free, government-funded transgender surgery for migrants and prisoners”). Trump’s greatest accomplishment would be to permanently take the GOP away from the neocons and stuffed-shirt liberal Republicans and preventing it from reverting to its role as a loyal component of the uniparty. It’s interesting that arch-neocon Robert Kagan (husband of the notorious Victoria Nuland who engineered the Ukraine war) resigned after Jeff Bezos’s non-endorsement of Harris. Clearly the Dems are the war party.

*   *   *

So please vote for Trump even though you have serious misgivings.  It’s like Pascal’s wager. If you vote for Harris you are sure to lose big when she wins—the left would love to throw us in prison when they get their permanent majority. At the very least.

On the other hand, if you vote for Trump, you are reasonably hoping he would be better than Harris. And quite possibly, much better. And we have to think about what comes after if Trump wins — quite possibly an irrevocably changed GOP that is much more attuned to White interests. It could happen.

In recent years I’ve been thinking about the situation in the U.S. as analogous to the end of the Roman Republic — a time of civil wars and instability such that most people were relieved when Augustus established the Empire. We are inexorably headed to an either-or moment of autocracy, either by the left or by the right. I’m hoping it’s a populist autocracy that protects the interests of the traditional American White majority. The left wants to destroy us and will do so if they get enough power.

Jared Taylor on Guillaume Faye’s French Apocalypse

/9 Comments/in , /by

ARKTOS JOURNAL

Jared Taylor reflects on his admiration for Guillaume Faye, recounting their first meeting and enduring friendship, while highlighting the dark, apocalyptic themes of race, survival, and societal collapse in Faye’s Racial Civil War.

This is Jared Taylor’s preface to Guillaume Faye’s final and most hard-hitting work, Racial Civil War.

Because I speak French, it has been my great good fortune to become acquainted with some of the major figures in the French nationalist movement. I have the deepest respect for these men and women who are fighting for their people, but the Frenchman who most deeply impressed me from the very first meeting was Guillaume Faye.

I well remember the occasion. It was in 2003. I had an introduction to Faye from a mutual friend, and we met in a small restaurant.

At that time — and it is true even now — many patriotic Frenchmen hesitated to use the word that I think essential to understanding the crisis France faces: the word “race.” But after an hour with Faye, I found myself thinking: “This guy understands the problem perfectly — maybe even better than I do. And he has a clear perspective on what must be done — maybe clearer than my own.” I was struck by the power of his mind, his passion for truth, and his love for his people. It was the beginning of a friendship that has lasted for more than fifteen years.

Living as we do on different continents, Faye and I have not seen each other nearly often enough, but I invited him twice to speak at the American Renaissance conferences that I organize. Each time, he charmed his listeners with his French accent and moved them with his eloquence and insight. And for me, every trip to France naturally included long conversations with Faye.

Gradually, thanks to the efforts of Arktos Media, this great philosopher of the crisis of the West has become better known to English speakers. Words such as “archeofuturism,” “ethno-masochism,” and “xenophilia” are now well known to those of us who keep abreast of events in Europe. Guillaume Faye is now among the very best-known spokesmen for the survival of our people.

The book you now hold in your hands is certainly the darkest, bravest, and frankest book my friend has ever written. It is a brilliant analysis of the mortal threat to us of massive non-white immigration.

I cite the following ominous passage that justifies the book’s title:

There are three possibilities concerning the sequence of events.

The first, the worst of them all, would be that of submission. It takes two to wage a war, and if our white Frenchmen do not defend themselves against these invaders and foreign aggressors, there will be no war. What will result instead is decay, collapse without real combat or isolated acts of revenge.

This is a possibility which I cannot exclude.

The second possibility, a terrible, distressing and unthinkable one at that, is the outbreak of a racial civil war resulting in the defeat of French natives and other ethnic Europeans, who would have to fight against their own collaborationist state. This is a development mentioned particularly by Jean Raspail.

The third possibility is that of a victorious civil war with incalculable historical consequences, including, of course, the collapse of all our political paradigms. Whatever the case, we will find it impossible to evade major disorders in the coming years. Indeed, Western Europe will soon be the setting for an inevitable earthquake.

This is pure Guillaume Faye. While others fail to grasp the extent of the problem — or even the form or nature of the problem — Faye cuts straight to the fateful choices we face: submission, defeat, or victory. He writes that there is no other choice because a “convivial living-together is only possible when it involves populations that are biologically and culturally related. Anything else is but a sham. We do not wish to live with these people. Period.”

There actually is a fourth possibility, which is voluntary, peaceful separation. There are a few modern examples: the dismemberment of the Soviet Union and the separation of the Czechs from the Slovaks.

In the former Yugoslavia, separation was mostly violent, but Slovenia was born virtually without bloodshed.

In all these cases, however, there was a crucial difference from that of France: These nations were (re)established in territories that had been historically populated by distinct peoples. In France, an alien population with a ruthless will to power and united by a triumphalist religion threatens the native population, and the entire country is at stake. Peaceful separation is hard to imagine.

And, of course, as Faye writes so clearly, France is not the only white nation in peril. All of Western Europe as well as the overseas nations built by Europeans face the same crisis of dispossession — and for the same reasons. The capitulationist spirit of the French that Faye describes with such penetration applies word for word to the ruling and media elites everywhere from Germany to Canada to New Zealand. Only those nations that were sheltered by what we used to call the Iron Curtain have escaped — at least for the time being — the effects of ethno-masochist poisons. This apparent determination of the white man to bring about his own destruction is without precedent in the history of our species, and no one describes it better than Guillaume Faye.

One of the three choices this book outlines for France is submission.

I cannot imagine a more miserable or ignoble fate for a nation that has contributed countless treasures to our civilization. And yet, for the reasons that Faye explains both with sadness and with fury, such a fate is not unthinkable. A similarly contemptible collapse is likewise possible in my own country. If our people awaken and build for themselves a future as glorious as our past, it will be thanks to the efforts of brilliant, tireless men such as Guillaume Faye.

I am grateful and deeply honored that my friend of fifteen years has dedicated this book to me. I also rejoice in his having jointly dedicated the book to my comrade Sam Dickson, who has been Guillaume’s friend and co-combatant for more than four decades. Sam Dickson has faithfully and courageously fought the forces that would transform the West and he admires France and its people as deeply as I do.

He joins me in this message to the readers of this book: Frenchmen and Americans — we are the same people. Your struggle is our struggle!

Racial Civil War is Guillaume Faye’s final work. Order the limited leather-bound edition now — only 7 copies left (out of 50) — before it’s too late, right here at the Arktos Shop.