On Liam Neeson and the Philosophy of the White Vigilante

/36 Comments/in /by

Jonathan Bowden once memorably argued that right wing ideas can be exiled from the political and social mainstream but never totally destroyed, being merely abstracted and displaced into other areas of culture. One such area, he argued, was film, and in certain filmic representations we can still see the semi-self-conscious acting out of the often violent, often suppressed tendencies and latent potentialities of Western man. Bowden cited as examples the number of movie posters depicting a lone White male, gun in hand, gazing into the distance. The movies these posters advertise invariably call upon the themes of a now much-maligned White masculinity. They feature males with singular and non-dialectical mentalities, possessing moral worldviews unclouded by compromise. In a blurring of stark individualism and concern for the group as a whole, these characters often live (and behave) at the margins of the society they go on to protect. They possess an open disdain for social permissiveness, bureaucracy, and procedure, and, finally, they are the spartan, right wing existentialist practitioners of a violent urban vigilantism. They are part of a genre described by one Marxist critic as “repugnantly fascist.” Read more

The Value of Victimhood: Liverpool, Labour and Lucky Luciana Berger

/14 Comments/in , , /by

The English port of Liverpool is famous for three things: soccer, music and violence. Historically it falls within the boundaries of Lancashire, but culturally it has never fitted there. It’s always been too self-assertive and idiosyncratic, so much its own place that its inhabitants go by two names. Formally, they’re Liverpudlians; informally, they’re Scousers.

Militant parasites

As the media clichés have it, Scousers are fiercely proud of their city and fiercely tribal in their politics. And their politics have always been left-wing — sometimes very left-wing. When George Orwell talked about “Irish dock-labourer[s] in the slums of Liverpool” in The Road to Wigan Pier (1937), he said that you can “see the crucifix on the wall and the Daily Worker on the table.” The Daily Worker was the official newspaper of the Communist Party of Great Britain (now the paper is called The Morning Star). In the 1980s, Liverpool was the home of a Trotskyist group called the Militant Tendency, or Militant for short, which tried to infiltrate the Labour party and use Labour’s far greater power and prestige for revolutionary ends.

In biological terms, as I suggested in “Verbal Venom,” Militant were a tiny parasite trying to subvert the nervous system of Labour and divert Labour’s resources to their own use. If Militant activists had stood openly as Trotskyists, they had no chance of winning elections and entering local councils or parliament. Wearing a Labour mask, they could win elections and enter power. And that’s exactly what they did in Liverpool, where they won control of the city council. But their parasitic infiltration of the wider party failed: Labour woke to the threat and fought off Militant’s entryism, as this Trotskyist tactic is called. Read more

The Rise and Decline of the West: Review “At Our Wit’s End” by Edward Dutton and Michael A. Woodley of Menie

/38 Comments/in , /by

 At Our Wit’s End: Why We’re Becoming Less Intelligent and What It Means for Our Future
Edward Dutton and Michael A. Woodley of Menie
Exeter, UK: Imprint Academic, 2018

We in the West have long become accustomed to the idea that scientific and technological progress is the normal state of things, although decline—technological deterioration and loss of knowledge—is by no means uncommon across world history. The contemporary West may be declining in many ways, but what stage in our history could we point to as the summit of our scientific knowledge and technological capability if not the present? And wouldn’t it be absurd to suppose this progress has reached its completion?

Authors Dutton and Woodley, however, would note that a civilization may pass its peak long before the sum of its achievements is complete. We may look for our greatest era not when our knowledge and capabilities were most extensive, but when they were growing most rapidly. And that point, they believe, is already well behind us.

They begin their study by drawing our attention to two technological breakthroughs of the year 1969: the first flight of the Concorde supersonic passenger jet, cutting transatlantic travel time from eight to three and a half hours, and the first manned moon landing. At the time, most people assumed more such aeronautical wonders lay in store. This writer can remember the ubiquitous “artist’s impressions” of future manned flights to Mars and beyond; every little boy of that generation wanted to become an astronaut.

But a Concorde crashed due to human error in 2000, and all flights were discontinued three years later. We have not returned to the moon since 1972. The authors do not mention this, but by 2010 a NASA administrator was saying that “perhaps [the] foremost” of the space agency’s missions was to “reach out to the Muslim world … to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math and engineering.” We are not exactly aiming for the stars any more.

In the authors’ view, the best explanation for such regression is extremely simple: we are becoming less intelligent. Other explanations have some validity: the end of the cold war, e.g., partly accounts for the lowered ambitions of NASA, although not the end of the Concorde. But on Ockhamist principles, as the authors write, “if we can plausibly explain two separate events with one theory, that is superior to having a different theory for each event.” Read more

Guilty of Working While White, Redux: One Year Later

/19 Comments/in /by

Exactly one year ago from the date we started this interview on January 19, Tom Kawczynski was attacked by the national media for daring to work while White. Because the town’s board of selectman was unable to stand-up to the media’s intense bullying of Mr. Kawczynski for simply stating the obvious — that Whites should have the same right as all other groups to work together to protect, and even advance, their collective interests — he was forced to resign from his position as the town manager of Jackman, a small rural community in western Maine.

The Occidental Observer published an interview with Mr. Kawczynski during that media firestorm. This is a follow-up to that interview to learn how Tom and his wife have contended with the changes in their lives since that attack.

Russell James: You ended the last interview with the words “We have more support than
we know, and we are changing the narrative.” Do you still feel that’s true?

Tom Kawczynski: According to the Census, over 60% of Americans are Whites without Hispanic ethnicity. One party, the Democrats, actively works to subjugate any sense of positive identity for the majority. The opposition, the Republicans, hides in shame from defending the accomplishments of that same group.

Under such circumstances, it can feel like we are unwanted, but what is happening is we stand perched on the verge of a nationalist awakening in this country where Whites will finally speak up for our interests with pride, without shame, and in recognition that as the people who both built and maintain this great country, our voices must be heard.

A lie has long persisted that for us to have pride in our accomplishments is diminution of others. This makes no sense. Rather, it is the rising civil rights issue of our time, to recognize that in a nation which respects popular sovereignty, that the majority can escape silence and be heard once more.

I am confident a new day is far closer than anyone realizes and look forward optimistically to its arrival.

RJ: How do you think it came about that explicit assertions White interests are now completely unrepresented in the institutions of power of a country our forefathers founded and built?

TK: We live in a country where most of our schools, our media, and increasingly, our corporations participate in an ongoing effort to suppress any positive expression of White identity. This is the result of a hundred-year plot of radical egalitarians of all stripes; socialists, communists, and Marxists to undo the republic that honored our heritage and replace it with social democracy, the easiest government to control and purchase.

What is particularly frightening is just how vicious these people have become in suppressing voices, seeking now not to just censor dissent, but to we see people suffering social and financial penalties, as well as a justice system where thought itself is now becoming criminalized.

But the biggest problem for all we can talk about how this happened is that we stopped speaking up for ourselves, both in terms of our own people, and for the moral cause of defending our liberty and legitimate authority that derives from our civilization and its timeless ideals. Read more

“Coming Apart” Revisited: Life History Theory and the Crisis of the White Working Class

/13 Comments/in /by

One of the best-selling nonfiction books of 2012 was Charles Murray’s Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960–2010.[1] It was widely reviewed, including an informative essay by Roger Devlin in this publication.[2] As stated in the subtitle, Murray focused on White Americans, and he saw a growing class divide among this demographic. Paradoxically, by making his study explicitly racial he tried to eliminate race as a factor in his analysis. He wanted to explore “the ways in which America is coming apart at the seams — not seams of race or ethnicity, but class.”[3] He sought to describe this phenomenon but not its causes. “I focus on what happened, not why.”[4]

According to Murray, America has a new upper class (NUC) consisting of the top 5 percent, although in some of his analysis he includes the top 20 percent. He says he is not writing about the super-rich one percent, or one tenth of one percent. The NUC has benefited economically and socially from technological advances and globalism. It differs from the old upper class which had more in common culturally with the middle and working classes. Murray believes that “the old rich had a different cultural style, but not different cultural content” than the working class,[5] providing this example: “Theodore Roosevelt, scion of an elite New York family, schooled by private tutors, had been raised on the same textbooks [such as the McGuffey Readers] as the children of Ohio famers, Chicago tradesmen, and New England fishermen.”[6] This common culture was made possible, in part, by a common European-American ethnic identity.

On the other end of the spectrum, Murray sees a new lower class (NLC) consists of a segment of the White working class, perhaps 20–25 percent of the total, that has declined socially and economically since the 1960s. This decline is characterized by a large increase in non-marital births, crime, and drug use, and decreasing industriousness, honesty, and religiosity. The weakening of the family structure has been a huge factor because marriage is needed to socialize the next generation.

No one can read Murray’s book without being struck by the profound cultural revolution that began in America in the 1960s, a revolution that is continuing today. This revolution has affected all classes, but its negative impact has been disproportionately on the White working class. Murray believes that starting in the 60s higher education acted as a great sorting machine, selecting and separating high-IQ individuals from the general population. The high-tech economy rewards these individuals with affluence, and they tend to live in the same neighborhoods, work at the same types of jobs, socialize and marry, and usually produce high-IQ children.

This all may seem meritocratic, and beneficial to society, but it is neither wholly meritocratic nor beneficial.  SAT scores are often used as a rough measure of intelligence, and students with certain family backgrounds (Murray uses Asians as an example, but Jews would be included also), and students living in the Northeast, are more likely to attend elite institutions than White students living in flyover country with the same SAT scores. This also does not take into account affirmative action admissions of non-Whites or elite foreign youths attending American universities. While Murray implies that the NUC is a product of merit, he admits in an aside that it is not entirely the case.

As a conventional conservative Murray is more comfortable discussing issues of class and culture than race.  He reiterates the above quote later in the book. “Our nation is coming apart at the seams — not ethnic seams, but the seams of class.”[7] And again, “We are one nation, indivisible, in terms of whites and people of color. Differences in the fortunes of different ethnic groups persist, but white America is not headed in one direction and nonwhite America in another. We are divisible in terms of class.”[8]  Yet Murray agrees with Edward O. Wilson that “the social sciences are increasingly going to be shaped by the findings of biology — specifically, the findings of neuroscientists and geneticists.”[9] And he acknowledges that there will be group differences in outcomes because “they differ genetically in their cognitive, psychological, and physiological profiles.”[10] Unfortunately, Murray’s useful study on an important topic does not put the fate of America’s White working class into a wider racial context, and by his own admission does not deal much with causation.  Read more

Holy Minority Day: Holocaustianity, Hysteria and the Hotel of Hate

/68 Comments/in /by

It’s Holocaust Memorial Day (HMD) as I write, so here’s an interesting question: Did you hear about the hate-criminal who was caught urinating on a monument at Auschwitz? Probably you didn’t, because the story wasn’t suitable for anti-White, anti-European, anti-Christian propaganda. Quite the opposite. The hate-criminal in question was Jewish, a “19-year-old Israeli” called “Zeev K” (Ze’ev is a common Ashkenazi name in Israel). According to the Jewish Telegraph Agency (JTA), he was “detained” and “questioned for several hours” in March 2018 after he was “caught urinating on … a monument located near the ruins of the crematoria” at the infamous “Nazi death camp.”

Why did he do it?

The JTA subsequently reported that the teenager was found guilty of “desecrating a monument” and fined “5,000 zloty ($1,350)” by “a regional court in the town of Oswiecim, where Auschwitz is located.” He wasn’t present for the hearing, so maybe he was back in Israel, the nation founded after the Holocaust to protect Jews from the irrational hate of gentiles. But I wonder whether he would be safe there after committing a horrible crime like that. After all, the Polish court found him guilty of desecration, which suggests that there was no excuse for what he’d done. So why did he do it? Why on earth would an Israeli Jew do something so foul and degraded to a “monument” at a “Nazi death camp” where millions of his fellows Jews had been slaughtered in the most brutal and inhumane fashion?

Auschwitz, desecrated in March 2018

If I could read Hebrew, I might be able to find the answer on Israeli websites and blogs. But I can’t read Hebrew. As I pointed out in “Words as Weapons,” it’s very useful for Jews to have a language of their own, almost unknown by gentiles whose own languages are very well known by Jews. That linguistic asymmetry was also present in Yiddish, the Jewish dialect of German that was walled off from gentile scrutiny by being written in the Hebrew alphabet. Down history, it has been much easier for Jews to keep secrets from gentiles than for gentiles to keep secrets from Jews.

Thick goyish skulls

And in the modern West it’s also much easier for Jews to criticize gentiles than it is for gentiles to criticize Jews. Indeed, gentiles simply can’t criticize Jews if they know what’s good for them. The Holocaust is used as an enormous stick to beat an appropriate sense of guilt, humility and obedience into thick goyish skulls. “Look what you evil goyim did to innocent Jews. Now shut up and do as you’re told.” But that only increases the interest of the story about the Jewrinator at Auschwitz, as he might be called. Why did he do it? I can think of several possible motives, none of which cast a good light on Jewish psychology and Israeli culture. Perhaps it was an act of arrogance and bravado, carried out with swaggering entitlement by an obnoxious youth from Israel’s Ashkenazi elite: “The goyim might have to grovel before the Holocaust, but I don’t!” Or perhaps the teenager was being bullied by obnoxious Ashkenazim like that and committed the desecration out of defiance and despair. Perhaps he was drunk or on drugs. Perhaps he’s a rebellious teenager who had simply got sick of Israel’s Holocaust cult and decided to express his contempt for it.

Whatever his motives, the Jurinator at Auschwitz committed a repulsive and self-willed act that raises a disturbing question. If a Jew will do something like that to a Jewish sacred site and concept, what on earth might Jews do to other people’s sacred sites and concepts? And it’s precisely because it raises such questions that the story is Not Good for Jews. That’s why it didn’t receive much publicity. But what would have happened if the desecrator had been a White Christian teenager? I think his life would have been destroyed to set an example to other goyim. It would have been both a Teaching Moment and a Screeching Moment, a chance for Jews to emphasize their power and express their hatred of Whites. Read more

https://youtu.be/MhDixYgwQac

TOQLive, Feb. 4, 2019: Prof. Ricardo Duchesne, James Edwards, and Kevin MacDonald

/1 Comment/in /by