“Nah, I’m just a White guy”: “Sky King” and White Male Suicide
“It is this which makes suicide easier: for the physical pain associated with it loses all significance in the eyes of one afflicted by excessive spiritual suffering.”
Arthur Schopenhauer, Über den Selbstmord
A few days ago, Rich Russell, a 29-year-old baggage handler at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, took a a twin-turboprop Bombardier Q400 that had been parked for the night, and flew it 25 miles before deliberately ending his life by crashing it on the sparsely populated Ketron Island. Rich appears to have made a point of avoiding injuring or harming others in his pursuit of a cinematic, and, one assumes, adrenaline-fueled exit from this life. Among the particularly poignant aspects of the moments before his death was Rich’s determination to execute a barrel roll before making his way to Ketron Island. There was also his interaction with an air traffic controller, during which a nervous, distracted, emotional, and clearly troubled Rich attempted to make humorous small-talk. At one point the following exchange took place:
Rich: Hey do you think if I land this successfully, Alaska will give me a job as a pilot?
Air traffic control: You know, I think they would give you a job doing anything if you could pull this off.
Rich: Yeah right! Nah, I’m a White guy.
We will never know what combination of reasons led this young man to take his own life, but this particular exchange certainly resonates strongly with a growing problem: White men, specifically, are taking their lives at terrifying rates, and these rates are getting worse. Another sign that there was something deeper in the nature of Rich Russell’s death was the response from the Alt-Right community on social media. Rich was quickly given the admiring and sympathetic hashtag #SkyKing, and whereas the mainstream media and all aspects of the political Left appeared to ignore the story altogether, Alt-Right accounts were notable for changing their usernames to include plane emojis, producing tribute videos, and expressing sincere condolences for the loss of a young man everyone would be proud to call a son or brother. Even setting aside the epic nature, if that’s even an appropriate terminology, of Rich’s death, this suicide clearly touched a nerve. Why? Read more
Biopolitics, Racialism, and Nationalism in Ancient Greece: A Summary View
The following is a brief summary of the ancient Greek theory and practice of biopolitics, racialism, and nationalism. These themes, which are so taboo in the West today, were integral to the Hellenic way of life at the founding of our Western civilization and of our unique tradition of civic self-government. I will also refer to some of the copious mainstream academic literature documenting this.
The Greeks believed that, despite their political divisions, they belonged to a common nation, defined by shared blood, language, religion, and culture. According to Herodotus, the Greeks were“one race speaking one language, with temples to the gods and religious rites in common, and with a common way of life” (Histories, 8.144). Patriotic Pan-Hellenic rhetoric – on the supreme value of Greece and the glory of sacrificing oneself to save Greece – is pervasive across centuries of Greek literature and political discourse.[1]
The Greeks had a primitive and unsystematic racial theory. They believed that peoples gradually acquired characteristics due to their environment (e.g. Ethiopians became black because of the heat) and that these traits became hereditary.[2] These observations certainly prefigure Darwin’s later evolutionary theory.
The Europeans north of Greece were generally considered barbaric and spirited, while Asians inhabiting Persia were considered effeminate and submissive. Barbarians were often thought incapable of civic self-government. The Phoenicians were sometimes perceived as having certain Semitic stereotypes (mercantile, dishonest, greedy, mercenary) but were also sometimes perceived as a fellow advanced people, comparably organized and capable in terms of trade, warfare, and civic self-government.
The Greeks did not talk about anything analogous to racial differences in IQ and it is often unclear to what extent they believed ethnic characteristics to be due to culture, geography and climate, or heredity. The Greeks were however certainly very struck by the physical differences of the few Blacks they encountered, producing pottery contrasting Caucasian and Negroid features, in styles rather reminiscent of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
The Greeks had a primitive theory and practice of eugenics. Following the practice of animal breeding and simple observation, the Greeks understood that human physical and psychological traits were at least partly hereditary. It was often said that men should choose the best women as wives so as to have the best children possible. Due to economic difficulties, infanticide through exposure was a cruel accepted practice, at the parents’ discretion. In Sparta and Rome, the killing of deformed children was mandatory, an exercise in negative eugenics. Read more
Gas-Chamber Blues Revisited: More on the “Stain and Shame” of Labour Anti-Semitism
Everything is connected, but some things are more connected than others. Let’s start with Margaret Hodge, the arrogant Jewish Labour MP whose criticism of Jeremy Corbyn and support for censorship I discussed in “Labour’s Gas-Chamber Blues.” After Hodge was threatened with disciplinary action for what she said about Corbyn, her high-powered lawyers wrote a letter to the party complaining about the way she was being treated. The letter was seven pages long and won’t have come cheap. But Hodge is a millionaire and can well afford it.
Legal eagles
Then again, maybe she got a discount or even free service, because her high-powered lawyers are an anti-Brexit Jewish firm called Mishcon de Reya. The firm’s leading light and deputy chairman is a Jewish activist and literary scholar called Anthony Julius, whose extreme ethnocentrism and ability to find anti-Semitism in the most surprising places were described by Andrew Joyce at the Occidental Observer in 2013. I myself have discussed him here too. In “High-Voltage Hate” I described how he had written a glowing review of his friend Nick Cohen’s anti-censorship polemic You Can’t Read This Book (2012), which he said “stands alongside” libertarian classics like “Milton’s Areopagitica (1644) and Mill’s On Liberty (1859).”
Anthony Julius, Friend Foe of Free Speech
It appeared, then, that Anthony Julius was a passionate supporter of free speech. But appearances were deceptive. In “Moshe Is Monitoring You,” I described how he had been the lawyer for Ronnie Fraser, a Jewish academic who made a pro-Israeli, anti-Palestinian claim against the University and College Union. The claim was dismissed by a panel of judges as “an impermissible attempt to achieve a political end by litigious means.” The judges condemned the academic and his supporters for betraying “a worrying disregard for pluralism, tolerance and freedom of expression.” I concluded that Julius did not genuinely believe in free speech and that he was happy to support censorship when he and his fellow Jews could benefit from it. Now more proof has arrived of his hostility to free speech.
Legal beagles
Let’s visit the ancient Mediterranean island of Malta, which was the setting, as Anthony Julius is no doubt well-aware, of Christopher Marlowe’s poisonously anti-Semitic tragedy The Jew of Malta (c. 1590). In 2017 a real tragedy struck Malta when the campaigning journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia was blown up with a car-bomb by some of the corrupt businessmen and politicians whose activities she had been trying to expose. The Guardian has noted that, at the time of her death, “she was fighting 47 civil and criminal defamation lawsuits from an array of business people and politicians, brought by multiple law firms.”
Censored by death: Daphne Caruana Galizia
Can you guess the name of one of those bullying, pro-censorship law firms? That’s right: Mishcon de Reya was a leading member of the legal pack hounding Caruana Galizia at the time of her death. According to the Guardian it “specializes in … defamation cases,” but that didn’t stop its leading light Anthony Julius being appointed in December to the board of trustees at the “writers’ campaign group English PEN,” whose “mission is to defend writers and freedom of speech.” Understandably enough, Caruana Galizia’s sons have complained to English PEN about Julius’s appointment, saying that his firm Mishcon de Reya “sought to cripple her financially with libel action in UK courts. … Had our mother not been murdered, they would have succeeded.”
Jewnited They Stand
Free-speech campaigners in Britain have often complained bitterly about wide-ranging British libel laws and the way they’re used by rich foreigners to intimidate and silence critics who are subject to penalties here, whether or not they are actually based here. But Britain’s censorship-friendly laws obviously don’t bother Anthony Julius. Quite the reverse: he and his firm make large sums of money from them. Mishcon de Reya are therefore the perfect lawyers for Margaret Hodge. Like her, they don’t believe in free speech. In particular, Hodge and Mishcon de Reya want to severely restrict criticism of Israel and to end all criticism of Jewish behaviour in general.
Joint Jewry: three identical front pages
So do the “68 rabbis from across UK Judaism” who signed an “unprecedented letter condemning Labour antisemitism.” And so do the editors of Britain’s three main Jewish newspapers, the Jewish Chronicle, the Jewish News and the Jewish Telegraph, which took the “unprecedented step” of “publishing the same front page” attacking Jeremy Corbyn at the end of July 2018. The joint front pages claimed that the “stain and shame of antisemitism has coursed through Her Majesty’s Opposition since Jeremy Corbyn became leader in 2015” and complained about “the existential threat to Jewish life in this country that would be posed by a Jeremy Corbyn-led government.”
The Jewish community are campaigning for Labour to fully adopt an “internationally recognized” definition of anti-Semitism that will make it much easier to intimidate and silence critics of Israel. The coordination and unity of the campaign have been remarkable. Like wasps from a threatened nest, Jews have risen in a swarm and descended on a common enemy, buzzing furiously and stinging viciously. They’ve put aside some bitter antagonisms to do so. For example, the Orthodox rabbis who signed the joint letter would not even recognize their fellow signatory Laura Janner-Klausner, daughter of the alleged paederast Greville Janner, as a valid rabbi. As Kevin MacDonald and Steve Sailer have noted, one long-lasting strategy of Jewish life has been to turn aggression and hostility outwards on the goyim, thereby minimizing internal disputes and schisms.
Axioms of anti-racism
Another important feature of the campaign has been the way it is founded on a ludicrous but unassailable axiom of anti-racism: that a minority is always in the right and must never be accused of employing dishonest means or pursuing selfish ends. A complementary axiom of anti-racism states the exact opposite of the White majority, namely, that it is always in the wrong and constantly employs dishonest means to pursue selfish ends.
But I suspect that many members of the White majority in Britain are now seeing Jews in a new light. It’s very difficult to mistake the hysteria and hyperbole of the Jewish campaign against “anti-Semitism” or to overlook the selfish ends that it is certainly meant to serve. British Jews believe in freedom of screech, not in freedom of speech. I’m sure that many more British goys now wish the screechers would just shut up and go away.
Neovictorian reviews “Love in the Age of Dispossession” by Loretta Malakie
Love in the Age of Dispossession
Loretta Malakie
This is a deceptive book.
Oh, it delivers what it promises, and more, but in the beginning there’s a little essay about the decline of rural America, farm country (in this case, Upstate New York) and Le Grande Remplacement. Then for a while it plays at being a Generation X teen romance. A high school Goth girl is sitting on a park bench in a small town in Upstate New York: “It’s 1993, and when a boy loved a girl he made her a mixtape.”
Catherine “Kitty” Burnes is an Irish-Catholic wannabe rebel who’s been accepted at Ivy League schools, but there’s a sense that Something Is Not Right with her world. The first part of the novel subtly hints at the coming troubles, the emptying and degradation of small town America and the great White die-off that would follow. But on first reading you might think it’s something else, an almost photo-realistic description of one young American woman’s life, upwardly mobile, out of the sticks and away from the hicks and on to New York City, the vibrancy and the multiculturalism and the thousand different ethnic restaurants. The media ecology around her—and us—relentlessly tells us this is what we want, the pinnacle: Freedom! Freedom from, from neighbors who know your business, your stupid high school friends and limits on your “self-expression” and, most of all, freedom to have sex when you want, with whom you want, without pain or fear or guilt. By the time Kitty arrives to live as an adult in New York, the relentless propaganda for Erica Jong’s Zipless Fuck is well into its second generation. And instead of fulfillment, it delivers anomie.
The sequence of events here is a deadpan, devastating parody of what Cosmopolitan and Sex and the City and a score of network comedies have sold to rest of America as The Good Life: Kitty goes to Cornell, Kitty goes to Europe (though we read only the barest details of her time there), Kitty goes to New York City, Kitty goes to law school and clerks for a federal judge. And none of it satisfies or fulfills or brings any real happiness, because she’s detached, from her people and her nature as a woman. She knows something is wrong. Always something is missing.
It’s tribe that’s missing, the home ground, people who know you, knew you as a towheaded child and still see that sun-kissed hair when you pass them on the street as an adult, people who know what to expect from you. New York is the land of constant, wearing uncertainty, except for those for whom it is the home ground. Read more
Review: A Fair Hearing: The Alt-Right in the Words of Its Members and Leaders
A Fair Hearing: The Alt-Right in the Words of Its Members and Leaders
George T. Shaw (ed)
Arktos, 2018
“After absorbing the initial impact the alt-right remained intact and forward-oriented, no nearer or further from its goals, but now more serious and matured.” Thus remarks Evan McLaren, former Executive Director of the National Policy Institute, in a profound personal account of Charlottesville and its immediate aftermath. McLaren’s account is one of 21 essays which together comprise the latest offering from Arktos: A Fair Hearing: The Alt-Right in the Words of Its Members and Leaders. His thoughts offer a succinct summary of the broader contents of the volume — the essays here are representative of a movement in some respects battered and bruised from legal and media entanglements, but also remarkably clear-headed and ideologically robust. Heightened media attention devoted to the Alt-Right, which peaked in 2017 and not always for the better, has been intense and fluctuating, dating probably from Hillary Clinton’s September 2016 “Basket of Deplorables” speech. At first this attention seemed oriented towards crowning an Alt-Right leader who could then be used as a focal point for both defining and maligning the movement. It now seems absurd that Milo Yiannopoulos was the first pick, though he gradually faded into obscurity as the 2016 NPI conference, along with the “Whitefish” incident, brought Andrew Anglin and then Richard Spencer to national prominence. Arguably, it was Whitefish that first offered an opportunity for the media to introduce fear of the movement, rather than simply horror or disgust, into its narrative. Tanya Gersh, one of the key protagonists in that affair, declared she was not being harassed by trolls or deplorables, but “terrorists.” The texture of media coverage quickly changed in the aftermath, absorbing the language introduced by Gersh and her backers in the Southern Poverty Law Center, and culminating on August 11–12, 2017 in Charlottesville, Virginia.
While the media has busied itself for two years with talk of trolls, deplorables, ‘Nazi’ salutes, tiki torch marches, and even domestic terrorism, the ideas and experiences which form the backbone of the Alt-Right remain off limits. You will search in vain for serious journalism in which the thought leaders of the movement are probed for opinions on matters of national or cultural significance. In short, the movement has never been given a fair hearing. The latest literary offering from Arktos is a corrective of sorts, addressing curious ‘normies’ as well as established movement members. A definitive statement of ideology is not found in A Fair Hearing, but rather something better. The volume deals with all of the key ideas around which the Alt-Right has coalesced, but also introduces personal paths of awakening, cultural commentary, essays by women about women, and even a guide to trolling. It’s a text which manages to convey the cultural as well as ideological complexities of the movement without compromising on even the most sensitive topics — a danger that is always present in any attempt to attract mass attention and support. For example, not only is there an excellent contribution on the Jewish Question from Kevin MacDonald, but several other contributors also touch on the subject, with editor George T. Shaw remarking candidly in his introduction: “Jews not only wield obscene levels of power in Western societies, they use that power to damage native White populations.” Read more
Doubling Down on the Art of Dying Review of Tito Perdue’s novel, “Philip”
Philip
Tito Perdue
Arktos, 2017
Each autobiographical novel conveys a writer’s hidden quest for his cryptic double. As a rule, the double always resides in the author’s close proximity. In the same vein a reader will fall in love with the author’s novel if he can detect in it bits and pieces of his own strayed-away double. In all 
of his novels Tito Perdue’s lead character, Lee Pefley, mirrors not just the author’s own feelings of gloom and doom, but also bears witness of what he sees as the unstoppable death of the West. Although the lead character is Purdue’s own double, he wisely avoids the personal pronouns ‘me’ or ‘I’, never indulging in his own hidden ego trips. Instead, Purdue uses a gallery of characters from everyday life—characters that an average reader can easily identify with. Surprisingly, in his latest novel, Philip, we do not meet much of Purdue’s double, i.e. his doppelganger Lee Pefley, although, toward the end of the novel, Lee does briefly show up, his main role being to berate Philip on ars moriendi—the art of dying.
The hero of the novel, Philip, who is past the age of 30, is a well-educated, well-groomed, and a good-looking Southerner. He holds the enviable position of a supervisor in a subdivision of a company dealing with international trade. Most of Philip’s employees are women who swoon each time he walks by their cubicles and who would be willing to strip naked in public in order to secure a romance with their boss. Philip, however, is not a womanizer; nor is he, despite his Southern charm, a sex-obsessed macho man. He is not after women; they are after him. Philip is quite content, however, with his choice—a rather aged New York hooker well-versed in the art of caring for his biological needs and who never ever bothers to investigate his hidden transcendental thoughts. Read more
Also available at Barnes & Noble
Also available at Barnes & Noble
