Page 183 – The Occidental Observer

Lance Welton on Jewish ethnocentrism: Fairness, Paranoia, and Self-Deception

April 20, 2021/32 Comments/in Ethnocentrism, Featured Articles, Jewish Double Standards on Immigration and Multiculturalism in Israel vs. the Diaspora, Jewish Self-deception, Jewish Support for Multiculturalism, Jewish Traits/by Kevin MacDonald

Lance Welton’s article on VDARE is a nice summary of research on Jewish ethnocentrism and its consequences: “Did the ADL Think It Could Get Away with Hypocrisy on Replacement in U.S. vs. Israel? Answer: It Probably Didn’t Think At All.” As noted below, some of his presentation touches on my Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition as well as my books on Judaism.

Welton:

“Fairness,” as I noted in my article on blacks, is “impartial and just treatment or behavior without favoritism or discrimination.” This is a high-order value which demands that you put aside nepotism, ethnocentrism, and even personal gain, in favor of this abstract goal. So, on this basis, would we expect Jews to be as high in “fairness” as Whites?

No. Firstly, there is abundant evidence that Jews are more ethnocentric than whites; meaning they cooperate strongly with their own people and are hostile to other peoples. Jews have been stereotyped as being highly ethnocentric throughout their history, as Kevin MacDonald showed in his 1994 book A People That Shall Dwell Alone [Chap 8, 228ff]. There is overwhelming evidence that racial stereotypes, like all stereotypes, tend to be true; that’s why they develop [Social Perception and Social Reality, By Lee Jussim, 2012].

This goes very deep. Jewish babies react with far greater horror to strangers of a different ethnic group than do German babies [Security of Infant-Mother, -Father, and -Metapelet Attachments Among Kibbutz-Reared Israeli Children, by Abraham Sagi et al., Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 1985].

Data from the University of Wisconsin’s MIDUS survey of middle-aged Americans demonstrated that among Whites there is a positive correlation between how religious you are and how group-oriented you are. However, the same study found that Jews are the most ethnocentric—group-oriented religious group—even though they were the least religious group of those surveyed. When factors such as intelligence (which tends to make people less ethnocentric) and religiousness level were controlled for, Jews were still way more ethnocentric than the gentile White groups. (This is discussed in Religiosity as a Predictor of In-Group Favoritism Within and Between Religious Groups, by Curtis Dunkel & Edward Dutton, Personality and Individual Differences, 2016).

If you take into account the number of Jews in a population compared to the number of Whites, then the extent to which Jews “marry out” is far lower. Jews are about 49 times less likely to marry someone of a different faith than Protestants are, for example. [See Andrew Joyce’s “The Cofnas Problem.“]. The most obvious explanation for this, in the context of the other research: ethnocentrism. Jews seem to be evolved to be higher in ethnocentrism [see “A Genetic Perspective on Individualism/Collectivism,” A People That Shall Dwell Alone, Ch. 8: p. 236ff], something that would be heightened by their small gene pool; with people tending to be more ethnocentric when the gene pool is small [Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence, By Gregory Cochran et al., Journal of Biosocial Science, 2006]. This higher ethnocentrism would make them less able to suppress ethnocentric instincts in favor of creating fairness than are gentile Whites.

Fairness is one of the traits that is higher in Western societies based on individualism versus the kinship-based societies of the rest of the world. Joseph Henrich and colleagues reviewed research showing differences between subjects from Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic (WEIRD) nations and subjects in a wide range of other cultures, finding important differences in fairness and moral reasoning. This is reviewed in Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition:

In non-Western societies based on extended kinship, morality is defined in terms of whether an action satisfies obligations within the family or kinship group, whereas in individualist societies, morality is thought of as satisfying abstract notions of justice such as Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative: Act according to the maxim that you could wish all other rational people to follow, as if it were a universal law. … The differences between individualist and collectivist cultures—whether in fairness and altruistic punishment, moral reasoning, cognition, or perception—are all “of a piece;” they all fit into a consistent pattern in which Westerners detach themselves from social, cognitive, and perceptual contexts, whereas non-Westerners see the world in a deeply embedded manner. This pattern is highly consistent with Western peoples being more prone to scientific reasoning (p. 110).

On the other hand, collectivist cultures—my view is that Judaism is a paradigmatic collectivist culture—see the world from the standpoint of group interests, so that even scientific reasoning in the social sciences is performed through the lens of group interests. Hence, The Culture of Critique.

The Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic (WEIRD) people discussed in Chapter 3 developed scientific and scholarly associations in the post-medieval West which assume groups are permeable and highly subject to defection—that there is a marketplace of ideas in which individuals may defect from current scientific views when they believe that the data support alternate perspectives. On the other hand, collectivist cultures create group-oriented intellectual movements based on dogmatic assertions, fealty to group leaders, ethnic networking, and expulsion of dissenters [i.e., the thesis of The Culture of Critique]. …

Moreover, … WEIRD people tend more toward analytical reasoning (detaching objects from context, attending to characteristics of the object and developing rules for explaining and predicting phenomena) as opposed to holistic reasoning (attending to relationships between objects and surrounding field). Westerners tend to categorize objects on the basis of rules that are independent of function and hence more abstract whereas non-Westerners are more likely to categorize on the basis of function and contextual relationship. Science is fundamentally concerned with creating abstract rules independent of context and developing explanations and predictions of phenomena in the empirical world. Such traits, which can be seen even in the ancient Greco-Roman world of antiquity, clearly predispose to scientific thinking. …

For collectivists, moral reasoning involves taking account of the social context, which is fundamentally centered on fitting into and strengthening a kinship group. For individualists, the social world involves a greater need to interact with strangers and to consider their reputation for respecting impersonal rules. …

Individuals are evaluated as individuals on traits—e.g., honesty, intelligence, military talent, and the logic and usefulness of their arguments—in abstraction from their (relatively weak) kinship connections. Moral situations are evaluated in terms of abstract concepts of justice that apply to all individuals rather than being vitally concerned with social obligations to particular people enmeshed in a particular extended kinship network. When confronting the natural world, individualists more easily abstract from social context and personal experience, seeking out and applying universally applicable laws of nature.

Back to Welton:

In addition, there is evidence that Jews are perfectly happy for a situation to be unfair. One study compared religious groups in the US—Baptists, Catholics, Methodists, Jews, and Atheists/Agnostics—and asked people what they thought was most important to live a “good life.” Jews, in contrast to all the other groups, highlighted “extra money” [“For Tomorrow We Die”? Testing the Accuracy of Stereotypes about Atheists and Agnostics, by Edward Dutton & Curtis Dunkel, Mankind Quarterly, 2019]. They see it as important to be richer than other people in a way that the whites do not, which implies that they are less concerned about a possibly unfair situation as long as they benefit. And, being more intelligent than gentile Whites on average (as Richard Lynn has shown in his book The Chosen People) they will better be able to rationalize achieving such an advantage, as intelligent people are typically better at finding ways of rationalizing their biases [Why smart people aren’t better at transcending their biased views, by Tauriq Mousa, The Big Think, June 13, 2012].

Finally, Jews are less mentally stable than Whites. Ashkenazi Jews have significantly elevated levels of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, both of which can make people paranoid [Genome-Wide Association Study of Schizophrenia in Ashkenazi Jews, by Fernando Goes et al., American Journal of Medical Genetics, 2015]. When people are paranoid, they are less interested in what is “fair”—they are interested simply in surviving and doing so may involve being very “unfair.” People with paranoid personalities tend to be hypocritical and self-seeking [Understanding Paranoia, by Martin Kantor, 2004, p.71].

Because Jews are better at finding ways of rationalizing away their bias and hypocrisy, they may well not believe that they are being “unfair” at all [a kind of self-deception one expects to find among highly ethnocentric people—Ch. 8 of Separation and Its Discontents and elaborated by Andrew Joyce here]. In this sense, it can be said that intelligent yet paranoid people do not “know themselves”—meaning that they live in a fantasy world in which there is nothing wrong with them; only with others.

This personality type will see the world as packed full of hostile persecutors who want to destroy them, meaning that an obviously Mostly Peaceful protest at the Capitol becomes an “insurrection” in which people could have been killed.

This personality type will also engage in “paranoid projection,” whereby they purport to find an aspect of themselves they dislike in others, causing them to despise these people. “I hate them” becomes “They hate me,” based on finding some minor evidence of this. Hence the Leftist obsession with how “hateful” their opponents are [8 Key Traits of Paranoid Thinkers, by Shahram Heshmat, Psychology Today. February 24, 2016].

It’s interesting in this regard that paranoia about the surrounding world is a very central aspect of Jewish culture—analyzed as what behavior geneticists label genotype-environment correlation (e.g., paranoid parents with genetic predispositions to paranoia would socialize their children (who share their genes for paranoia) in a manner that would reinforce a worldview that the outside world is dangerous). From A People That Shall Dwell Alone, Ch. 7:

A permanent sense of imminent threat appears to be common among Jews. Writing on the clinical profile of Jewish families, Herz and Rosen (1982) note that for Jewish families a “sense of persecution (or its imminence) is part of a cultural heritage and is usually assumed with pride. Suffering is even a form of sharing with one’s fellow-Jews. It binds Jews with their heritage—with the suffering of Jews throughout history.” Zborowski and Herzog (1952, 153) note that the homes of wealthy Jews in traditional Eastern European shtetl communities sometimes had secret passages for use in times of anti-Semitic pogroms, and that their existence was “part of the imagery of the children who played around them, just as the half-effaced memory was part of every Jew’s mental equipment.”

This evolved response to external threat is often manipulated by Jewish authorities attempting to inculcate a stronger sense of group identification. Hartung (1992) provides anecdotal data on the emphasis on Jewish suffering and its exaggeration as aspects of modern synagogue service. Such practices have a long history. Roth (1978, 62) notes that Jewish “martyrologists” maintained lists of Jewish martyrs for commemoration during synagogue services during the Middle Ages, and Jordan (1989, 20) refers to the “forbidding martyrocentric self-image” during this period.

Woocher (1986) shows that Jewish survival in a threatening world is a theme of Judaism as a civil religion in contemporary America. Within this world view, the gentile world is viewed as fundamentally hostile, with Jewish life always on the verge of ceasing to exist entirely. “Like many other generations of Jews who have felt similarly, the leaders of the polity who fear that the end may be near have transformed this concern into a survivalist weapon” (Woocher 1986, 73). Woocher (1986) notes that there has been a major effort since the 1960s to have American Jews visit Israel in an effort to strengthen Jewish identification, with a prominent aspect of the visit being a trip to a border outpost “where the ongoing threat to Israel’s security is palpable” (p. 150).

Or, as Elliott Abrams (Faith or Fear, 190) wrote, “the American Jewish community clings to what is at bottom a dark vision of America, as a land permeated with anti-Semitism and always on the verge of anti-Semitic outbursts.”

Hence the Jewish motivation for diversifying America, the theme of Chapter 7 of The Culture of Critique (corroborated by Otis Graham (Unguarded Gates [2004]: 80), who notes that the Jewish lobby on immigration “was aimed not just at open doors for Jews, but also for a diversification of the immigration stream sufficient to eliminate the majority status of western Europeans so that a fascist regime in America would be more unlikely.” The motivating role of fear and insecurity on the part of the activist Jewish community thus differed from other groups and individuals promoting an end to the national origins provisions of the 1924 and 1952 laws.

Writing in the 1970s, Isaacs (1974: 14ff) describes the pervasive insecurity of American Jews and their hypersensitivity to anything that might be deemed anti-Semitic. Interviewing “noted public men” on the subject of anti-Semitism in the early 1970s, Isaacs asked, “Do you think it could happen here?” “Never was it necessary to define ‘it.’ In almost every case, the reply was approximately the same: ‘If you know history at all, you have to presume not that it could happen, but that it probably will,’ or ‘It’s not a matter of if; it’s a matter of when.’ ” (p. 15).

Writing long after the passage of the 1965 law, prominent Jewish social scientist and ethnic activist Earl Raab remarked very positively on the success of American immigration policy in altering the ethnic composition of the United States. Writing for a Jewish publication, Raab noted that the Jewish community had taken a leadership role in changing the northwestern European bias of American immigration policy (Raab, 1993a, 17), and he also maintained that one factor inhibiting anti-Semitism in the contemporary United States is that “an increasing ethnic heterogeneity, as a result of immigration, has made it even more difficult for a political party or mass movement of bigotry to develop” (Raab, 1995b, 91). (Culture of Critique, Ch. 7).

Welton concludes:

The self-centeredness and implicit unfairness of the ADL operatives’ fantasy world means they indeed might very well not have thought at all about what to any outside observer appears to be the utter hypocrisy of their position on the Great Replacement [via immigration] in the U.S. as opposed to Israel.

For such people, objective truth is “defamation”—but their “defamation” of others is objective truth.

Any objective observer would indeed have to agree that the ADL is utterly hypocritical in its stance toward immigration in Israel versus the United States. But activist Jews like Jonathan Greenblatt may not even be aware of it due to their powerful tendencies toward ethnocentrism and its corollary of self-deception. And now these people are firmly ensconced in the hostile elite that is running the United States. A dire situation indeed for the traditional White population of America.

Review of Andre Øvredal’s “Mortal” (2020)

April 18, 2021/8 Comments/in Featured Articles/by Bryan Christopher Sawyer

Mortal is a 2020 English-language Norwegian film based on Norse mythology co-written and directed by André Øvredal (interviewed here). It begins with a strange traveler stumbling out of the wood under a dark gray clouded sky as the early evening sets in the land of the midnight sun. He can’t travel as a man among the ruins, unnoticed and unmolested. A marginal in the modern world, it isn’t long before he crosses the path of a degenerate youth of the type dragging down Scandinavia. For the stranger, he’s just a dumb punk who can’t handle the request of “leave me alone.” The wiggers yell at him from their auto, and the stranger warns, “If you touch me, you will burn.” It only takes a second. . .

There’s a fire rising from within him but there’s no control. It’s unclear whether our protagonist is harnessing this power from some unseen inner core or it’s simply an uninhibited force using him as it’s instrument. The only known catalyst for the onset of these strange powers seems to be his raw unchecked emotions. The pain overtakes him. His chest heaves. His skin burns, cracking and peeling…

The scene shifts to Christine, a sweet-faced, yet seemingly hapless therapist who works for the state. Hired recently, she’s already failed at the starting line and lost a client to suicide. We’re introduced to her through the condolences of her supervisor. “No one’s blaming you. Not the parents, no one. . . . Unfortunately, these things happen. Therapy doesn’t always help.”

Blaming herself, Christine cries to her friend. State-sponsored therapists are the last line of defense against suicides. They have the essential authority when measures have to be taken to institutionalize potential suicides before they self-harm. This is often against the will of their patients. She blames herself, insisting that all of the signals were there, but she simply didn’t want to believe it. One could surmise that she feels the guilt of someone who didn’t prevent a tragedy because they didn’t want to be bothered.

She takes an incoming call. Her services are now required by the police. After regaining her composure, she makes her way toward a small Norwegian town at the foot of a misty hilltop covered in coniferous trees. A dark primal green still rules this land, never out of sight. Her counterpart in law enforcement greets her in the lobby. Henrik is an old veteran of the force with a hard-featured Aryan face and two perennially calm ice blue eyes that betray the kind of deep thoughtfulness that comes with decades of life experience predicting the actions and outcomes of mankind’s most aberrant and abominable.

He informs her they have in custody one Eric Bergland, the Norwegian-American backpacker looking for distant relations who’d gone missing three years ago after a fire at a farm in Årdal that left five dead. He’s not been seen or heard from since then, and he’s wanted for questioning. The Crime Unit is on its way, and time is of the essence to get Bergland to speak about the freshly roasted corpse he left on the roadside, the corpse of one young legend-in-his-own-mind who had an entire lifetime of perpetual adolescence ahead of him.

Nervously she approaches Bergland and begins an interview with the passable English she possesses. She’s unsure whether or not he’s even competent for the conversation. Slowly he begins to explain. To Christine’s surprise he wasn’t even sure if everyone had died in the blaze at the farmhouse he was initially sought for. As he comes to the realization of the amount of death he’s caused, a tear runs down his face. The scruffy backpacker seems overtaken by anxiety as the young therapist watches the water bubble from the glass of water routinely given to those being questioned. Reaching a hand forward, palm down, he begins to raise droplets of the liquid to his hand, defying gravity. The room is suddenly supercharged with electrical energy whose static causes strands of his interlocutor’s blonde hair to stand on end.

Øvredal’s Norway is a primal land of low magic—an archaic elementalism that Eric does not understand. He heats up from the inside like a dynamo. With the breadth of his powers now becoming apparent, the cavalry swoops in. The United States has sent its most highly over-esteemed Third-World Janissary as the representative of Uncle Sam on earth.

The casting in Øvredal’s films is free of affirmative action hires. Those few lesser-thans who make their appearance serve as characters who are typically contemptible and at best pathetically naïve. There are no Black Vikings hiding behind a megalith—traditional horror film rules still apply. Here the role of America’s hired muscle is an Indian woman with a British accent — someone alien to a wayward American. Though she acts with the authority of the US government none among us would call her a fellow American.

The dusky-hued face of life, liberty and the pursuit of global hegemony.

The character of Christine, though having only just met the man, fulfills her natural feminine role by pacifying the rage and anxiety in this lost soul. The strength of her character isn’t in the way she reacts to danger or the dialogue she has in this supporting role. It’s in the power to bring out growth in a man and maintain a shelter in the storm. A feminine role that complements the masculine rather than challenges it. This portrayal of the natural aesthetic polarity of the sexes is refreshing when one considers the overabundance of obligatory “battle broads” that Tinsel Town’s trash heap has been shelling out.

Throughout his other films, the special effects seep into the environment and seamlessly flow through their interactions with other characters and their surroundings. It is a characteristic of the Norwegian filmmaker to never portray a character with utter disbelief. Surprise? Yes. Terror? Often. But none in his plots elicit hysterical denial. They believe what they see. They don’t understand it, but they fear it.

Eventually Eric has no choice but to run to the only human offering him comfort in the years that have passed since he entered the forest.

Now seeking help, the little group pulls up to a river dock to cross the waterway. “I love ferries. It’s like taking a break from the real world for a few minutes,” Christine states matter-of-factly to Eric. It’s not a dreamy or romantic tone, but a statement of principle.

They learn shortly that the noose is tightening. Eric is having visions that put him in a passive state with a serene dreamy look on his face. He’s seeing things beyond our world and time. Different worlds. . . and a great tree. The most beautiful tree that fills the horizon. Yggdrasil? Christine wonders if he’s a messiah of some kind.

One of many depictions of Yggdrasil, the Tree of Life in Norse Mythology

Hardanger Bridge is the busiest bridge in all of Norway. It lies between Bergen and Oslo, the country’s largest cities. A confrontation during rush hour there means the whole world is watching. It isn’t just the traffic that will grind to a halt that concerns them—everyone will see the videos they share on social media. This, above all is what the government creep of alphabet soup agencies is trying to avoid. He cannot be allowed to manifest his powers in a major city.

But there’s no denying it now. The U.S. sent their ‘girl Friday’ with a license to kill. The condescending Third Worlder knows the national security risk. But the state is always weaker than religion. She makes the phone call, regardless. “Imagine in a few days when people realize what he represents … or what he doesn’t represent. Imagine Christians, Muslims—everyone who believes in a god. Suddenly a god-like human proves they are all wrong. He doesn’t represent any of them. What happens then?” She ends by concluding that a final solution has been determined. “I’ll make sure it happens.” We don’t need to hear her orders to know what she’s planning next.

They try to stop him at the center of the bridge. A Norwegian hasn’t earned himself this much attention from the police services since Breivik. The sky goes black as his passions seize him. Eric is cornered. This time the full spectrum of the titanic abilities he wields is on display. There’s no denying it now.

By now the origins of his god-like destruction are obvious. Taken again under the wing of the state, they study the confused young superbeing. An ethereal call draws Eric into the orbit of the farmhouse inhabited by his ancestors, the source of whatever the polar force that has possessed him is radiating from. Gaining passage to the subterranean causeway deep within a cold dark earth, he searches among the cellar roots to find that which is most sacred and long forgotten by many. The spiritual origins of this great Northern people.

Mortal has a serious and respectable tone. It would appear to be an attempt to rescue Norse mythology from Hollywood depictions such as the popcorn-funded hipster kitsch of JJ Abrams’ latest abortions or the ominous tenor of Ari Aster’s Midsommar (2019) – a fascinating film in its own right but secular in its aesthetics. This director has proven himself as one to watch out for as he fluctuates between larger budget studio films and his more personal projects when the profits from the former are used to bring his intimate creations to life.

Blacks Bless the Benighted West: The Sacred Central Principle of Modern Western Politics and Culture

April 16, 2021/18 Comments/in British Politics, Featured Articles/by Tobias Langdon

Two views on non-Whites are permitted in the modern West. The first view is leftist and rules the media, academia, law, education, government bureaucracy, big business, sports and all leftist parties. It states: “Non-Whites are a limitless blessing and whites are cruelly oppressing them.” The second view is cuckservative and states: “Non-Whites are a limitless blessing and whites no longer oppress them as cruelly as they once did.”

Whitey in the Woodpile: The eleven members of the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities

It was the second, cuckservative view that was laid out for the people of Brave New Britain in the recently published report by the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities (CRED). But the cuckservative conclusions of CRED were no surprise. After all, Britain has a cuckservative government and it appointed the commissioners who wrote the report. The part-Jewish, part-Turkish prime minister Boris Johnson and his fellow Friends of Israel knew what they wanted and the commissioners have duly supplied it: “We no longer see a Britain where the system is deliberately rigged against ethnic minorities. … The Commission believes that if [our] recommendations are implemented, it will give a further burst of momentum to the story of our country’s progress to a successful multicultural community — a beacon to the rest of Europe and the world.”

Shred the CRED

Yes, the report claims that Britain, with its rape-gangs, suicide-bombers and acid-throwers, will serve as a beacon to European nations like Hungary and Poland, which don’t have rape-gangs, suicide-bombers or acid-throwers because they haven’t been enriched by non-White immigration. But just as predictable as the fatuities of the report has been the response of Britain’s cuckservatives and leftists. Cuckservatives have warmly welcomed the report and leftists have loudly condemned it. The report was variously described in the Guardian as “disturbing,” “nonsensical,” “deeply cynical,” “egregious,” “poisonously patronising,” “historically illiterate,” “insulting to our intelligence,” and, of course, “divisive.”

All smiles and happy collaboration: typically leftist propaganda on a typically cuckservative report

For leftists, it is always “divisive” when someone disagrees with them. But BoJo & Co. were careful to avoid one potential complaint from the left: they followed a strict leftist rule by ensuring that the Commissioners were almost all non-White. And so it was that the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities was itself a glaring — and entirely unaddressed — example of a “Race and Ethnic Disparity.” In a country that is still about 80% White, the Commissioners had to be 90% non-White because it is non-Whites who decide how wonderful non-Whites are and how much of a blessing mass immigration has been. The White majority doesn’t get a vote on that.

“Heroic” murderers, rapists and pimps

And never has had a vote. After all, if Whites had been allowed to vote on whether Britain should allow mass immigration by non-Whites, they would overwhelmingly have voted “No.” And don’t take just my word for it: the treasonous leftist politician Roy Hattersley, a former deputy leader of the Labour party, proudly announced in 2013 that he had refused to support “what a clear majority of my constituents, and most of the country, undoubtedly wanted [in 1964] — the repatriation of all Commonwealth immigrants.” The CRED report did not discuss this sensible White resistance to non-White immigration, except in so far as White resistance cast a literally “heroic” light on non-Whites. On page 7 of the report, we meet one of the giants of contemporary literature:

[Black] Poet and activist Linton Kwesi Johnson describes the early mass Black presence in the UK as having 2 phases or eras. The first was the 1950s Windrush arrival from the Caribbean, this he called the ‘heroic’ period, when literally doors were closed in the faces of the new Black settlers who heroically battled in the face of adversity. [Note clumsy prose and punctuation.] The children of those settlers … who came of age in the 1970s and 1980s he calls the ‘rebel’ generation, this featured running battles with police and a breakdown in community relations, which continues to have a negative legacy. [More clumsy prose.] The spirit of rebellion continued last summer during the Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests. This was a revolt that engulfed the world. We have to acknowledge the spirit of BLM was the original trigger for our report. (Report by Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, March 2021)

The talentless and unintelligent Linton Kwesi Johnson

“Poet and activist” Linton Kwesi Johnson (born 1952 in Jamaica) didn’t mention that the “Black settlers” also “heroically battled” to raise the abysmally low rates of murder, rape, robbery, pimping and anti-social noise in stale, pale 1950s and ’60s Britain. Or that they battled on behalf of the predatory Jewish landlord Peter Rachman (1919–62), who would install violent and noisy Blacks to drive White tenants out of houses he wanted to buy or convert into flats. But Johnson’s omissions aren’t surprising. Here is a sample of the patois poetry that has won him acclaim and honours for decades:

Inglan is a Bitch

W’en mi jus’ come to Landan toun
Mi use to work pan di andahgroun
But workin’ pan di andahgroun
Yu don’t get fi know your way around.

Inglan is a bitch
Dere’s no escapin it
Inglan is a bitch
Dere’s no runnin’ whey fram it.

Mi get a lickle jab in a bih ’otell
An’ awftah a while, mi woz doin’ quite well
Dem staat mi aaf as a dish-washah
But w’en mi tek a stack, mi noh tun clack-watchah.

Inglan is a bitch
Dere’s no escapin it
Inglan is a bitch
No baddah try fi hide fram it. (Inglan is a Bitch)

Linton Kwesi Johnson is, of course, a leftist and will not agree with the report’s findings. But talentless and unintelligent Blacks like him had to appear before the Commission because negrolatry is an essential part of minority worship in general. Blacks are the most harmful, obnoxious, unintelligent, unattractive and unproductive of all minorities. In other words, they are the group that least resembles Whites, which is precisely why the hostile Jewish elite selected Blacks for transformation into the archetypal saintly victims of White oppression. As Kevin MacDonald has documented, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in America was run and funded not by Blacks, but by Jews. In Britain, the Jewish lawyer Anthony Lester (1936–2020) proudly described how he brought the American model of minority worship to Britain:

In Search of Something Better: Anthony Lester recalls the creation of the Commission for Racial Equality

In 1964, on my return from witnessing the “Long Hot Summer” of civil rights action in the American South, I helped found CARD (the Campaign Against Racial Discrimination). We campaigned for effective legislation to combat racism in Britain. The first measure — the Race Relations Act 1965 — was hopelessly narrow and lacked teeth, so we fought for something better. When CARD was taken over by militant extremists, in December 1967, Jim Rose [another Jewish lawyer] and I founded the Runnymede Trust to combat racial prejudice and promote policies for overcoming racial discrimination and disadvantage. Labour’s second measure, the Race Relations Act 1968, was broader in scope but still lacked teeth. So again we campaigned for something better. (Catalyst magazine, 20th November 2006)

Anthony Lester, Baron of Bullshit

By “better,” Lester meant “better for invading non-Whites, worse for native Whites.” He was praised in his Guardian obituary as “the author of the groundbreaking legislation on racial and gender equality introduced in Britain by Harold Wilson’s Labour government in the 1970s.” Alas, the obituary also noted “a sad coda to his career,” arising “from a complaint by the author and charity worker Jasvinder Sanghera, who waived her right to anonymity to assert that in 2006 she had been subjected to sexual harassment by Lester and … offered a peerage in exchange for sexual favours.”

No mention of Muslim rape-gangs

Lester, who became a Baron in 1993, strenuously denied the accusations, but it was yet another example of how Jews have been vastly over-represented among those accused of sexual predation in recent years. This “Race and Ethnic Disparity” was definitely not examined in the CRED report, which also declined to examine any other kind of “Disparity” about those who commit crime and those who are its victims. For example, the report did not investigate the statistical anomalies whereby non-Whites murder and rape Whites at higher absolute rates than vice versa. And so the hard-working Muslim rape-gangs of Rotherham and many other British towns and cities were not mentioned in the report. In fact, the word “rape” appears only in a footnote on page 146. There was no discussion, therefore, of that remarkable representative of the heroic Black settlement of Britain, the mass gerontophile rapist Delroy Easton Grant, who may have sexually assaulted hundreds of elderly White women after his arrival here from Jamaica.

Heroic Black rapist Delroy Easton Grant

Grant certainly caused the premature death of some of those women, but he wasn’t a deliberate murderer like the Black rapist Leroy Campbell, who raped and murdered a White nurse, Lisa Skidmore, after previously serving a so-called “life-sentence” for rape and other offences. The judge who gave him a second (and perhaps genuine) life-sentence said this: “Miss Skidmore had to suffer the pain and terror of being raped by someone in her own home before she died. This was a sustained incident lasting over two hours. There was a significant degree of planning that went into the commission of these grotesque offences. Your actions on that day have had a most dramatic effect on a number of people.”

Meteor malefactors

But the Black genius for vicious crime is by no means confined to rape and murder. For example, three enterprising young Blacks were jailed in 2018 for a “‘shocking’ spree of brutal robberies … across London” in which they had sprayed “acid and alkali” into the faces of their victims. The three young Blacks did not express remorse for their crimes, probably because they didn’t feel any. Black psychopathy and its probable genetic roots were something else that the CRED report did not discuss.

Heroic Black rapist-murderer Leroy Campbell

But that’s unsurprising. High-achieving Blacks like Delroy Grant, Leroy Campbell and the acid-throwers of London are not celebrated in Brave New Britain. They are what you might call meteor malefactors, whose misdeeds flash across the headlines and then vanish forever. But Black criminals have been having “a most dramatic effect” on the White majority ever since Blacks began arriving here in the 1950s against the clearly expressed opposition of the White majority. The CRED report did not discuss this prolonged Black predation on Whites or undertake the admittedly herculean task of estimating how many Whites have been murdered, raped, beaten and otherwise harmed by Blacks during the heroic Black settlement and subsequent Black rebellions.

A cuckservative and her controllers: Priti Patel with convicted Jewish fraudster Sir Gerald Ronson and
Jewish Board of Deputies leader Marie van der Zyl

But the Commission wasn’t set up by the cuckservative government to investigate the harm done to Whites by Blacks. As I pointed out at the beginning, both leftists and cuckservatives are agreed on the sacred central principle of politics and culture: that Blacks Bless the Benighted West. Leftists and cuckservatives merely disagree about whether Whites are as evil and oppressive towards non-Whites as they used to be. Cuckservatives don’t think Whites are, but Whites are still forbidden to have any say on how wonderful Blacks in particular are.

That’s why the Commission itself was headed by a Black, Dr Tony Sewell, who thereby gave the whole proceedings that essential glow of Numinous Negritude. At least, he did so in cuckservative and libertarian eyes. To leftists, however, Sewell is a “coconut” (brown on the outside, white on the inside), “race traitor” and “house negro” working for Whitey. How dare Sewell suggest that Britain was not “institutionally racist” and that minorities could achieve success by their own efforts despite White racism?

Crushing the left, ending the racism racket

The Marxist libertarian Brendan O’Neill hastened to the defence of Sewell and other non-Whites behind the report, condemning the “identitarian bigots” who were accusing Sewell and others of betraying their own kind. O’Neill threw up his hands in horror at “the racial conformism outrageously demanded by sections of the left” and spoke darkly of “the rise of a kind of woke racism.” In other words, he was firing the most powerful weapon in the cuckservative and libtard armoury: the deadly and devastating argument that leftists are the real racists. Well, people like O’Neill think it’s a devastating argument. Of course, they’ve been using it for decades and it’s never had the slightest effect, but they remain eternally optimistic that with just one or two more repetitions it will crush the left and end the “racism racket.”

It won’t, of course. Nor will this cuckservative report by the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities. One big reason for that was noted by Commissioners themselves: “We recognise that building a confident, successful multi-ethnic society is a huge and difficult endeavour.” In fact, it’s an impossible endeavour, but even if it were merely “huge and difficult,” one glaring question would remain unaddressed. Why did Britain need to become a “multi-ethnic society”? What was lacking in the land of Shakespeare, Newton, Milton, Darwin, Watt, Hume and many other giants of art, science and philosophy before it became “multi-ethnic”? What overwhelming advantages has Britain gained by importing huge numbers of illiberal tribalists with low average IQs from corrupt, violent and intellectually void countries like Pakistan, Jamaica and Somalia?

No action by cuckservatives

No advantages whatsoever, that I can see. But I and many others can plainly see the huge disadvantages of mass immigration from the Third World. They include suicide bombing, rape-gangs, honour killings, female genital mutilation, inbreeding, exotic diseases, censorship, political corruption and the massive transfer of White taxes to subsidize unproductive but fast-breeding non-Whites. And thanks to imported non-White pathologies — and the hard work of Jewish activists like Anthony Lester — ever-harshening laws have been passed to restrict the free speech and free association of British Whites, even as an immoral and voyeuristic surveillance state pries ever more closely into their private lives.

The Report by the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities is not going to mitigate any of those pathologies, let alone end them. As I pointed out at the beginning, the leftist view of race relations — “Blacks are Saints, Whites are Demons” — rules the media, academia, law, education, government bureaucracy, big business, sports and all leftist parties. This cuckservative government isn’t going to make any attempt to change that. For example, Tamara Finkelstein, a high-flying Jewish bureaucrat who is the “Joint Senior Sponsor of the Civil Service Jewish Network,” has supported Black Lives Matter (BLM) on an official government Twitter account and issued the stirring call to “fight racism.” Have she and similar promoters of “far-left identity politics” been reprimanded in any way? Not in the slightest. After all, Tamara is the sister of the high-flying Conservative peer Daniel Finkelstein and her commitment to “anti-racism” is almost certainly the same as his.

Like sister, like brother: the anti-White Jews Tamara and Daniel Finkelstein

And it was the so-called Conservative prime minister Theresa May who added “Stephen Lawrence Day” to Britain’s religious calendar. The day honours Britain’s new patron saint, a Black teenager who died after being stabbed twice by a gang of “white racists” in 1993. It was a very rare and unusual crime, because Blacks are overwhelmingly murdered by other Blacks, not by Whites. Blacks also murder Whites much more often than the reverse. But none of that matters to the martyr cult of St Stephen Lawrence, which endlessly repeats the lie that Whites are an ominous and ever-present threat to non-Whites and their welfare.

Martyr vs Meteor Murders: Stephen Lawrence is eternally remembered as the
far more numerous White victims of non-Whites are forgotten

Will the so-called Conservative prime minister Boris Johnson remove Stephen Lawrence Day from the calendar? Of course not. Nor will Johnson or any other cuckservative criticize the Stephen Lawrence Research Centre, which is working to further demonize Whites and sanctify non-Whites at De Montfort University in the ancient British city of Leicester:

The Stephen Lawrence Research Centre aims to drive forward conversations that will shape and influence how we think about race and social justice. It intends to honour the enduring legacy of Stephen Lawrence’s life and his family’s ongoing pursuit of justice by asking new questions, debating critical issues, raising awareness, and advocating to bring about positive change. …

National Stephen Lawrence Day 22 April

The 22 April 2018 marked the 25th anniversary of the senseless murder of Stephen Lawrence, a young man who had a bright future ahead of him.

At the memorial service to celebrate his life, the former Prime Minister, Theresa May, announced the annual national commemoration of Stephen Lawrence Day which is to be held each year on 22 April.

Schools and their communities are invited to use the memory of Stephen’s life and legacy as an opportunity to empower young people in their care to live their best life. Find out how to get involved. …

Stephen Lawrence Research Centre news and events

An evening with Baroness Doreen Lawrence: Bringing Legacy to Leicester

Ahead of Stephen Lawrence Day, 22 April, Baroness Lawrence will be joined by [the Trotskyist race-baiter] Imran Khan QC [Queen’s Counsel], educators, students and community leaders for a discussion on how Stephen’s legacy is inspiring a change for good across the nation. (Propaganda and mendacity issued by the Stephen Lawrence Research Centre)

Martyr’s mother: Black Baroness Doreen Lawrence

Baroness Doreen Lawrence is the martyr’s mother, an utterly undistinguished and intellectually void Jamaican woman who has been lavishly honoured and celebrated by Brave New Britain, and is treated as the fount of all wisdom on matters of race and racism. The Guardian was delighted to report that Baroness Lawrence, who was ennobled by the treasonous shabbos-goy Tony Blair, has joined the “Shred the CRED” campaign. She has condemned the recent report for “giving racists the green light.” That’s how she expresses her gratitude for cuckservative pandering and Theresa May’s creation of Stephen Lawrence Day.

Kriss Donald and Mary-Ann Leneghan, long-forgotten White victims of horrific racist murders

In complete contrast to the saintly Doreen Lawrence, White mothers who have lost children to racially motivated murder, often in far worse ways, are never honoured or celebrated in Brave New Britain, and are never consulted on matters of race and racism. There is no “Kriss Donald Research Centre” to honour the White Scottish teenager who was kidnapped, repeatedly stabbed, and incinerated by Pakistani Muslims in 2004. And there is no “Mary-Ann Leneghan Research Centre” to honour the White English teenager who was raped, tortured and repeatedly stabbed by five Blacks and an Albanian Muslim “asylum-seeker” in 2005.

Britain is a Land of Lies

Kriss Donald and Mary-Ann Leneghan were the victims of meteor murder. The horrible details of their prolonged and agonizing deaths flashed through the British media and then vanished forever, because no mainstream institution in Brave New Britain is interested in the truth about mass immigration from the Third World. Blacks and other non-Whites are not a blessing to Britain. They are a curse imported against the will of the White majority by the hostile Jewish elite and its treasonous gentile collaborators. The overwhelmingly non-White Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities could never admit this. It has no more interest in the truth about non-Whites than the cuckservative government who appointed it.

Like all other Western nations, Britain is a Land of Lies where liars rule, minority-worship is mandatory throughout public life, and non-Whites impose huge and growing costs on the White majority. And what should we do in the face of the lies, ugliness and evil currently rampant in the West? I think Vox Day’s advice is good. We should devote ourselves ever more firmly to what the great Catholic writer Hilaire Belloc called the “indissoluble Trinity of Truth, Beauty and Goodness.”

Tucker Carlson Doubles Down on Replacement, Explicitly Mentions White Replacement, and Targets the ADL’s Hypocrisy(!)

April 14, 2021/66 Comments/in Anti-White Attitudes, Featured Articles, Jewish Support for Multiculturalism/by Kevin MacDonald

In a previous article I noted that Tucker Carlson’s comments on ‘replacement’ in the context of immigration had unleashed a torrent of hatred from the ADL and the liberal media. When the ADL goes after public figures, the usual response is groveling apology in a typically futile effort to prevent getting ostracized or fired. After all, the ADL’s Jonathan Greenblatt had tweeted that Carlson’s comments were “anti-Semitic, racist, and toxic.” Accusations of racism—and especially anti-Semitism—are pretty much a death sentence for anyone so accused.

So I was gratified that Carlson didn’t back down. Indeed, he doubled down, with a 20-minute opening monologue elaborating on exactly why the Democrat Party is completely wedded to importing a new electorate and has been doing so for decades. He also mentioned that Whites (and Blacks) are being replaced as voters, that the entire project is immoral, and he called out the hypocrisy of the ADL. As he notes, it’s not about compassion as usually advertised, but about power. And anyone with any brains knows it.

To date, Carlson’s monologue is the most powerful and most explicit statement in the mainstream media that Whites—as Whites—have an interest in immigration. Indeed, a vital interest. In making his argument, he discussed states like California and Virginia that have become reliably Democrat because of immigration, and he mentions Vermont that is now blue because of disenchanted New Yorkers who brought their politics with them when they moved there. He says the same thing is happening to Montana and Idaho as yoga instructors, Google vice-presidents, and assorted rich White folks leave California for greener pastures. It will happen to your state. And the result will be permanent hegemony of the left because the imported electorate are reliable clients of the Democrat Party. ‘Client’ is the right word (from the Latin for ‘dependent’) because these people come to the U.S. for better pay and all the free stuff — medical care, welfare if they have children, and the promise of eventual citizenship and the right to bring in their relatives. This description applies at least to the Mexicans, Central Americans, and Africans who have flooded our shores (that IQ thing again). They remain toward the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder and dependent on the government. Hence reliably Democrat. California went from being the envy of the world to having poverty levels on par with Mississippi. Without explicitly mentioning Whites, he notes that the middle class is leaving in droves, resulting in the cost of a U-Haul being five times higher for people leaving the state as for entering. He portrays 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.

Tucker also doubled down on his voter-replacement logic, but this time he was explicit about White people’s vote being replaced, noting that Whites went from 90 percent of Californians to 30 percent since 1960, which means that how White people vote matters much less than it used to. It’s shocking to hear someone in the mainstream media claim that Whites and their vital interests are victims of the immigration tsunami. One can easily imagine a situation where, even if White Californians woke up (far too many are still drinking the Kool-Aid), they couldn’t win a statewide election. And that’s the whole point. Permanent hegemony.

But because the interests of Whites are definitely not supposed to be paramount, he emphasized that Blacks in California have also been losing political clout rapidly, with very large declines in cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco. In my previous article, I noted that the voter replacement argument doesn’t apply so much to Blacks because the people replacing them have pretty much the same politics. But I stand corrected. Identity politics has changed everything. Black Californian politicos like Maxine Waters, Willy Brown, and Kamala Harris may well become a thing of the past. Harris was replaced by Alex Padilla, a Latino, after being elevated to the vice-presidency, a result that was not warmly greeted by the Black political establishment.

California progressives had pushed [Gov. Gavin] Newsom to appoint Representative Barbara Lee [who is Black] or another like-minded Democrat. Mr. Newsom was also under pressure to appoint a Black woman to take the place of Ms. Harris, the only Black woman in the Senate. Representative Karen Bass and Ms. Lee were at the top of that list. … The Congressional Hispanic Caucus strongly backed Mr. Padilla. The L.G.B.T.Q. community and Equality California lobbied for Robert Garcia, the mayor of Long Beach. Black Women United, a co-founder of Black Lives Matter, and a range of Black elected officials pushed for Ms. Bass or Ms. Lee.

As Blacks become less of a demographic force, they will also become less of a political force. There will be less official sympathy for Black issues like BLM, reparations, dealing with criminals, and centering on Black grievance in the educational system.

Tucker also did some dog-whistling on Jewish involvement by mentioning Michelle Goldberg’s NYTimes op-ed, “We can replace them,” which celebrates replacing the White electorate by doing a screen shot of Goldberg’s statement: “The potential is there; Georgia is less than 53 percent non-Hispanic White.” He didn’t mention Goldberg’s ethnicity, but anyone who knows anything about the media knows she is a strongly identified Jew writing for a Jewish-owned publication that is the crown jewel of the elite liberal-left media. As Tucker noted, Goldberg is “a New York Times columnist, not some QAnon blogger.”

The left pretends that demographic replacement is an obsession on the right, but in fact, it’s an obsession on the left. “It’s the central idea of the modern Democratic Party.” So true. And so refreshing to hear it in the mainstream media.

As always, the left pretends that their plan to replace the White population is a moral imperative. In 2019 then-Senator Harris condemned Trump’s plan to deport illegals on the basis that Trump was trying to “remake the demographics of the country”; she tweeted that such actions are “deeply reprehensible and an affront to our values.” Of course, the left would never think of remaking the demographics of the country!

What’s immoral—and obviously so— is the left’s scheme to remake the electorate in opposition to the legitimate interests of the traditional White majority. Tucker confronted the issue head-on, turning the tables on the leftist moralizers by framing their actions as “cheating.” This is an important message for Whites to hear. What is happening to the White population of America is profoundly immoral. It’s an important message because we Whites are uniquely prone to framing our actions in moral terms. As often discussed here, a major weakness of uniquely individualist culture characteristic of the West is that individualists are highly prone to forming moral communities rather than kinship-based communities typical of the rest of the world. It’s a very exploitable weakness, and our hostile elites have taken full advantage by defining the legitimate interests of Whites as immoral, as Greenblatt and Harris do. Moral communities are fine as long as they serve the community’s interests, and in the long history of the West, they have indeed been a strength. But the problem now is that the people who define the moral communities of the West since World War II are the hostile elite who have shaped academic and media culture, i.e., strongly identified Jews and Jewish-owned mainstream media like the New York Times. So now a substantial proportion of Whites think it’s a moral imperative to replace the White population. No other culture anywhere at any time has ever felt a moral imperative to replace its founding population.

However, the best part about Tucker’s monologue was that he confronted the ADL directly by highlighting their lack of principle. Confronting any powerful Jewish organization is virtually unheard of in American media and political culture where groveling, apologies, and firing are the norm. And he chose a particularly glaring weakness in Jewish rationalizations of the adversarial culture they have championed in the U.S.: Jewish hypocrisy in claiming the moral high ground in America by insisting that any opposition to immigration is racist and hence immoral, while legitimizing Israel’s ethnocentric immigration policy because it threatens the legitimate interests of its Jewish population. In fact, these activist Jews are consummate ethnic nationalists—exactly what they condemn in White Americans. White Americans deserve just what the ADL and the rest of the activist Jewish community want for Jews, a safe homeland that remains theirs.

Granted, Carlson didn’t mention that the ADL was leading the charge against him, but anyone paying the least bit of attention to this episode knows damn well that the ADL is leading the campaign against him. Carlson quoted from the ADL website:

With historically high birth rates among Palestinians, and a possible influx of Palestinian refugees and their descendants now living around the world, Jews would quickly be a minority in a bi-national state, thus ending any semblance of equal representation and protections. In this situation, the Jewish population would be politically—and potentially physically—vulnerable. It is unreasonable and unrealistic to expect the Jewish population to expect the state of Israel to voluntarily subvert its own sovereign existence and national identity and become a vulnerable minority in what was once its own territory.

This is another recurrent theme on TOO—that the traditional White majority will become a hated and oppressed minority (58 articles) because of the immigration of non-Whites in a culture dominated by an elite with a long history of hatred toward the White majority of the U.S. We already see a multitude of examples of hatred toward Whites emanating from the elite media, liberal-left politicians, and just ordinary non-Whites (like this one from James Edwards on Twitter), and hate crimes against Whites are ignored or quickly buried. Why would anyone think this will stop if and when Whites become a minority? It will increase. But the ADL thinks that Jews, who have been and continue to be the leading force enacting a multicultural United States, beginning with their influence in passing the 1965 immigration law, should retain sovereignty in Israel because ceding sovereignty would be dangerous for Jews. This is massively hypocritical, as Tucker implies, and he invited Greenblatt on his show to explain why the same principles that he champions for Israel should not exist in the United States. I rather doubt that will happen.

In fact, Greenblatt repeated his attacks on Carlson in a letter to Fox News, demanding that he be fired while never mentioning that Carlson had broached the hypocrisy of the ADL. Pretty clearly he wants to avoid the issue like the plague. Fox News CEO Lachlan Murdoch responded with a typical mainstream media mantra: “Fox Corporation shares your values and abhors anti-semitism, white supremacy and racism of any kind.” But he rejected the argument that Carlson had endorsed “anti-semitism, white supremacy and racism,” retreating to Carlson’s original voting rights argument. Always a safe move to refuse to avoid issues that vitally affect White America by presenting them in non-racial terms.

In his letter to Murdoch, Greenblatt claimed that Carlson “did not accidentally echo these talking points; he knowingly escalated this well-worn racist rhetoric. … At a time of intense polarization, this kind of rhetoric galvanizes extremists and lights the fire of violence.”

Intense polarization indeed. That’s what happens when there is a powerful attempt to dispossess the founding population of the country. Ultimately the polarization is a result of Jewish activism which has been a necessary condition for the immigration and multiculturalism that is tearing the country apart.

Greenblatt thinks that Tucker’s message will galvanize “extremists.” Let’s hope that it does indeed galvanize the White population. In any case, it’s important for Carlson to not let this issue drop. It was courageous of him to broach the issue, but it needs to be repeated, just as the messages of the left on race and multiculturalism are continually repeated on TV, movies, print media, and throughout the educational system.

The message of White replacement is powerful. As I noted in Chapter 8 of Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition:

Individualists are less naturally ethnocentric, and the left has created a culture that encourages Whites to inhibit expressions of ethnocentrism while encouraging non-Whites to be ethnocentric. Because the media is dominated by the left and because even the conservative media is terrified of appearing to advocate White interests, explicit messages that would encourage Whites to become angry and fearful about their future as a minority are rare [and when they occur, they are subjected to vicious attacks, as has happened to Carlson]. Indeed, the media rarely, if ever, mentions that Whites are well on their way to becoming a minority. And this for good reason: Whites in the United States and in Canada who are given explicit demographic projections of a time when Whites are no longer a majority tend to feel angry and fearful. They are also more likely to identify as Whites and have sympathy for other Whites.[1]

In other words, while I have emphasized the ability of the higher brain centers to inhibit ethnocentrism, explicit messages indicating that one’s racial group is threatened are able to trigger ethnocentrism. This is especially important because many Whites live far from the areas of their countries undergoing the demographic shifts. Their day-to-day life of living in an essentially White environment hasn’t changed while the population centers of New York, California, Toronto, and Vancouver have changed beyond all recognition from what they were 50 years ago. An obvious inference to be made is that pro-White activists should appeal to Whites’ higher brain centers with explicit messages emphasizing these transformations.

White replacement is our most powerful message. Let’s hope Tucker continues to repeat it. We certainly will.

[1] H. Robert Outten, Michael T. Schmitt, and Daniel A. Miller, “Feeling threatened about the future: Whites’ emotional reactions to anticipated ethnic demographic changes,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 38 (2011): 14–25.

Matthew Bracken’s Three “Enemies” Novels

April 12, 2021/36 Comments/in Featured Articles, The Arts and Culture/by Edmund Connelly, Ph. D.

This is a dead serious warning to our overwhelmingly White audience. All readers have seen the absurd claims about “domestic terrorists” — meaning White men — surrounding the Jan. 6 Capitol “insurrection.” Since then, all manner of outlandish claims have been made about the imminent threat tens of millions of White Americans represent to our beautiful, vibrant, multicultural “democracy.”

In short, this review serves as a warning to “majority Americans” (Whites) that all institutions in today’s United States, up to and including the Federal Government, are arrayed against not just the interests of Whites, but against the continued existence of Whites. Such a thought is hard to accept for many Americans, but the unraveling of American history since 1965 inexorably shows this to be true.

I appreciate that “ordinary” Americans — that is, White Christians as viewed prior to 1965 — could be skeptical of my claims that “their” institutions (which allegedly bestow upon them endless “White privilege”) have been turned and now serve The Dark Side, but it’s quite true. Of course, thanks to the broadcast career of the late Rush Limbaugh and four years of Trump rule, many Whites have woken up to the fact that the American media is overwhelmingly opposed to majority Americans, but it goes much further, I’m afraid.

Education, from elementary through university graduate school, is rabidly anti-White. The judiciary is strongly anti-White as well, as action against Charlottesville protesters and many other cases demonstrates. And the churches? Forget it. What about the police and especially the military? Well, we’ve seen for the last year how the police have been gutted, though whether they are even implicitly pro-White is open to much debate. And finally, the military. Though the process has been in motion for years, Joe Biden’s regime has rapidly ramped up the dispossession of the traditional American military, with this graphic announcement of who the new preferred defenders of the realm are:

28th United States Secretary of Defense

Yes, all of these institutions have turned on White Americans and it will only get worse, as daily news stories show:

The Associated Press WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden on Tuesday [March 29, 2021] nominated a racially diverse and overwhelmingly female group to federal and other judgeships, including three Black women for the U.S. courts of appeals, one pathway to the Supreme Court.

Matthew Bracken

What I intend to do today, then, is to share with readers a review of novels that fictionally take us through an experience where the anti-White government does not just want to dispossess Whites; it literally hunts and kills formerly valued members of the American population. These are stories of rogue government agents with a license to kill Whites, of affirmative action hires lording it over disempowered White men, and technology such as armed drones — overwhelmingly the product of White male minds and hands — now turned lethally on the White man himself. By reading these novels, you can then more easily imagine these events literally taking place. I want this to be the first step in realizing and accepting that you—all of you, but especially White males, who are descended from eons of Europeans, are now the intended target.

The author of these three novels is former Navy SEAL Matthew Bracken, born in 1957, who modestly describes himself as an “old frogman, boat builder, sailor, novelist.” Revisiting his novels, which were written from 2003–2009, I am amazed at the prescience of this former sailor, as his imagined scenarios could be ripped from the very headlines of today’s news. Thus, it is no surprise that since writing his “Enemies” trilogy, Bracken has been a frequent popular guest and a host of The Alex Jones Show; he also made numerous videos on YouTube, including this recent one. Bracken’s voice matters.

You can visit Bracken’s well-stocked website here for tens of hours of written excerpts and more. For now, let’s focus on the first and third
novels in Bracken’s Enemies series.

Novel 1

Appearing in 2003, two years after the 9/11 Terror attacks, Bracken’s first novel Enemies Foreign and Domestic introduces a vile government false-flag crime, a genre of conspiracy theory that has thrived since 9/11 (or the Oklahoma City Bombing of 1995 … or the Kennedy assassinations, etc. — take your pick). From the prologue onward, the prose is gripping, and Bracken has easily earned himself a place alongside action thriller writers such as Tom Clancy, Dale Brown or Stephen Coonts.

The Prologue

Of the many benefits of Bracken’s site, one of my favorites is his generosity with huge excerpts. (You can find the whole books online for free if you work at it; for others, you can go to Amazon or your local library.) These excerpts make it easy to copy and paste and are an excellent introduction to his writing. This is a good example illustrating his style, from the opening page of Enemies Foreign and Domestic:

The home team was set to receive the kickoff of their season opener. The 80,000 football fans packing the stadium were on their feet looking down at the two teams lined up on the verdant green field. … The crowd noise reached a sustained roar as they watched the kicker trot toward the teed-up football, they saw the two teams rush at each other, and they followed the flight of the ball high into the air.

In the midst of this jubilant bedlam, in the center of the western end zone upper deck, a forty-year-old architect from Annapolis was struck by something on the left temple. He immediately collapsed forward, spurting blood over his friends and several other fans as he fell across the seats below. His shocking injury occurred while the football was still arcing through the air and down the field, so at first the louder screaming of the fans surrounding his crumpled bleeding body went unnoticed by the rest of the crowd around them.

Every two seconds a similar scene was repeated with horrifying variations across the western upper deck stands, as one fan after another was dealt a sudden bloody wound to the face, head, neck, shoulder, arm or chest. A few victims were killed outright, and some were only slightly grazed, but many received searingly painful wounds which caused them to shriek and jerk and fling blood in all directions. Every two seconds another tableau of unexpected violent trauma was created, sending out radiating bands of fear as the shouted word spread from mouth to ear among the trapped thousands: sniper! The waves of horror emanating from each new victim spread and merged and multiplied until the entire western end zone upper deck section became engulfed in seething animal panic.

Noticing the commotion, the stadium video director focused on the activity and showed it on the fifty-foot-tall screens at the stadium, offering all 80,000 fans a view of a woman vainly trying to stanch the flow of blood from her dying husband’s face.

Police marksmen in Black scanned the stands for signs of the shooter, further alerting fans to an unfolding tragedy. The result was that mob psychology took over and hordes of screaming people rushed in unison toward the exit tunnels. Hundreds of bodies pushed against those unlucky enough to be seated by the safety railings.

The rails bent outward as the human avalanche gathered momentum, and then they buckled and victims began to tumble over. The falling victims were still holding tightly onto those above, pulling them over as well, and the solid cascade began. Dozens and then hundreds of linked victims fell past the VIP sky boxes, thudding down on the unfortunate fans packed into the lower stands ninety feet below.

In a surprisingly short time, a police helicopter had located the sniper in a building under construction a thousand yards from the stadium. Finding the shooter, a SWAT sniper aboard the helicopter put a single bullet though the murderer’s brain, killing him instantly. He was quickly identified as a White male military veteran, often homeless, and in possession of “white supremacist hate literature.” As it turned out, the White man was a patsy set up to take the blame for the massacre, while two government employees embedded in a federal agency had perpetrated the attack in order to give the government an excuse to limit the right of Americans to bear arms. This set off a powerful reaction among American patriots who wanted to rein in a wayward government. A revolution almost resulted.

Again, this appeared in book form eighteen years ago. Now factor in all the events since then, especially the last year. No wonder a character in the book says, “I just don’t know what’s happening in this country any more. I feel like a war’s coming.”

Enemies 1 features Brad, who is clearly Bracken’s alter ego, and his romantic interest, Ranya Bardiwell, a Christian Lebanese American raised in the home of a gun-shop owner who is early on slaughtered in cold blood by the same forces who killed so many at the football stadium. Ranya then becomes a sworn enemy of this murderous state.

Having grown up around guns her whole life, Ranya is both proficient in their use and knowledgeable about all facets of shooting. She puts this knowledge to use the night she returns home to the burned gun store and house, and discovers that her father’s murderers were federal agents, as proved by the spent cartridges she finds on the ground. “Ten millimeter with these marks on the brass and the dent on the top means the ‘FBI Special Edition’ MP-5. A night scope on top, and a sound suppressor. I’m guessing subsonic loads, for no sonic crack. It was the feds all the way.”

This discovery not only gives Ranya a motive for bloody revenge, it also elicits discussions about what government forces are willing to do to American citizens, which is the key message I am imparting in this essay.

Bracken spends the next few hundred pages spinning more drama, but the essential political issues have been covered. In the end, Brad, Ranya, and others kidnap one of the crooked agents, but another agent, Bob Bullard, escapes detection and is able to silence his hostage colleague. Unfortunately, Brad is also shot during the operation, and Ranya flees the region.

The action has played itself out in Bracken’s Enemies Foreign and Domestic, but it leaves one with the feeling that loose ends remain. Bullard, for example, is alive and well, a development that is of great importance in the next two Bracken novels. Further, as terrible as the events of Enemies are, the subsequent novels are far more horrific, more loaded with dystopian images of an America that Bracken fears is coming to pass.

Novel 2

I’ll be brief in my treatment of Bracken’s second Enemies novel, Enemies Domestic: The Reconquista. The action takes place in an American Southwest now ceded to those of Mexican ethnicity. In this novel, Bracken is not subtle about his views on the political correctness of modern America, inserting, stark examples portraying lesbians, for instance, as abhorrent. We learn that the new main male character Alex, an FBI agent, had his life destroyed when his wife Karin left him for a highly masculine female lover, Gretchen Bosch.

Karin works for the IRS, as does her new lover Gretchen, and when all three were attending the Federal Law Enforcement Officers annual picnic, the hulking Gretchen had attacked Alex with an aluminum baseball bat, causing Alex to protect himself by restraining her. For this, he has been charged with assault, a fact Karin and a feminist judge use against him in the child custody proceedings over son Brian. The female judge thunders at the defense lawyer,

Silence! I’ve heard enough. More than enough! The irrational homophobic attitude of your client is very well known to this court. He’s lucky he wasn’t charged with hate crimes after that picnic incident! If Special Agent Garabanda can’t deal with the fact that his ex-wife is dating a woman, that does not speak well to his stability nor to his socialization, not to mention his fitness to share in the raising of their son.

Bracken continues to mock the views of the “socially progressives” when, for instance, Alex objects to his wife dressing their five-year-old son in pink, and the wife responds that it is “orchid.” Continuing, she scolds, “We just think you’ve already done enough damage to Brian’s psyche, that’s all. You’ve tried your best to turn him into a little macho man, always playing with toy guns and wearing camouflage. Well, we’re breaking your chain of patriarchy. We’re not going to inflict another heterosexist creep like you on the world!”

As in all three novels, the action here is engrossing and is generally impossible to separate from actual news in the headlines of the last two decades. And now that Bracken has discussed his fictional Southwest, he will turn to the American South for his third novel, the subtitle of which is “Civil War 2,” which turns out to be appropriate for both the novel and today’s America.

Novel 3

Enemies and Traitors: The Greater Depression and Civil War Civil War 2 reintroduces Vietnam-era Green Beret Phil Carson, a character from the original novel. He is sailing through the Gulf of Mexico alone in his boat but a horrible hurricane has devasted the Gulf coast. Politically, the United States is a shambles, with the Southwest ceded to Mexicans, the Northeast and Great Lakes “a socialist nightmare,” and the South broken into parts under the control of a mulatto generalissimo and states absolutely devastated by massive earthquakes. Only the Northwest region remains free. And the White House is occupied by one Jamal Tambor, a thinly disguised stand-in for former President Barack Obama.

Carson aims for the free Northwest, but it’s a long slog. Soon enough, he ends up in a refugee camp in Mississippi, where a surviving surgeon recounts the last year:

We lost more than half of the medical staff, most of my colleagues, including a lot of old friends, and including my only son and most of his family. I can take you to see the mass graves! . . . Cameroon fever, bird flu, cholera, dysentery, beriberi . . . you name it, we fought it. We even lost thousands to pellagra. Pellagra!. . . It brings the four Ds: diarrhea, dermatitis, dementia and death — just from a lack of niacin, because of a shitty starvation diet with no protein. We were right back to square one, we went back a century in medicine . . .

North of them, what remains of the federal government is intent on bringing the states of Kentucky and Tennessee back under federal control, but White troops will not brutalize fellow Whites enough to accomplish this. Instead, the “true enforcers” are “contract battalions” recruited from “Nigeria, Pakistan, Bolivia, Kazakhstan, Turkey, Albania and a dozen other nations.” Carson learns all too well what this entails when he begins his trek into Tennessee.

Traveling alone on foot, Carson is no match for the power of even this reduced federal force plus foreign mercenaries. Set up this way, the plot allows Bracken to present a reverse picture of what Americans are more accustomed to seeing: Advanced American technology used to subdue Brown adversaries in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. Now that same technology is turned on White American men, women and children.

Most prominent among these weapons are drones, which are employed against American civilians with terrifying results. Naturally, one of the missions on which drones (“unmanned aerial vehicles,” or UAVs for short) are used is surveillance. “In the areas slated for complete evacuation, the holdouts could be located by the UAVs and targeted for special action as needed, county by county.”

Bob Bullard is in charge of these tools and he has no qualms about employing them liberally. In one early scene, Bullard asks to see a video of a successful termination of an armed curfew violator. “In the first video clip, the infrared image of a man was clearly seen flitting in and out of the brush along a tree line. The man, hotter than his surroundings, was seen as a White figure walking against a dark background of trees and bushes.” He was quickly painted by invisible laser energy, then blown to bits by a one-pound charge attached to a rocket launched unseen and unheard from above. After the white-hot explosion, “the man was gone, replaced by scattered white hotspots on the ground.”

Bracken personalizes this targeted assassination by showing the dead man as a White father who has now left his only remaining child an orphan. Son Zack is experiencing the trials of Job himself. His father had been a survivalist who had seen the economic troubles coming and prepared for them. Unfortunately, tragedy was to be the family’s close friend. Deeply religious, they had expected God to protect them, but the floods and quakes and attendant flu had first taken twins Becky and Annie. “Becky had died first and Annie a day later, both drowning in their own lung fluids.

Zack and his family had prayed continuously, to no effect.” Then his younger brother Sammy slashed himself while chopping wood, but even the family’s most potent antibiotics had not saved him. His mother had a stock of pills for her depression, but when they ran out, the woes of the world overwhelmed her and, either deliberately or by accident, she and baby Sarah had fallen from a railroad bridge and drowned in the swift waters below.

One evening his father had slipped out of the house late, after which Zack heard a single bang — then waited in vain for his father to return. He didn’t find his father — what was left of him — until the middle of the next day. . . . His father had been blown to pieces, his powerful body shattered. Even his shotgun had been blasted into a bent piece of junk. Zack hid in the woods near the human fragments of his father, shaking, crying, and wondering what to do next. He also found pieces of rocket casing and what was probably part of a rocket tailfin knifed into a tree near the body. His father had been the one killed by the drone attack described above.

Tennessee is where the federal government, aided by non-White foreign mercenaries, is fighting the local White population. Carson eventually joins a band of White former soldiers and together they attempt to restore their liberty and freedom. Doug is a young fellow rebel, and Carson asks him, “So how did you wind up fighting a guerrilla war in Tennessee?”

Doug smiled wistfully. “It’s a long story. To start with, I was drafted. I was going to the University of Maryland, majoring in communications, but I had to drop out after my junior year because I couldn’t afford the tuition. Unfortunately I’m just a Category 7 — a healthy heterosexual Christian White male. That’s the bottom, the baseline. My tuition was tripled with no warning, so that was that. They pulled my student loan and I couldn’t get any kind of extension, so I was back at home living with my mom.”

Bracken is right about such a White male’s place in current American society.

Bracken is also astute regarding the way Blacks are manipulated by hidden powers to do the bidding of the Washington regime, predicting unexpectedly the antics of Black Lives Matter half a decade later. Doug describes his recollection of how his version happened:

It was shock therapy. Especially when the Poor People’s Party marched through Baltimore. There were already about a million of them camping out in Washington on the National Mall before the convention. When they took off walking to Philly, it was like a dam bursting. That was on Labor Day. Mile after mile of people with flags, signs, drums, musical bands on trucks — everything you can imagine. Police cars were escorting them, leading them up I-95. They closed the northbound lanes of 95 for something like twenty miles, for the whole time it took them to walk to Philly. …

Naturally, our own locals got into the spirit and joined the march. They took whatever they wanted from any stores along the way, and the police just watched. There was nothing they could do anyway, or it would have caused the biggest riot in history. It was legalized looting, that’s all it was. Legalized looting, all over Baltimore. “Redistributing the wealth,” they called it. We stayed locked in our house and watched it all on television. It would have been suicide to go out and see it in person.

Yes, Bracken champions the view that Black city dwellers are either one step away from being barbarians or actually at that stage, and in Civil War 2 we find mostly negative descriptions of Blacks and their behavior. The bulk of the discussions revolving around Blacks concerns their actions after massive earthquakes have turned Memphis into a living hell, narrated by Doug, the White rebel heard from above:

There was rioting and looting in St. Louis and Nashville, but the video coming out of Memphis was the worst. Video shot from helicopters. It was like the end of the world down there. It seemed like half of that city was unreinforced masonry — brick — and most of it went down. Even regular wood-frame houses were shaken to pieces. All kinds of natural gas lines go through there; it’s like a big energy corridor from the Gulf to the Northeast. Well, at least it was. The gas pipelines broke in a million places, and a lot of Memphis burned to the ground. Then it was the chemical plants. They had all kinds of chemical plants and fuel farms along the Mississippi, and the ones that didn’t burn spilled. It was a mess! And smack in the middle of all of that, a million people. No electricity, no drinking water, no gas stations or supermarkets open, roads blocked, bridges down. … You couldn’t imagine such a place.

It got worse. Another massive quake hit and destroyed even more of the city, and Doug just barely survived. Unfortunately, he was captured by a gang of roving Blacks:

You can’t even imagine how freaking scary it was. Thousands of birds were going insane, screaming and flying in every direction, just flying straight into things and breaking their necks. Lightning was striking all around us. The sky was kind of a sickly yellow from the chemical fires that were still burning over on the Mississippi River, and there was a new sulfur smell just to remind you that hell was opening up. You could smell it: the sulfur was so strong it burned your nose. It was apocalyptic, super-natural, anything you can think of like that — times ten. …

At this point, Bracken envisions savage behavior on the part of many Black citizens of Memphis. Starving, they have turned to cannibalism, and Doug is on the menu. “There were legs and arms hacked down to the bones,” Doug observes, “and a fire pit, with the big iron grill over it. There were even decapitated heads, set in a row. I was lying on my side, and I looked over and saw a severed head that almost seemed like it was looking back at me.” Doug continues, noting that “The cooking grill was a wrought-iron gate, propped up on angle iron legs that were driven into the dirt. There was a square hole in the cement, where they had built their fire. Now I could understand what they had been talking about. That’s why they had been pinching and squeezing me.” Such food even has a name in the novel: “long pig.”

The cannibals are Black, smoke a lot of marijuana, and get drunk. Further, the leader of the cannibals is fiendish looking, as described by Doug: “We were nose to nose. He looked like the devil himself, his eyes glowing yellow in the firelight.” When the leader addresses his intended meal, he says, “White boy, I’m gonna untie you, and then you gonna get all naked and give me them Army clothes,” so we know Bracken is quite aware of racial differences.

In all three of these novels, Bracken imagines that Whites have the gumption to stand up to the trials they face, but is he right about that? It seems like the bulk of Whites — even in this current year — refuse to face reality. I mean, do Whites read what Paul Kersey writes about crimes against Whites? If they do, does it mean anything to them?

Take, for instance, Kersey’s recent discussion about United Airlines intending to replace new White male pilots with women and non-Whites. Without a doubt, Kersey is right to conclude, “Nothing else to say. Every segment of American society is anti-White, to the detriment of the society White people uniquely created…. America, as presently constituted in its extreme anti-Whiteness, is irredeemable.”

Paul Craig Roberts, who probably qualifies (with great justification) as a grumpy old White man, has also forcefully pointed out the same thing. “It is the White liberals in the Democrat Party and their presstitute propaganda machine— New York Times, CNN, NPR, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and the rest of the presstitute whores — that comprise the new Nazi movement. The only difference is that this time the target is White gentiles.”

Roberts continues: “The demonization of American White people is a hard undeniable fact. They have been discriminated against for decades because of racial quotas in university admissions, hiring, and promotion. But now discrimination against Whites has become persecution, and it is more scary….”

Can today’s Whites survive?, Roberts asks. “They cannot. And they sit there, insouciant, sucking their thumbs, sheep ready for slaughter.” Reread this sentence three times, then reflect on it seriously.

Another time, Roberts concluded, “White Gentile Americans Are Today’s Untermensch.” Is he wrong? Over a decade ago, Bracken was making these arguments in his three Enemies novels. But Bracken had faith that enough Whites still had the spirit and strength to stand up for themselves and the country their White ancestors had created. I wish I could be as certain. Perhaps by reading one or more of Bracken’s novels, more Whites will finally realize the mortal situation we all face. Then the time will come to either whimper and die — or finally stand up and fight.

And with those words, I have prepared the way for my next review of novels: those of the late Harold A. Covington, whose five Northwest Novels were for a time the center of great discussion about The War on Whites and how Whites might fight back.

Tucker Carlson mentions replacement in the context of immigration. Hatred ensues.

April 10, 2021/105 Comments/in Featured Articles, Jewish Support for Multiculturalism/by Kevin MacDonald

The ADL, always attuned to any indication that their subjects are getting restless, is insisting that Tucker Carlson be fired. What brought on their ire was Tucker’s use of the word ‘replacement’ in the context of a discussion of Joe Biden’s Open Border policy. Mentioning replacement in the context of immigration is pretty much in the same category as doubting that all races have the same potentialities or the official holocaust narrative. Be prepared for hatred. Tucker, as quoted in The Hill:

“I know that the left and all the little gatekeepers on Twitter become literally hysterical if you use the term ‘replacement,’ if you suggest that the Democratic Party is trying to replace the current electorate,” Carlson said. “But they become hysterical because that’s what’s happening actually. Let’s just say it. That’s true.

Of course it’s true, and what’s being replaced is the traditional White population of the country. But Tucker couldn’t say that without even more outrage. So he made it all about the current electorate, which is certainly not just White people.

“I mean, everyone’s making a racial issue out of it. Oh, the, you know, white replacement? No, no, this is a voting rights question,” Carlson added later, saying changes to the population “dilute the political power” of current registered voters.

This is disingenuous but I suppose it’s what you have to say to keep your job in the mainstream media—and even that might not be enough. Carlson’s statement is consistent with his repeated assertions of color-blindness, and he’s careful to restrict his comments to illegal immigration. His argument is completely color-blind: “every time they import a new voter, I become disenfranchised as a current voter”—an argument that would apply to any American citizen no matter what their race. “How dare you think I care particularly about White voters!” But isn’t it obvious that such an argument would also apply to legal immigration?

Of course the ADL immediately labeled his comments as “white supremacy”:

.@TuckerCarlson: “replacement theory” is a white supremacist tenet that the white race is in danger by a rising tide of non-whites.

It is antisemitic, racist and toxic. It has informed the ideology of mass shooters in El Paso, Christchurch and Pittsburgh.

Tucker must go. https://t.co/FSvgNfR1KO

— Jonathan Greenblatt (@JGreenblattADL) April 9, 2021

Not clear how replacement theory is “anti-Semitic,” but I suppose that Greenblatt considers anything he dislikes as anti-Semitism. After quoting Greenblatt’s tweet, The Hill noted that “the ADL head explained that the “Great Replacement” theory “is a white supremacist tenet that the white race is in danger by a rising tide of non-whites,” linking to a Daily Beast article saying the whole idea was a “racist lie.” But how much of a “racist lie” is it when the White population is steadily dwindling, probably to around 60 percent, and the left wants to dramatically increase the rate at which it is dwindling?

Greenblatt also emailed Fox News, writing “Carlson’s full-on embrace of the white supremacist replacement theory on yesterday’s show and his repeated allusions to racist themes in past segments are a bridge too far. Given his long record of race-baiting, we believe it is time for Carlson to go.” This assertion that Carlson is making a “full-on embrace of white supremacist replacement theory” is a bald-faced lie, but obvious lies seem to be more and more common in high places these days—witness Biden’s lie about the new Georgia voting laws as “Jim Crow on steroids.” A full-on embrace of “white supremacist replacement theory” would at least reference a specific concern for White people losing political clout. Instead, Carlson religiously repeats his mainstream conservative, color-blind mantras firmly rooted in individualist ideology (“every time they import a new voter…”). Officially, he could care less about White people as White people. One wonders if Fox would stand by their most popular talking head if he did come out and just say it. I am pretty sure he believes it.

Officially, Carlson’s heart is bleeding for all those Black, Brown, and Asian citizen-voters whose political clout is being diluted. But of course, that would be wildly inaccurate, particularly in the age of identity politics where non-Whites are strongly encouraged to identify with their racial group and do all they can to advance its interests. The collective power of non-Whites is being increased by immigration and everyone knows it, and White political power is decreasing in an age when hatred of Whites is becoming increasingly obvious—at a time when Critical Race Theory is dominating the educational establishment and corporate board rooms. CRT is a theory that essentially says it’s fine for non-Whites to hate Whites while at the same time encouraging White guilt about the supposed sins of their ancestors. One can only imagine the horrors that await a politically powerless White minority.

And it’s not just White political power that is waning. There is clearly a program to replace Whites as part of the American elite.

68 percent of the US citizens or permanent residents admitted by Princeton for the class of 2025 “self-identified” as “people of color.” https://t.co/qEM6KD3ATY pic.twitter.com/GLFH6X20a4

— Wesley Yang (@wesyang) April 8, 2021

Given the voting behavior of non-Whites, it doesn’t make much sense to say that America’s non-White voters are being replaced when they are being “replaced” by more non-White voters, although I suppose one could make the argument that the traditional American Black population will have less political clout given that the preponderance of immigrants are from Latin America and Asia. But in any case, they ain’t White, and the ADL and the Democrats are quite well aware that all non-White groups strongly skew Democrat. In general, the Democrats are in favor of increased legal immigration, amnesty for illegals, and non-enforcement at the border, all of which are on the table with Biden in the White House and a Democrat Congress. Putting these ideas into law along with allowing no-ID voting would give Democrats more or less immediate and permanent hegemony given that Texas and Florida are the largest destinations of immigrants—as noted in my comments on the January 6 “insurrection,” The Left Will Now Enact Permanent Hegemony.” Their strategy also includes packing the Supreme Court, in case some of their laws are challenged; Biden is already laying the groundwork by establishing a commission packed with a super-majority of liberals.

Biden’s immigration plan calls for an increase in “diversity” visas to 80,000 from 55,000 and has an emphasis on family unification—a code word for chain migration and a bedrock of Jewish attitudes on immigration since the 1920s and continuing up to the 1965 immigration law (here, p. 283) and beyond. What this means is that one lucky visa recipient from, say, Africa, could bring in his immediate (likely large) family and when they became citizens, they could bring in their brothers and sisters outside the quota limit, who could in turn bring in their spouses and children, etc. All these new people would be able to immigrate outside the quota system for legal immigrants. And all could become citizens.

Tucker Carlson Is a Mass Murdering Terrorist!

Comment on the left has explicitly compared Carlson’s mild comments to the manifesto of the Christchurch and El Paso murderers.

We need to talk about plagiarism at Fox News pic.twitter.com/XFdzYA8ao7

— The Daily Show (@TheDailyShow) April 9, 2021

I found the above clip from The Daily Show on Max Boot’s Twitter feed. Boot, former neocon (i.e., a liberal-leftie masquerading as a conservative active in promoting U.S. fealty to Israel and moving the GOP to the left on social issues). And now, because of obsessive Trump hate, he is firmly and explicitly ensconced on the left at The Washington Post. Boot wrote that Carlson “the top-rated host on Fox “News” Channel, has been attracting attention for a while with his vile rhetoric against immigrants. Yet now he’s reached a new low.”

As the left-leaning Media Matters for America has chronicled, Carlson has a long history of ugly statements. He has called Iraqis “semiliterate primitive monkeys” and said that Afghanistan is “never going to be a civilized country because the people aren’t civilized.” He has complained that an influx of poor immigrants “makes our own country poor and dirtier and more divided.” He has repeatedly described immigration as an “invasion,” and called the urgent threat posed by white supremacists a “hoax” and “a conspiracy theory used to divide the country and keep a hold on power.”

And that new low is that Tucker said something a mass murderer had said, implying, I guess, that if Hitler said the sky is blue, it would be extremely racist for anyone else to say it.

The Guardian noted in 2019 that there were already disturbing parallels between Carlson’s rhetoric and that of white supremacist killers in El Paso, Tex., and Christchurch, New Zealand. For example, in one of his books, Carlson wrote: “When confronted or pressed for details, [proponents of diversity] retreat into a familiar platitude, which they repeat like a zen koan: diversity is our strength. But is diversity our strength? The less we have in common, the stronger we are? Is that true of families? Is that true in neighborhoods or businesses? Of course not.”

And here is what the fiend who killed 51 people at two Christchurch mosques said in his manifesto: “Why is diversity said to be our greatest strength? Does anyone even ask why? It is spoken like a mantra and repeated ad infinitum …. But no one ever seems to give a reason why. What gives a nation strength? And how does diversity increase that strength?”

On Thursday night, Carlson moved even closer to white supremacist ideology by explicitly endorsing the Great Replacement theory, which holds that shadowy elites are orchestrating a plot to replace native-born White people with immigrants of color. The New Zealand shooter’s manifesto was literally headlined “The Great Replacement,” and the neo-Nazis who marched in Charlottesville chanted “Jews will not replace us.”

Along with Media Matters, Boot advocates pressuring advertisers for “beaming of this vile rhetoric to millions of people.” And he adds that cable operators should be pressured. But Boot has a clear answer to those who doubt the value of diversity, choosing examples of predominantly White Fox executives, such as Rupert Murdoch who was born in Australia and a woman who was born in France. That is supposed to make you feel good about admitting tens of millions of Central Americans, Africans, and everyone one else on the planet so that you can become a politically powerless minority in a culture that increasingly hates you. Nowhere do we get an argument that such an immigration policy is good for White Americans. Whites are just supposed to feel guilty for opposing it.

The Long History of Jewish Efforts to Replace the White population of America

The lack of concern on the part of Boot and Greenblatt for White Americans is entirely typical of the organized Jewish community. The following is based on Chapter 7 of The Culture of Critique along with some more recent research—the point being that the organized Jewish community has long had the aim of diluting the White population of the U.S., motivated by fear and loathing of the White population. The culture of critique is the erection of an adversarial culture that is hostile to the traditional White population of the U.S.

Jewish activists on immigration rejected the ethnic status quo put in place by the 1924 and 1952 immigration laws. Otis Graham (2004: 80) notes that the Jewish lobby on immigration was not only the most effective force in enacting the 1965 law, their activism “was aimed not just at open doors for Jews, but also for a diversification of the immigration stream sufficient to eliminate the majority status of western European so that a fascist regime in America would be more unlikely.” The motivating role of fear and insecurity on the part of the activist Jewish community thus differed from other groups and individuals promoting an end to the national origins provisions of the 1924 and 1952 laws.

Stuar Svonkin ( 1997, 8ff) shows that a sense of “uneasiness” and insecurity pervaded American Jewry in the wake of World War II even in the face of evidence that anti-Semitism had declined to the point that it had become a marginal phenomenon. As a direct result, “The primary objective of the Jewish intergroup relations agencies [i.e., the American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Congress, and the ADL] after 1945 was . . . to prevent the emergence of an anti-Semitic reactionary mass movement in the United States” (Svonkin 1997, 8).

Writing in the 1970s, Isaacs (1974: 14ff) describes the pervasive insecurity of American Jews and their hypersensitivity to anything that might be deemed anti-Semitic. Interviewing “noted public men” on the subject of anti-Semitism in the early 1970s, Isaacs asked, “Do you think it could happen here?” “Never was it necessary to define ‘it.’ In almost every case, the reply was approximately the same: ‘If you know history at all, you have to presume not that it could happen, but that it probably will,’ or ‘It’s not a matter of if; it’s a matter of when.’ ” (p. 15).

Writing long after the passage of the 1965 law, prominent Jewish social scientist and ethnic activist Earl Raab remarked very positively on the success of American immigration policy in altering the ethnic composition of the United States. Writing for a Jewish publication, Raab noted that the Jewish community had taken a leadership role in changing the northwestern European bias of American immigration policy (Raab, 1993a, 17), and he also maintained that one factor inhibiting anti-Semitism in the contemporary United States is that “an increasing ethnic heterogeneity, as a result of immigration, has made it even more difficult for a political party or mass movement of bigotry to develop” (Raab, 1995b, 91). Similarly, Elliott Abrams (1999, 190) noted, “the American Jewish community clings to what is at bottom a dark vision of America, as a land permeated with anti-Semitism and always on the verge of anti-Semitic outbursts.”

In 1952 President Truman’s President’s Commission on Immigration and Naturalization (PCIN) pointedly noted that the 1924 legislation had succeeded in maintaining the racial status quo, and that the main barrier to changing the racial status quo was not the national origins system, because there were already high levels of nonquota immigrants and because the countries of Northern and Western Europe did not fill their quotas. Rather, the report noted that the main barrier to changing the racial status quo was the total number of immigrants.

The [PCIN] thus viewed changing the racial status quo of the United States as a desirable goal, and to that end made a major point of the desirability of increasing the total number of immigrants (PCIN 1953, 42). As Bennett (1963, 164) notes, in the eyes of the PCIN, the 1924 legislation reducing the total number of immigrants “was a very bad thing because of its finding that one race is just as good as another for American citizenship or any other purpose.” Correspondingly, the defenders of the 1952 legislation conceptualized the issue as fundamentally one of ethnic warfare. Senator Pat McCarran stated that subverting the national origins system “would, in the course of a generation or so, tend to change the ethnic and cultural composition of this nation” (in Bennett 1963, 185)—a result that has indeed come to pass. (The Culture of Critique, 1998/2002: 281)

The chairman of the PCIN was Philip B. Perlman, and the staff of the commission contained a high percentage of Jews, headed by Harry N. Rosenfield (Executive Director) and Elliot Shirk (Assistant to the Executive Director); its report was wholeheartedly endorsed by the AJCongress (see Congress Weekly, Jan. 12, 1952: 3). The proceedings were printed as the report Whom We Shall Welcome (PCIN, 1953) with the cooperation of Rep. Emanuel Celler and with an essay by Oscar Handlin, the Jewish academic activist (see below).

The American Jewish Congress, the largest American Jewish organization at the time, testified during the Senate hearings on the 1952 law that the 1924 legislation had succeeded in preserving the ethnic balance of the United States, but it commented that “the objective is valueless. There is nothing sacrosanct about the composition of the population in 1920. It would be foolish to believe that we reached the peak of ethnic perfection in that year.”[i] During this period the Congress Weekly, the newsletter of the AJCongress, regularly denounced the national origins provisions as based on the “myth of the existence of superior and inferior racial stocks” (Oct. 17, 1955: 3) and advocated immigration on the basis of “need and other criteria unrelated to race or national origin” (May 4, 1953: 3). Dr. Israel Goldstein (1952a, 6), president of the AJCongress, wrote that “The national origins formula “is outrageous now . . . when our national experience has confirmed beyond a doubt that our very strength lies in the diversity of our peoples” (Goldstein 1952b, 5), thus presaging the current mantra promulgated by American media and politicians that “Diversity is our greatest strength.”

Prominent Jewish intellectuals, such as Harvard historian and public intellectual Oscar Handlin, published pro-immigration books (e.g., The Uprooted [1951/1973]) and articles. Handlin’s (1952) article, “The immigration fight has only begun,” was published in Commentary (published by the American Jewish Committee) shortly after the Democrat-controlled Congress overrode President Truman’s veto of the restrictionist 1952 law. In a telling comment indicating Jewish leadership of the pro-immigration forces, Handlin complained about the apathy of other “hyphenated Americans” in joining the immigration battle. He repeatedly uses the term “we”—as in “if we cannot beat [Sen. Pat] McCarran and his cohorts with their own weapons, we can do much to destroy the efficacy of those weapons” (p. 4)—suggesting Handlin’s belief in a unified Jewish interest in liberal immigration policy and presaging a prolonged “chipping away” of the 1952 legislation in the ensuing years mentioned by Graham (2003) as part of the context of the 1965 law and noted by Cofnas.

Handlin clearly rejected an ethnic status quo, arguing that it was “illusory [to expect] that the composition of American population will remain as it is” (Handlin, 1947, 6). And he never addressed the stated justification used by restrictionists in the 1924 debates, describing their attitudes as follows: “The hordes of inferior breeds, even then freely pouring into the country in complete disregard for the precepts of the new racial learning, would mix promiscuously with the Anglo-Saxon and inevitably produce a deterioration of the species” (1951/1973: 257). Handlin thus ignored the actual argument used by restrictionists during the Congressional debates of 1924—that the national origins formula was fair to all ethnic groups in the country because it created an ethnic status quo (MacDonald, 1998/202: 263) with its implicit and entirely defensible assumption from an evolutionary perspective that different ethnic groups have conflicts of interest on immigration (e.g., conflicts between Palestinians and Jews in Israel over a Palestinian right of return).

Handlin was a critical figure in the decades leading up to the passage of the 1965 law:

Handlin’s thinking on immigration policy both reflected and shaped the course of reform in the postwar period. He may be credited with popularizing a new interpretation of American history—one that conceptualized immigration at the heart of American economic and democratic development. In creating this framework for immediate political reform, he founded a normative theory of immigration history—one we popularly known as “a nation of immigrants” (Ngai, 2013, 62).

[i]. Joint Hearings Before the Subcommittees of the Committees on the Judiciary, 82nd Cong., 1st Sess., on S. 716, H.R. 2379, and H.R. 2816, March 6–April 9, 1951, 410.

Abrams, E. (1999). Faith or fear: How Jews can survive in a Christian America.

Graham, O. (2004). Unguarded gates: A history of American’s immigration crisis. Rowman & Littlefield.

Handlin, O. (1947). Democracy and America’s future. Commentary 3: 1–6.

Handlin, O. (1951/1973). The uprooted, 2^nd ed. Little Brown and Co.

Handlin, O. (1952). The immigration fight has only begun. Commentary 14(July), 1–7.

Isaacs, S. D. (1974). Jews and American Politics. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Ngai, M.M. (2013). Oscar Handlin and immigration policy reform in the 1950s and 1960s. Journal of American Ethnic History, 32(3), 62–67.

President’s Commission on Immigration and Naturalization (PCIN) (1953). Whom we shall welcome. De Capo Press.

Svonkin, S. (1997). Jews against prejudice: American Jews and the fight for civil liberties. Columbia University Press.

Ethnofuturism? A Review of “Rebirth of Europe”

April 8, 2021/46 Comments/in European Nationalism, Featured Articles/by Andrew Joyce, Ph.D.

Ruuben Kaalep and August Meister
Rebirth of Europe: The Ethnofuturist Manifesto
Arktos, 2020

There are many ways I could describe the times we currently live in, and none of them are remotely optimistic. I therefore regard it as no small achievement that Ruuben Kaalep and August Meister, two young ethnonationalists from the Baltic states, have managed to craft an overwhelmingly positive, and even celebratory, manifesto out of the stinking refuse and imbecilic infatuations of the present age. H.L. Mencken once suggested that “all government, in its essence, is a conspiracy against the superior man.” Modern government in the West is a conspiracy against the White man alone, and the question of how to overturn this conspiracy is the single greatest challenge of our time. It has resulted in a proliferation of manifestos and ways of describing our politics, all with the aim of turning the political tide and bringing the majority of Europeans, wherever they may live in the world, to their senses.

This proliferation of ideas and methods has, however, probably added to our woes rather than alleviated them. Today we have a confusion of self-descriptions which only seem to exacerbate factionalism. And we have developed a veritable stew of manifestos that contradict each other or suggest different points of emphasis. Underpinning much of what now passes for contemporary ethnonationalist philosophy, particularly in the Anglosphere, is a kind of apathetic paralysis, and an expectancy of something undefined but nevertheless earnestly yearned for. I believe that the thing we yearn for most is clarity and confidence. Clarity of where we stand. Clarity of what’s happening to us. Clarity of our options. And the confidence to see these options through. Kaalep and Meister succeed where others fail because Rebirth of Europe is a masterwork of confidence and clarity.

Ruuben Kaalep is an Estonian nationalist and self-described ethnofuturist. He is a founder of the youth movement Blue Awakening (Sinine Äratus) and of the Conservative People’s Party of Estonia (EKRE). He’s also been a member of the Parliament of Estonia since 2019, where he belongs to the Committee of Foreign Affairs and chairs the Freedom of Speech Group. Other than this, I don’t know much at all about him, which says more about my ignorance of the affairs of Eastern European nationalism than it does about the scope of his activity. Images of the man depict a cheerful young fellow exuding the air of an eccentric artist, a sensibility that is carried through into this book in the form of a quirky and irrepressible rhetorical confidence. Kaalep wrote Rebirth of Europe with August Meister, who appears to be a pseudonymous Baltic writer with expertise in history and politics, between 2015 and 2017. Both are clearly talented, cultured, and well-educated. Although we are now almost four years on from completion of the text, it hasn’t aged at all since it refrains from discussion of the minutiae of contemporary politics (there are only one or two fleeting references to Trump, for example) in favor of a much grander and broader vision of the global political scene.

Rebirth of Europe is a short but incredibly subtle text of one hundred pages, divided into three chapters. The first chapter, “The Struggle of Our Time,” is a succinct description of the fundamental causes and manifestations of European decline. The second chapter, “Ethnofuturism,” is an appeal for an ethnonationalist politics prepared to embrace technology and move forward in history. The third chapter, “The Geopolitical Aspects of Ethnofuturism,” offers a wide-ranging view of the future prospects for European ethnonationalism on the international stage.

The book opens in a grand philosophical style that, in its appeal to “the organic principle,” reminded me somewhat of the opening of Yockey’s Imperium. What the first chapter essentially enunciates is the spiritual and cultural-political state of a civilization in crisis. The European crisis, as we are only too aware, unfolds on multiple levels, with Europeans confronted by runaway technology, by renegade concepts of individualism, by mass migration, by calculated subversion, by internal treason and corruption, and by loss of connection with the past. The last of these is a foremost concern of Kaalep and Meister, with the proposed solution being an attempt to embrace the future while simultaneously integrating elements of the past, avoiding mere nostalgic lapses.

In a broad sense, this is an unoriginal idea, and I mean that by way of complimenting the authors rather than disparaging them. What I am stressing is that such a proposal should not be regarded as quackery, or even niche thinking emanating from the political fringe. One of the most impressive and profound exponents of such an approach is Keiji Nishitani (1900–1990), a Japanese student of Martin Heidegger and one of the foremost twentieth-century philosophers of religion^[1], who embraced and deeply respected European philosophy while questioning what Western modernism and technology would ultimately mean for his own civilization. This questioning ultimately led Nishitani into fierce opposition to nihilistic trends in European/Western modernity (see, for example, his The Self-Overcoming of Nihilism), and his proposal of something that sounds remarkably similar to the Archeofuturism later advocated by the late Guillaume Faye and, indeed, by Kaalep and Meister in the volume presently under discussion. In a series of lectures delivered to the Shin Buddhist Association in Kyoto between 1971 and 1974, Nishitani elaborated on the meaning of the confrontation between Japanese culture and those elements of Western modernism that we would now describe simply as globalism.^[2] Nishitani rejected extreme individualism, which regards the Self as both singular and self-standing—as opposed to singular yet integrated into a community and heritage. Combined with science and technology, and rampant materialism, the extreme individualist view of the Self would, Nishitani insisted, lead to the eventual breakdown of all meaningful interpersonal human relationships. Materialistic atheism, unable to place the individual in the wider context of the universe as a divine place and creative source, would lead to the wholesale atrophy of culture and the regression of humanity. Professor Robert Carter, a Nishitani scholar, points out that

[Nishitani’s] strategy is not to advocate a return to the past, for he is adamant that the past is forever frozen and out of reach. Nevertheless, as human beings we carry the past with us in so many ways, and it is our task to breathe new life and significance into tradition, as it is shaped and reshaped by science, technology, and the cultures of the West. He is an advocate of change, but of a change that does not forget to carry its past into the future as an ingredient in the “mix of meaning” that quality living always demands. The authentic person is one who lives in the present with one eye on the past and the other on the future, on hope and possibility. Nishitani believes that what is required of us in the modern and postmodern world is that we simultaneously destroy and rebuild our traditional way of life in the light of the changes brought about by the secular age in which we find ourselves. Yet we must not simply join the secularists who have abandoned religion and much of tradition. They live blindly, being buffeted by the trends and fads of the moment. Moreover, they have accepted an ever-present nihilism as the preferred and rational understanding of the truth of the human condition, and in doing so have lost all awareness of a sustaining metaphysical and spiritual background to our impoverished materialistic and nihilistic foreground.

Nishitami with Heidegger

Nishitani, who today draws extreme caution from contemporary scholars due to his frequent use of the German for ‘Blood and Soil’ and his claim that only the European and East Asian civilizations can be regarded as globally pre-eminent,^[3] elaborates a kind of ethnofuturism in poetic form, using the analogy of the kite:

It concretises what has just been said about the importance of tradition in moving forward into a new future, and encountering new circumstances, and yet remaining true to the past. … Like a kite, Japan has been able to steer a stable course, because of the ‘tail’ of tradition that has served to stabilise her flight into the winds of change, while being rooted or anchored by the ‘string’ of its deep culture. A kite without the weight of tradition and rootedness simply dances wildly, becoming entangled in tree branches, or is dashed to the ground, or breaks away altogether and loses its distinctive past. What here made Japan a country able to adapt to its own high-level modernisation are its deep-rooted traditions. The result has been a more balanced and stable form of progress [compared with that seen in the West]. When a strong wind blows, the power of tradition must be put to work. But … we cannot fly a kite if its tail is too heavy. It is of the utmost importance to strike a balance between these two inclinations; toward modernisation and change, and toward tradition.

The Struggle of Our Time

In Rebirth of Europe, Kaalep and Meister echo Nishitani’s sentiments almost exactly, and begin their text by advancing the argument that the European ‘kite’ has had its string and tail cut off, leaving it spiraling into chaos. This chaos is being cultivated by globalist elements who want to sever the ties of all nations to their histories and traditions and attempt to overwhelm the unique genetic heritages of different peoples by papering them over with a common totalitarian culture of conformity. Kaalep and Meister insist that “in the 21st century the fundamental conflict is between globalism and nationalism. … The struggle of our time does not so much manifest itself as a war with rows of poppies and cavalry charges, but as a cultural struggle. The world is either to become one, led by a totalitarian mass culture, or regrow into many—a diversity of unique ethnostates.” The pair claim that “the true ethnonationalist cares for all nations, and the principle of ethnonationalism seeks to provide every nation with a homeland. Therefore ours is a rebellion against the principles of liberalism, which see every country as belonging to everyone—and thus to no one. Nationalism seeks to save the world.”

Central to their manifesto is something Kaalep and Meister call “the Organic Principle,” which involves—once more echoing the East Asian philosophies of Nishitani and the Kyoto school of philosophy with which he was associated (though with Nietzschean and pre-modern European inflections), “a non-dual basic principle of existence—the highest possible unity, beyond good and evil, that integrates both spiritual and physical reality.” While some of this rhetoric is a bit head-in-the-clouds for my own taste, it is interspersed with enough clear language to enable to reader unfamiliar with some of the philosophy under discussion to take away the major message. In brief, Kaalep and Meister are arguing that

Ours is a world of constant battle between spiritual and physical forces, between identities, religions, cultures, between ‘us’ and ‘them.’ As life expands, it overcomes resistance, it becomes more complex and unequal, therefore conflict and struggle are counterparts of life itself. … This dialectic could very well be called the ‘circle of life.’ Life exists in movement, in differentiation, and inequality. … Universal inequality is a factor that allows the world to be dynamic and to evolve, giving everyone a chance to find his place in the organic whole. This is the non-discrimination principle of the organic state, and it is opposed to mechanistic humanism, according to which the individual is considered ‘a cog in the machine,’ replaceable according to the needs of some project of a superstate or the needs of the market.

Kaalep and Meister have an interesting section on hierarchy within historical European societies, reflecting on the fact that, while older caste systems are now much maligned, they were in fact transparent and socially satisfying. By contrast, our elites today thrive on the fact that,

The modern mechanistic hierarchies are secretive and based on a purely material ‘merit.’ … They are not accountable to anyone, but the influence of the upper levels towards the lower levels are totalitarian and without any sense of ethical responsibility. A vertical hierarchy of power is established; horizontal ties are made weaker by internal conflicts and an ideology of mutual hate, competition and individualism, which strengthens the power of the upper levels. The paradox today is this: in the conditions of the ideology of total ‘equality,’ a historically unprecedented amount of power belongs to those ‘above’ in relation to those ‘below.’ The historical uniqueness of this fact is related to the fact that today modern technologies and means of mass communication allow a maximum degree of manipulation of the cosmopolitan masses of men.

Kaalep and Meister, however, reject pessimism or despair, seeing in the acceleration of globalist liberalism merely the necessary hastening of civilizational collapse—a prerequisite of rebirth. For the authors, “the rebirth of civilization is an ever-present possibility that has to be comprehended and realised.” They insist that “the metaphysical core of our civilization and its integral tradition, which is profoundly ethnic, lies beneath, waiting for the right time to break through the artificial structures of postmodern civilization.” This rebirth will not be characterized by a wholesale rejection of modernity, but by subjugating its mechanistic elements to the organic principle: “the task of the future is to tame these awakened forces and to make them serve a higher purpose—the creation of a new culture and a new man with his roots still deep in the European soil and his eyes once again focused on the sky.” The book proceeds to a detailed examination of liberalism as a mechanistic ideology. We are told that “liberalism as a theory is inseparable from globalism as a power,” and that it is characterized by ‘permanent revolution’ against traditions, cultural norms and life itself. The text then moves to a thorough, and quite excellent, denunciation of conservatism, while incorporating and critiquing the ideas of Edmund Burke, Joseph de Maistre, and Nietzsche. The stress that mere conservatism is a losing strategy since its final demand of keeping things ‘as they are’ will always lead back to decadence and nihilism. The only true, natural path forward is to engage in a counter-revolution that synthesizes “the best elements of modernity and tradition.”

It goes without saying that Kaalep and Meister are very much pro-technology, which runs against the grain for those in our circles who tend more towards the kind of thinking laid out by Ted Kaczynski and Pentti Linkola, or the critiques of technological thinking that can be found in the writings of Martin Heidegger or Jacques Ellul. I count myself among those who could be described, at minimum, as being suspicious of technological progress, or at least doubtful of its prospects for unceasing progress given the eventual limitation of natural resources and the increasing environmental and social cost of technological expansion, particularly in the hands of a globalist elite intent on imposing a surveillance state and enforcing mass conformity. Even aside from certain ethical questions arising from, for example, the genetic editing of human beings, the mass contamination of our water supplies from toxic industrial chemicals, which has in turn led to decreasing fertility and mutations worldwide, should provide any reasonable person with enough reason to think carefully about the issues at hand.

That being said, geopolitical considerations demand that Europe/the West remain at least competitive in the technological sphere, meaning we are probably, for the foreseeable future, locked into the technological arms race. Since we cannot extricate ourselves from it, we may as well attempt to take the lead in it. In that case, the problem that presents itself is the potential impact on the nature of our civilization. Here, Kaalep and Meister suggest that we explore ways to “connect modern technology with the ancient way of being most inherent to man.” This certainly sounds like an ideal, but what does it look like in practical terms? Our authors don’t offer any answers, but I suppose the important thing is that they push the issue into the spotlight.

The book’s first chapter closes with a look at “New Left Totalitarianism and the Decline of the West.” None of the ‘meat’ in this chapter will be especially novel to readers of The Occidental Observer, but there are some memorable turns of phrase that encapsulate very well the situation we find ourselves in:

For this new totalitarianism, nations and peoples are considered obstacles that have to be removed and replaced with a new global order. … The most advantageous world for the global elite is one where the highest value is the individual, but the individual himself is freed with the help of postmodernism from any meaning, significance and wider context, and finds himself isolated and vulnerable.

After World War II, the Western populations were “fooled by the promises of economic prosperity and countless freedoms, rarely noticing that the freedom to remain who you are was not on the table.” Masterfully, our authors write

Governments and businesses have become gigantic and inhuman, but democracy in the essential questions just does not work. Indeed, where it is attempted, this sort of democracy only serves to alienate man further. The overall consequence is a universal sense of emptiness and stress for humans who have already lost any connection to nature and control over the technological process. Humans who now fill only the role of workers-employers are searching for their identities in the one-day fashion trends offered by consumer culture. This culture creates humans that are unable to react to each other as mature personalities. An illusion of constant ‘youthful revolution’ is created, while the youth just passively recreate models of behavior that are offered by the globalist elites; they, in turn, are part of the overall trends of the system.

Further,

We have even lost track of who we are, as no true identities can exist in a consumer society. On the surface, anyone can be special, free from all shackles of tradition; everyone can identify as whomever he likes. Thus, one is not born with any particular identity. If anyone can be a Frenchman, then no one is really a Frenchman. Where liberalism talks of diversity, it really aims at erasing all distinctions. Where it talks of multiculturalism, it aims are creating a global melting pot where no cultures survive.

In its last attack on the culture of Europe, liberalism is arranging the physical replacement of Europeans with people from other cultures. “It is mass immigration in catastrophic numbers.” But with this gambit, liberalism “is close to its grand finale.” Our authors insist that liberalism will consume itself in the process, and is “about to become an absurd notion, where even the values it itself has held begin to be reconstructed by its shape-shifter ideology.” At that moment, we will find “our chance to start a new European cultural cycle that shapes its history for many centuries to come. The liberals will be powerless to stop it. Then they will become conservatives, stubbornly refusing to accept the new reality that the nationalists will embark on.” This nationalism will have to be of a completely new type—Ethnofuturism.

Ethnofuturism

Ethnofuturism is a kind of nationalism that transcends national egoism. It does not seek merely to ‘conserve,’ because that entails a static defense while “life exists only in movement.” It has its roots, however, in the Conservative Revolution proposed in early twentieth-century Germany, and seeks to promote a rebirth of “the archetypes of Western civilization and forgotten forms of life that formed our civilization in the first place.” Disastrous immigration policies, which have become a unifying element for all European nationalists, mean that Europe as a whole will “be forced to return to traditional values and nationalism to survive.” America will be increasingly burdened by ethnic conflict, bringing to an end the “American Dream” of building a society in which ancestral heritage plays no role—“but this is inevitable, as a civilization that denies those fundamental truths will always be doomed to collapse.” Kaalep and Meister continue,

The fundamental basis for a new Europe must be ethnic nationalism. This means the importance of a nation as an organic whole has to be maintained. … In addition, the nature and landscapes of Europe have to be preserved, as those are vital to the cultural heritage and differences between people. The demographic survival of every nation has to be secured by governmental policies.

With Western Europe potentially catastrophically damaged by mass immigration and civil war, “this new Europe—and the new West—might have the centers of its culture in Budapest, Warsaw, and Tallinn. Mastering its demographic processes and not leaving them in the hands of liberalism, the new Europe will actually be able to economically and culturally compete with the rest of the world … After securing its ethnē, Europe’s fate in the 21st century will be decided by national eugenics, and presently only China seems to have an appropriate mindset.” Hungary is praised for its recent program of building a network of narrow-gauge railways that emphasize life in the countryside, and from which no multinational corporation has anything to gain. Our authors highlight this as “a sign of one of the most Ethnofuturistic tasks ever developed by a country in the 21st century. Modern technology and speed allow the combination of the advantages of the city and the countryside.”

Kaalep and Meister concur with my contention that we are more or less locked into a technological arms race. They point out that advancements in biotechnology and nano materials have “the potential to change economics and warfare by the end of this century beyond all recognition. … To fight against such technology would be self-defeating and even dangerous. The first government, corporation or group that masters biotechnology will inevitably have a huge advantage over all its rivals.” European nationalists must work together because, by the end of the century, “control over technology has to be in the hands of ethnonationalists, and not the globalists, supposing they have survived so long.”

From here, the text moves to elaborating upon reasons for rejecting any alliance with the Buckley-style economic conservativism dominant in the United States among Republicans, and for rejecting the New Right associated with Alain de Benoist that formed in 1960s’ France. The authors critique the latter for advancing “abstract ideas about organic communes and the rights of people to maintain their identity” because this “can lead to the approval of multiculturalism.” The New Right is also attacked for spending “much of its energy on fighting against Christianity,” thus alienating significant parts of its support base. The New Right is also criticized heavily for its support for the USSR and its strident anti-Americanism, and for neglecting to develop a clear political theory and corresponding practice. Kaalep and Meister reject the idea that we can focus our efforts on gaining cultural hegemony without bringing any practical results, producing only endless publications and conferences that contribute rich intellectual material without bringing about real changes in the lives of Europeans.

What Kaalep and Meister propose is a strategy that is both metapolitical and political, with radical and moderate wings. Of primary importance is the attack on, or infiltration of, anthropology, which has been in the “hands of liberals and Marxists” since the early twentieth century, and from which they marched through the institutions of the social sciences and the media. There are lengthy and very interesting statements of what should be demonstrated by activists and leaders, the most memorable of which are those relating to the need to cultivate the notion of a hierarchical and self-sacrificial elite: “The leader of the highest grade … must also be ready to be condemned for his activity and to take the risk of being slandered and accused by smaller men, because this is part of the price for his [spiritually] high lifestyle.”

Like some of the other writings contained in the book, this reminded me of Japanese parallels, notably some reminiscences relating to the Kyoto school founder Kitaro Nishida, who came under sustained attack from Marxists for his appeal to tradition, and steeled himself with the attitude of the samurai. Nishida once crafted a piece of calligraphy with the motto: “To risk everything, win or lose,” and a poem:

Let others do as they will,
I am who I am,
At any rate I will walk the way,
That I make my own.

Nishitani remarks that he once observed Nishida pick up a leftist magazine that contained an essay attacking Nishida and his philosophy. Nishitani recalls “I sat quietly nearby, watching with a mixture of curiosity and apprehension. Turning the pages, he came to the essay in question, read a little of it and threw it aside. His face showed no expression whatsoever.” This is surely the attitude called for by Kaalep and Meister.

The text then moves to fascinating proposals for the future State, the most important of which concern measures to raise birth rates and control the ethnic composition of the population. Following this, there is a substantial discussion of “Nationalism and Nature,” in which environmental protections are outlined.

The Geopolitical Aspects of Ethnofuturism

My favourite section of Rebirth of Europe is the final chapter, which offers a fascinating outline of informed speculation about our unfolding future. The section opens with the claim that

we are returning to the situation preceding the Industrial Revolution, in which economic strength will be determined by natural and demographical resources, because technological development will be basically the same for all of the nations of the world. This implies the inevitability of multipolarity and the return to superpower status for civilizations like China and India.

Kaalep and Meister see, in the end of American hegemony, an end to the Western mechanistic materialism it has come to symbolize. Similarly, they denounce the Eurasianist idea of Alexander Dugin because it “cannot function.” Russia is only capable to fighting Cultural Marxism in slogans, but not in practice. Russia “surpasses Western decadence, with impressive rates of abortions, alcoholism and drug addiction, which its political regime has not been able, or has not wanted, to stop. … Children of Russian politicians are living in the West, and the culture of Russia itself is overloaded with reality TV shows and vulgar mass culture.”

Kaalep and Meister add,

It will be neither Russia nor the US that will lead the future; rather we can expect a new Pacific era with China and India regaining their influence. These countries at least will not be liberal, pacifistic, or humanistic—they will use the scientific breakthroughs in service of their political greatness. Therefore, the European peoples will have to change their worldview in order to survive in this new competition, where are losing with each moment that we remain part of a liberal, self-hating and self-defeating system.

There is a very interesting section concerning the nationalist experience in the Baltic states, which is highlighted by a very strong sense of European brotherhood. When Kaalep and Meister claim the Baltic nationalists will do their utmost if called upon to defend Europe’s southern borders, or the demographic integrity of the Western European nations, one detects the deepest sincerity.

The book’s rather moving closing remarks concern duty and death, the conclusion of all spiritual journeys. “In the end, waging a struggle that seems already lost from the start is the only thing to do, precisely because nothing else matters. Nothing matters more than this.” Our authors finish by arguing that,

In the present situation of Western civilization, which appears to be going through an irreversible downfall, halting is not an option. This is more than just a matter of political ideologies; this is the inner logic of a culture. The only thing remaining to our nations is to survive this downfall. Most importantly, our genes and the traditions that carry our full potential have to survive. For the death and destruction of the West, brought about by liberalism, is ever approaching its singularity. When it reaches a certain point, this will be our opportunity. This will be the moment of a true returning to our roots, a returning without ever turning. When the Western world was celebrating diversity and multiculturalism, we foresaw its catastrophic destruction at its own hand. Moreover, when it begins to panic in the catastrophe that it was unable to avoid, then it will be our time to build a new European civilization. The circle will be complete.

Concluding Remarks

Rebirth of Europe is a refreshing and optimistic document that punches well above its weight for a book of such modest length. It has a depth, breadth, and clarity of philosophical understanding that is often rare in texts of this nature, and it is thought-provoking to say the least. The issues that it raises demand attention, and further action, by anyone concerned with the ethnonationalist cause.

Whether ethnofuturism is a reliable path in the longer term, however, remains to be seen. Other than China perhaps, do we really see any examples in the world today of a country that has managed to maintain significant elements of traditional culture while plunging headlong into technological development? For my part, I am sure that had Keiji Nishitani delivered his lectures today, some 50 years after he addressed the Shin Buddhist Association, he may have been more cautious in his advocacy for letting the national ‘kite’ take flight in the winds of change. The Japan of today may be superficially stable and technologically advanced, but has been plagued for decades by low fertility and high suicide rates, as well as the increasing marginalization of its traditions and religions.

Can the runaway train of industrial modernity ever be truly tamed enough to be marshalled by tradition? This remains to be seen. In addition to this problem, of course, is the question of those foreign elements embedded in the West who are dedicated to ensuring both that the ‘string and tail’ of the European ‘kite’ remain forever severed. How does a national movement reconnect a people with their history and traditions while harboring factions that want these same traditions and histories to disappear forever or to be permanently tarnished with shame? Perhaps the only comfort we can draw is, as Kaalep and Meister point out, the fact that even in catastrophe there may lie opportunity.

^[1] See, for example, his monumental Religion and Nothingness.

^[2] For the complete lectures, see K. Nishitani, On Buddhism (New York: State University of New York Press, 2006), 18.

^[3] G. Parkes, “The Putative Fascism of the Kyoto School and the Political Correctness of the Modern Academy,” Philosophy East and West 47, no. 3 (1997): 305–36. For a more biographical exploration of anti-Marxism and Traditionalism within the Kyoto school see K. Nishitani, Nishida Kitaro: The Man and His Thought (Nagoya: Chisokudo Publications, 2016).