White Racial Consciousness and Advocacy

John Derbyshire, Sam Francis, and the War on Middle Class White Americans

/51 Comments/in , , /by

John Derbyshire’s “No Life on MARS” is valuable mainly because he quotes a 1998 essay by Sam Francis as follows:

Today, the main political line of division in the United States is not between the regions of North and South (insofar as such regions can still be said to exist) but between elite and nonelite. As I have tried to make plain … for the last 15 years, the elite, based in Washington, New York, and a few large metropolises, allies with the underclass against Middle Americans, who pay the taxes, do the work, fight the wars, suffer the crime, and endure their own political and cultura1 dispossession at the hands of the elite and its underclass vanguard. …

The leaders of the alien underclass, as well as those of the older black underclass, invoke race in explicit terms, and they leave no doubt that their main enemy is the white man and his institutions and patterns of belief. … Middle Americans now face [the imperative] of constructing their own autonomous political movement that can take back their nation rather than assisting the new underclass and the globalist ruling class in breaking it up. The time left for us to do so is shorter than it has ever [been] before in our history.

Francis also pointed out that the elites had developed a powerful new weapon against Middle Americans in the form of mass immigration. The result is what we see now: Accelerating White dispossession and the polarization of politics along racial/ethnic lines rather than social class lines.

As usual, Derbyshire fails to mention any role of Jews as a critical part of the anti-White elite and the historic role of Jews in creating an elite that is hostile to the interests of middle class White Americans. (This is unlike Francis who, in a chapter in Race and the American Prospect written shortly before his death, described Jews as “as the cultural vanguard of the managerial class, providing ideological justification of its structure and policies, disseminating its ideological formulas to the mass population, formulating and often implementing specific policies, and providing much of the specialized educational training essential to the transmission and perpetuation of the technocratic skills of the elite.”)  In addition to being vastly overrepresented in all areas of the elite, Jews have allied themselves with the “alien underclass.” The Black-Jewish alliance is over a century old, and now Jewish groups are busy aligning themselves with the myriad ethnic groups that will soon make up the American majority.

Derbyshire is right to be pessimistic about the prospects of White Middle American anger for really changing things. What it really comes down to is the lack of intellectual leadership able to challenge “liberal ruling-class rhetoric about ‘nativism’ and ‘racism.’” “The Tea Partiers will be marginalized by appeals to political correctness, a thing easily done as practically all of them are white.”

This is quite correct, and it points to a reality that Derbyshire underplays. This is fundamentally a low-level race war between middle class Whites and the people who would displace them. It’s not just the alien underclass that is favored by elite opinion. The coalition commanded by the ruling elite includes not just the underclass, but all non-Whites as well as sexual minorities and aggrieved feminists. Moreover, it’s notorious that mainstream “conservative” intellectuals have knuckled under to this rhetoric as well. Hence the furor among respectable conservatives over the establishment of AltRight and the constant harassment and vilification of any murmurings of White identity on the part of activist organizations like the SPLC and the ADL.

This is really what it comes down to, but we certainly can’t blame middle class Whites for the fact that they are not up to challenging the consensus on race. Middle class Whites respect elite opinion and trust the basic institutions of the society. They are strongly patriotic. They are intellectually insecure when it comes to thinking about race, subjected as they are to constant media images of racially conscious Whites as Klansmen, Nazis, psychopaths, and intellectual cretins. And “conservatives” like Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, and O’Reilly keep telling them that the main problem is those nasty Democrats. These media conservatives bend over backwards to show that they have signed on to elite opinion about race. It takes a great deal of intellectual self-confidence and a very thick skin to withstand the onslaught of the intellectual and media elites who occupy all the prestigious positions in society, especially since many of the middle class targets of this onslaught could lose their jobs for asserting a White identity.

Until White identity and interests are legitimized, it’s certainly naïve to suppose that respectable middle class White people are going to start complaining about their displacement in explicitly White terms. But they will not be an effective political force until they do so. Although they will be in the forefront of the looming battle on illegal immigration (and that is certainly all to the good), they will remain silent in the face of the much greater problem of legal non-White immigration. (Glenn Beck on legal immigration: “I’m not a racist. [Illegal immigration] isn’t to be confused with legal immigration.”)

The war against middle class White America is therefore a war that “cannot tell its name” — it can’t be labeled for what it is but must masquerade as a moral crusade for certain abstract concepts like “diversity,” and “tolerance.” The Tea Partiers are left with no alternative but to fight back with their own abstractions, like “limited government” and “individual freedom.” The liberal establishment has nothing to fear from this.

That’s why the White middle class revolution has to be top-down in the sense that it must have an intellectual vanguard that legitimizes White identity and interests among the broad mass of White people. Until then, there will be much rage but no basic change. And this implies that a huge part of our energies must be directed at legitimizing the simple idea that White people, like everyone else, have ethnic interests.

Bookmark and Share

Kevin MacDonald: On Shutting Down Pro-White Meetings

/19 Comments/in /by

Kevin MacDonald: William Sheldon’s current TOO article (“Pro-White Conference 2.0”) offers suggestions on how to avoid the aggressive tactics typically used against any meeting that has overtones of White advocacy. The recent cancellation of the AmRen conference and the cancellation of three speeches in America by BNP leader Nick Griffin (including one scheduled for AmRen) indicate a need to come up with a counter strategy. As Sheldon notes, the face-to-face meetings that are enabled by conferences are a crucial ingredient in any organization. Quite a few people attend conferences not so much to hear the speakers but to be able to network with like-minded others. 

Sheldon’s strategy of using Webinar technology would probably work — provide the benefits of a pro-White conference without drawing the attention of their Leftist opponents. It is an excellent prescription for a group that must remain underground in order not to expose its members to the usual costs of being associated with White advocacy (job loss, etc.). 

The downside is that pro-White advocates would be implicitly accepting their status as an underground movement. Such meetings could essentially go on forever without effecting real change in the direction we all want. 

It seems to me that we have to get above-ground visibility. We have to make noise and have a public presence if we are going to make real progress. We have to get in people’s faces and have the courage of our convictions. Hence perhaps Nick Griffin’s “frequently voiced despair over U.S. politics, given its lack of white nationalist parties” (in the WSJ article).

This is one thing that attracted me to American Third Position. The young men who are the backbone of the party go out onto the streets with signs and pamphlets advocating deporting illegals and other issues related to pro-White advocacy. They are not afraid of people spewing in-your-face hostility at them. (Guess what? You may be called a “racist” or a “Nazi.”) They do not hide away in secret conferences or restrict themsleves to discussing issues among themselves on private email lists. 

Nick Griffin dealing with hostility. The caption in the MailOnline: Heavy with hatred: The BNP leader Nick Griffin, typically surrounded by his security men

Quite clearly, the left is well aware that public visibility would be the beginning of the end for their dominance of public discourse. That’s why the mainstream media has given almost no coverage to the cancellations of AmRen or Nick Griffin — the only exception I have come across is a brief mention in the Wall Street Journal. The article is noteworthy for not mentioning anything about the obvious implications for public discourse in America. The tone of the article is that some meetings of far right crazies got shut down — expressed in the same manner as a story on the cancellation of a meeting of the local school board because of a snow storm. Imagine the outrage if meetings of La Raza or the NAACP were shut down with similar tactics. 

Meetings at privately owned facilities are problematic because businesses are likely to cave under the pressure of the left and I suppose that is their right as property owners.  Some people have suggested using government-owned facilities because denial by such a facility would raise First Amendment issues. I think this is a good idea. And we should be ready with attorneys willing to argue on our side if there are attempts at disruptions or if the government attempts to cancel the event for reasons like “public safety.” And we need security forces; and ways to identify the people who are doing the disrupting. 

And it should all be out in the open.

Dr. Lasha Darkmoon: Multiculturalism — An Open Letter to Israel Shamir

/125 Comments/in , , /by

Dr. Lasha Darkmoon:  A few weeks Israel Shamir wrote a controversial essay called The Poverty of Racialist Thought in which he took issue with Kevin MacDonald on the subject of multiculturalism. Yesterday I received from him (in an email) an advance copy of his recent follow-up essay: Part 2 of The Poverty of Racialist Thought. He was kind enough to seek my opinion on his new essay, along with the opinions of eight other people far more qualified than myself. 

As I understood this to be an open invitation to discussion, it occurred to me to send my reply to Mr Shamir for publication to the Occidental Observer. I thought the feedback from commentators here could only be beneficial to all concerned: to myself, to Kevin MacDonald and, above all, to Mr Shamir. 

Please note that Part 2 of Shamir’s article has not yet been published. This critique of mine addresses issues raised mostly in Part 1 — see the link above — but which are alluded to and further developed in Part 2.

Dear Mr. Shamir: I read your recent essay, The Poverty of Racialist Thought, with great interest. It is crackling with original ideas, many of them highly subversive, as one would expect from a controversial writer such as yourself!  The main bone of contention between you and Kevin MacDonald is obviously multiculturalism. This is a subject I’ve alluded to only briefly and tangentially in my articles, while dealing mostly with other topics. 

I have enormous respect for KMD, a man who is not only moved to pity by the plight of the Palestinians but who is also deeply concerned at the way his fellow Americans are having their traditional culture subverted and alien values thrust upon them—values which, I think you will agree, are positively satanic: namely, contempt for Christianity, sexual perversion, mind pollution and mendacity in the media, the uglification of daily life, and the systematic demoralization of the masses.    

I feel strongly, as I know you do, about the double standards involved in the fact that organized Jewry promotes multiculturalism in America while insisting that Israel should remain  monocultural and Judeocentric. It’s also of great concern that racial tensions between various ethnic groups in America should be deliberately ignited in order to distract and debilitate the different groups at the expense of the Master group — organized Jewry. It is considerations like these which undoubtedly exercise KMD’s mind and the minds of all Americans who feel they are “losing their country.”  

To portray these beleaguered White Americans  as “White Supremacists” or “racists” is, in my humble opinion,  a low and dirty trick. As disgraceful as calling critics of racist, apartheid Israel with its black record of war crimes — men like Judge Goldstone — “anti-Semites”.  

I do believe with total sincerity, however, that the use of the word “White” is a tragic mistake — from a public relations viewpoint, if no other — and that this word should be avoided if possible.  “This word ‘WHITE’ is the bugbear,” I wrote to KMD a few months ago. “If only a less abrasive and more emollient equivalent could be found.”  You echoed my own sentiments when you said to me in a previous email: “Whites are indeed a misnomer and KMD should give thought how to change it. Christians? Logos believers? Let us give it a thought and share it with KMD.” 

I have racked my brains for a suitable alternative to “Whites”, but have been unable to find one. I don’t think “Christians” would satisfy KMD  with all that that term connotes now. It has to be clearly understood that KMD does not view this matter of multiculturalism, as you and E. Michael Jones do, through the prism of religion. His training as an evolutionary psychologist gives him an entirely different perspective. It’s all about different races competing for resources in a cut-throat Darwinian environment. It’s also about the chronic conflicts that multicultural/multiracial societies have been prone to throughout history and about the psychological reality that people tend to become isolated, politcally disengaged, and mistrustful in multicultural/multiracial societies. He points out that no one has come up with a way to get rid of race as a touchstone of conflict within human societies, and he just doesn’t see that happening in the future.

Between the biological approach of KMD (genetic interests meshing with cultural constraints) and the metaphysical approach of E Michael Jones (Logos), there would appear to be an unbridgeable chasm.  

A final word on KMD’s position — a position I regard as entirely reasonable, because scientifically defensible. He believes that there are many meaningful commonalities between Europeans [“Whites”] at the genetic level. This is because they have similar genetic interests and a natural, instinctive solidarity in spite of their religious differences. That is to say, a European atheist and a European Christian have more in common ultimately than a European Christian and an African Christian. It follows from this that a marriage between a European atheist and a European Christian, which helps to produce children of pure European stock, is to be preferred to a marriage between a European Christian and an African Christian — a marriage that could only result in miscegenated children or “half breeds” — children who would not only be genetically removed from their parents but totally alien to their grandparents. 

In an ideal world, Mr Shamir, all such children would turn out to resemble Dumas père or Pushkin. Proud to be what they are and uniquely valuable in God’s variegated world. In the real world, however, they face many serious problems. If they were happy with their pigmentation, why the incessant and growing demand for skin-whiteners? Even in India there is color prejudice. Indeed, it is India that produces the best skin-whiteners and exports them all over the world. That tells you something.   

There is also the delicate question of IQ. If the IQs of Whites and Blacks were equal, and if this could be adequately proved, there would be no problem. But if Whites are much smarter than Blacks, as is often alleged, then intermarriage can only result in a general diminution of IQ. When diversity entails a general deterioration of intelligence and culture, this surely has to be deplored. This “diversity” is celebrated in America by the Jew-controlled media but, curiously enough, is abominated in Israel. Losing one’s racial identity is apparently good for Whites but bad for Jews. I have to say it: these double standards suck.   

To give KMD his credit, he honestly believes that if we identify on the basis of religion that does not take account of ethnicity at least implicitly, as E. Michael Jones does vis-à-vis his Catholicism, the White race will eventually be destroyed. I think KMD is right to be concerned that the race that gave us Dante and Shakespeare, Leonardo and Botticelli, Mozart and Beethoven, may soon become extinct as a result of malevolent immigration policies designed to serve the interests of one group and one group only: organized Jewry — the group you yourself castigate and criticize in veiled terms as “predators” and “the Masters of Discourse.” 

I’ll conclude this critique by saying that this is an infinitely complex subject. I don’t pretend to have all the answers. I  see through a glass darkly, only too conscious of my intellectual limitations. You will therefore pardon me, I hope, if I’ve said anything foolish or inappropriate. I have no wish to offend anyone. 

Kind regards and blessings, 

Lasha Darkmoon.

Bookmark and Share

Dr. Lasha Darkmoon (email her) is an academic, age 31, with higher degrees in classics.  A published poet and translator, she is also a political  activist with a special interest in Middle Eastern affairs. ‘Lasha Darkmoon’ is a pen name

Tom Sunic’s "Camp of the Holy Ghosts"

/21 Comments/in , , , /by

Tom Sunic’s “Camp of the Holy Ghosts” raises a number of important issues. Should White advocates curry favor with Zionists in the hope of getting Jewish support for their aims? Sunic thinks not: “Such pathetic comments by the Vlaams Belang or the BNP, and by some American White advocates, won’t help their White constituents in the long run, nor will they appease their Jewish detractors.”

I suspect that is correct. The only reason the organized Jewish community would really get behind White advocacy in a quid pro quo for support of Zionism would be if White advocacy already had substantial power — which it does not. Jewish power and influence will be directed at supporting their own ethnostate of Israel and dispossessing Whites in the Diaspora for exactly as long as that strategy continues to work. If White activism makes headway, Jews will certainly attempt to participate in order to promote Jewish interests within that new environment.

If this is the case, then it certainly makes sense for at least some factions of White advocacy to continue to document and critique the role of Jewish power and influence in the dispossession of Whites, if only in the interest of historical accuracy. But I also think that Whites who understand Jewish influence are simply more aware of how things work and therefore less likely to succumb to Jewish ideologies like neoconservatism as a solution for White dispossession. For example, it horrifies me that even people like Glenn Beck — probably the most implicitly White mainstream conservative and regarded as an extremist by the ADL — is nevertheless solidly in favor of legal immigration:”I’m not a racist. [Illegal immigration] isn’t to be confused with legal immigration.”

Another important point in Sunic’s article is the contrast between Catholicism in Eastern and Western Europe:

The Catholic Church in Central and Eastern Europe is a projection of local White national identity and not so much the symbol of spiritual salvation. Catholic Poland, Slovakia, Croatia and Hungary take special pride in calling themselves “antemurale cristianitatis”, or “antimurale occidentis — i,e,, the “bulwark of Christianity” and the “rampart of the West” — first against Turkic Islamic invaders, then against godless communism.  Seen in retrospect, communist repression in Eastern Europe strengthened the role of the Catholic Church and the White consciousness of its congregation. By contrast, in Western Europe the liberal system is now quickly turning the Catholic Church into a multiracial clearing house.

Catholicism and Christianity in general have been harnessed to the power of the multicultural left which has reigned supreme since WWII. The power and influence of the multicultural left has permeated all aspects of Western intellectual and political life, including all mainstream Christian sects. But there is nothing inherent in Christianity that implies that it will inevitably cooperate in the suicide of the West. What is needed is to change the secular power structure and to actively encourage ethnically defensive forms of Christianity.

Bookmark and Share

Ted Sallis: Taking a Initial Look at the American Third Position Party

/36 Comments/in , , , , /by

Ted Sallis: The American Third Position Party (A3P) is a new political party that purports to represent the interests of the white American majority.  As such, it is a refreshing change from the standard Republicrat/Democan one-party system and gives hope that, finally, the political system can be used to further our specific group interests. 

These are early days and one cannot make any definitive conclusions about A3P at this point.  However, some progress has been made, and the party has put forth some initial positions on major issues, so it is worthwhile to examine these. Readers are urged to look at A3P’s program and policies.  I have no major disagreement with their stance on crime, economy, education, etc.  Instead, I would like to take a closer look at two of their major policy initiatives. Emphasis added to all quotes. 

The following summarizes the party’s key positions on immigration:

 To safeguard our identity and culture, and to maintain the very existence of our nation, we will immediately put an indefinite moratorium on all immigration. Recognizing our people’s right to safety, and respecting the sanctity of the rule of law, we will immediately deport all criminal and illegal aliens. We believe, too, that American citizenship should be exclusive and meaningful. As such, the American Third Position will end the practice of automatic birthright-citizenship for children of illegal aliens. To restore, with civility, the identity and culture of our homeland, we will provide incentives for recent, legal immigrants to return to their respective lands. 

This is good – stopping the influx, deportation of illegals, and an end to the concept of “anything goes” birthright citizenship.  Even more impressively, the possibility of repatriation of “recent, legal immigrants” is brought up – the only instance of an American political party raising the “R” issue.  I would like even more – a more comprehensive repatriation program for example, but this is a good start. Also: 

Immigration affects our culture. It affects the way we feel, act, and operate within a community. It affects whether or not we can have actual communities at all. It affects our welfare and livelihood in ways that are immeasurable, aside from the efforts we go to in protecting against it. Immigration erodes our culture and sense of identity. In cities where many cultures meet, there is an atmosphere of hostility. Neighborhoods become atomized, and a true community is never established. 

True and good, but it’s not only culture. Not surprisingly, I would like to have seen a more explicitly Salterian mention of the actual physical, demographic, biological effects of immigration.  They add: 

While we accept that ethnic minorities are, and will always be, part of America, we want our will to be observed and exercised as it should be, and as it should have been. We have a right to sovereignty and to exercise our will as a people. We want an America that is recognizable to us, one that we can feel comfortable in. We believe that this desire is not unique to our nation or our own people, and we believe that all people’s have a right to sovereignty. Accordingly, we will stop all immigration into America, except in special cases. To help restore our national identity, we will offer generous grants to recent immigrants who have a desire to return to their countries of origin. While this can be easily repositioned by a media who is hostile to our people or to a political establishment who relies on recent immigrants for votes, we only mean to create a system of mutual benefit, where the wills of both parties are observed and respected, as they should be. Wherever a recent immigrant has a need to get back home but is without the resources to do as much, we will lend a helping hand. 

I don’t know about the first set of phrases, but I understand that this party needs to navigate within the streams of the politically possible – for now – and that a too radical program at first may be difficult.  A contrasting argument would be that it’s a mistake to start off too moderate.  An initial moderate stance may “lock in” this moderation and prevent future shifts toward more radical positions since, having attracted a mass of more moderate supporters at the beginning, the party would be loathe to lose that support by shifting towards more radical solutions to the pressing problems of race, culture, and nation.  Truth be told, I’m more supportive of the latter mindset – that it is better to lay your cards on the table at the beginning and build in depth with more revolutionary support.  Of course, the assumption here is that the A3P leadership and I actually agree on these more radical ideals.  It may be that our vision is not congruent, and that the party program is what it is because that’s what the party leaders want it to be.  And, of course, A3P leadership has the right to formulate their own party’s positions as they see fit.  I merely make suggestions and offer some contrary views.

The A3P also has an excellent position on space exploration.

This is important; I am a very strong supporter of space exploration (both manned and unmanned).  This is part of Western Man’s Faustian soul, will yield important information and discoveries, and, hopefully, eventually lead to Western Man’s expansion into, and colonization of, space (assuming of course we are not first Third Worldized out of existence).  That the A3P has included space exploration as a key part of their program is therefore encouraging and demonstrates a willingness to look at long-term objectives, and also the ability to look beyond the standard “right-wing fare” (immigration, economy, crime, etc.). 

One point though is that they should go beyond space exploration and put together a broader position on overall science and Technology.  In other words they should also: encourage the development of alternative and novel sources of energy, promote advances in biomedical research (which should include not only basic research and that aimed at disease therapeutics, but also research on race and eugenics), stimulate development of advanced computing, and encourage continued and expanded research into the fabric of the universe and of reality itself (e.g., astronomy and, especially, both theoretical and applied advanced physics, cosmology, etc).  Further, Americans need to be in the lead of what can be called “global disaster abatement” – research aimed at investigating and, if possible, preventing asteroid strikes, super volcano eruptions, pandemics, environmental degradation, etc.  While some of the latter may seem like “science fiction,” that is more a function of our limited knowledge and imagination than it is to any real limitation of the possibilities. 

The A3P can also state an interest in Western cultural artifacts – an interest in opposing the current “Winter” of our High Culture, and its sewer-like degraded atmosphere, with a contrasting encouragement of Western cultural rebirth and the creation of a civilization that can make us, our ancestors, and our posterity proud.

In summary, there is some more work to be done and I hope that a bit of constructive criticism will be appreciated.  However, all in all, A3P seems at this point to be a very positive development, and I wish them well.

A major concern is that the landscape of “movement” history is littered with the scattered remnants of past projects that, initially, looked promising and generated enthusiasm, but quickly petered out due to lack of progress and direction, infighting, the action of infiltrators and agent provocateurs, diminished interest of activists with short attention spans, and the ability of the establishment to use a variety of methods to thwart nationalist progress.  We can hope that things will be different this time.

Bookmark and Share

Lasha Darkmoon: Germany Then — America Now!

/83 Comments/in , , , , /by

Lasha Darkmoon:  Kevin MacDonald’s recent review of William Marr’s 1870s pamphlet, The Victory of Judaism over Germanism,  raises many interesting questions. “Marr sees himself as a soldier fighting a lost cause,” MacDonald notes at one point, without making it clear if he agrees with Marr that it is indeed a lost cause.  

Since the parallels between Germany then and America now are too glaringly obvious to ignore, one is tempted to ask MacDonald: “And what about you, Kevin? Do you consider yourself a soldier fighting a lost cause?” 

MacDonald’s article ends with Marr’s chilling two-word prediction: FINIS GERMANIAE. (The end of Germany) 

We have seen it happen. Germany’s cadaver lies rotting. Exactly a year ago the state of Israel demanded from Germany a further 1 billion euros ($1.4 billion) in Holocaust reparations for its endlessly traumatized Jewish survivors. Sixty-five years after World War Two, the grim extortion racket continues unabated. 

Forget that. The thing we need to consider now is the parallel situation with America. Is it time to write America’s obituary? Or is it too early to say, FINIS AMERICAE — the end of America? 

*   *   *  

A confession of ignorance: I had no idea things were so bad in Germany in the 1870s when Marr wrote his prophetic treatise, only recently translated from German into English and now available in pdf format. I had been under the false impression that the notion of Jewish world domination came much later — after the publication of the Protocols (1903) and the Russian Revolution (1917). 

Here is a pertinent, relatively modern quotation which will serve as a useful coda to the doomladen citations from Marr that MacDonald presented. Read it carefully. It will not only hammer home the points made by Marr several decades earlier, it will also provide the reader with a sharp reminder of the parallel situation in which America finds itself today. 

With one significant difference: America is in a far worse condition.

Under the Jewish heel in pre-Hitler Germany :

 It was the Jews with their international affiliations and their hereditary flair for finance who were best able to seize such opportunities…They did so with such effect that, even in November 1938, after five years of anti-Semitic legislation and persecution, they still owned, according to the Times correspondent in Berlin, something like a third of the real property in the Reich [my emphasis]. Most of it came into their hands during the inflation… But to those who had lost their all, this bewildering transfer seemed a monstrous injustice. After prolonged sufferings they had now been deprived of their last possessions. They saw them pass into the hands of strangers, many of whom had not shared their sacrifices and who cared little or nothing for their national standards and traditions…

The Jews obtained a wonderful ascendancy in politics, business and the learned professions [in spite of constituting] less than one percent of the population [my emphasis]… The banks, including the Reichsbank and the big private banks, were practically controlled by them. So were the publishing trade, the cinema, the theatres and a large part of the press — all the normal means, in fact, by which public opinion in a civilized country is formed… The largest newspaper combine in the country with a daily circulation of four millions was a Jewish monopoly…

Every year it became harder and harder for a gentile to gain or keep a foothold in any privileged occupation [my emphasis]. … At this time it was not the ‘Aryans’ who exercised racial discrimination. It was a discrimination that operated without violence. It was exercised by a minority against a majority. There was no persecution, only elimination. … It was the contrast between the wealth enjoyed — and lavishly displayed — by aliens of cosmopolitan tastes, and the poverty and misery of native Germans, that has made anti-Semitism so dangerous and ugly a force in the new Europe. Beggars on horseback are seldom popular, least of all with those whom they have just thrown out of the saddle.

—   Sir Arthur Bryant, Unfinished Victory, 1940, (slightly edited for brevity).

*   *   * 

MacDonald notes elsewhere in his thought-provoking review of Marr’s pamphlet: “Marr correctly believed that societies centered around a strong collectivist religious core (e.g., medieval Christianity) or a strong sense of ethnic nationalism are more able to defend themselves against Jews.” 

We cannot help asking at this point: So how does America hope to protect itself against the Jews? (Or “organized Jewry”, to be more precise). Is there any hope for the beleaguered majority whose traditional values are now being destroyed by an alien elite who view their new subjects with hostility and contempt?   

Consider the two factors that are seen as an antidote to the Jewish poison: “a strong collectivist religious core” (i.e., Catholicism in some historical eras) and “ethnic nationalism” (e.g., the sense of being an American of European heritage). 

Ethnic nationalism in America, assuming it ever existed to the same degree as British or French nationalism existed, is now clearly in its death throes — thanks to multiculturalism and malignant immigration policies enacted as a result of Jewish activism — an activism that has helped to produce a polyglot mélange of multicolored folk forever at each other’s throats.

So what about Christianity as a cohesive countervailing force?  Why has Christianity failed so abysmally to counteract this spiritual virus? 

This is a question I am unable to answer.  Others, I am sure, will have their theories — and I wish them good luck. 

Despite its history as the only Western institution that has been able at times to stand up to Jewish power, the Catholic Church, of which I am a hopelessly dysfunctional practising member, has proved to be an acute disappointment. It has been thoroughly subverted from within and without. It offers neither guidance nor leadership.

So forget the Catholics—a spent force—many of them, I regret to say, almost as daft and deluded as their competitors in folly, the evangelical Christians.  

I am also forced to conclude, with a heavy heart, that there is little hope that American Protestants could come to the rescue. Its infatuated legions — namely, the 50-70 million Christian Zionists who constitute the most influential group of American Protestants — are as rabid in every way as the fanatical Jews who have infected them with their zealotry, egging them on to find solace in eschatological ecstasies and millenarian mumbojumbo. 

Life is indeed so empty and sterile for these wretched lumpengoyim that the only thing that excites their sluggish sensitivities is the prospect of Armageddon and the thought of universal and catastrophic death — the quicker the better.  

Whipped into a frenzy of religious fervor by the Grahams and the Robertsons, the Falwells and the Hagees, the Lindseys and the La Hayes, these Christian Zionists have become imitation Jews almost indistinguishable from Jabotinski and Baruch Goldstein. They believe in a Greater Israel — entailing further conquests of Arab Land — and in the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. They have “adopted” illegal settlements and directly finance with their donations the bulldozing of Palestinian homes, the uprooting of olive trees, and the daily oppression of the rightful owners of the Holy Land. They pray every Sunday in their vast soulless churches for the destruction of Iran. And if push came to shove, they would gladly give their blessings to genocide — and call it “the will of God.”     

There are now 80,000 fundamentalist pastors and clergy preaching their message of madness to these ill-educated Christian masses — in many ways as gullible and gormless as medieval peasants.  The pernicious views of their “pastors” are disseminated by 1000 local Christian radio stations as well as 100 Christian TV stations. See here. 

*   *   * 

Consider the unimaginable war crimes committed by the state of Israel exactly a year ago in Gaza. The world saw it happen. Judge Goldstone saw it happen. His meticulously documented report makes it abundantly clear that Israel is a criminal nation and that its politicians and generals are as steeped in criminality as their Nazi persecutors and recent role models in racism ever were. 

Yet here is Christian Zionist Grace Halsell, like a character straight out of Alice in Wonderland, preaching to the starry-eyed Christians who offer incense to Israel: “Every act taken by Israel is orchestrated by God, and should be condoned, supported, and even praised by the rest of us.” 

The American government appears to agree with this demonic drivel.   

Enthralled by organized Jewry, mercenary and corrupt to the core, this shambolic apology for a government — this psychopathocracy masquerading as a democracy — recently came out in overwhelming condemnation of the Goldstone Report. 

America is dead.  

Behold the New Zion!

Bookmark and Share

Charles Dodgson’s "Get Smart! and Birth of a Nation: Lessons for White Cultural Emancipation"

/6 Comments/in , , , , , /by

I hope people get a chance to read Charles Dodgson’s latest TOO article. The critical take-home point is the power of the media in shaping attitudes. The Birth of a Nation of 1915 was a powerful call to White racial awareness and defense. Right now, there is a huge amount of anger among Whites in America, but it will probably be channeled within politically acceptable boundaries —boundaries in which White racial consciousness and the need for racial defense will remain beyond the pale of acceptable political discourse. Hence the  energetic attempts at containment by organizations like the ADL and the $PLC aimed at completely cleansing the mainstream media of anything remotely likely to legitimize White racial consciousness and defense (even Glenn Beck).  As Dodgson notes, “White Americans will continue to lose the culture war — and their freedom and identity — until they retake the commanding heights of mass entertainment and guard that position with the same determination with which their forebears defended the nation’s physical borders.”