Murder and Misogyny: Liberalism is a Power-Cult of Hatred, Envy, Virtue Signaling, and Lies

It was one of the most appalling war-crimes ever committed, but it’s oddly little-known today. In 1940, after the Soviet Union had seized the half of Poland assigned to it by the German-Soviet Pact, Stalin did something worthy of his possible ancestor, Genghis Khan. About 22,000 members of Poland’s military and civil elite, the nucleus of a possible future resistance, were rounded up and summarily executed with bullets to the back of the head.

Woe to the vanquished

Many of the executed men were buried in shallow graves in the Katyn Forest, now in western Russia. And so the atrocity is called the Katyn Massacre. After Germany attacked the Soviet Union in 1941, its forces discovered the mass graves and it accused the communists of a gigantic war-crime. But the Soviet Union threw the accusation back and the Katyn Massacre was officially blamed on the Germans at Nuremberg.

Today the truth is fully established but not widely circulated. For example, most spell-checkers don’t even recognize the name Katyn, although they’re fine with names like Auschwitz, Treblinka and Buchenwald. But of course, there’s one country where the Katyn Massacre is known to everyone: Poland itself. Vae victis! — “Woe to the vanquished!” — is merely a phrase in England. In Poland, it’s a summary of recent and agonizing history.

Poles know very well what can happen to a nation that falls under the control of outsiders. Horrors like the Katyn Massacre can happen. Such knowledge must be part of why Poland has refused to allow mass immigration from the Third World: it “accepts vanishingly small numbers of migrants [and] has some of the most pungent views on immigration on the continent.”

To the Guardian, this is “baffling,” but then liberals believe in narcissism and virtue-signalling rather than in realism and studying the lessons of history. Immigration is invasion by another name and although final conquest may take longer, the same truth will apply in the end: Vae victis! Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic also know the full meaning of the phrase and they too are resisting mass immigration by Muslims and other non-Whites. Hungary in particular knows how Muslims behave on European soil, because it fought off the Ottomans and saw many of its people slaughtered or carried into slavery.

Ancient rules of conquest

England’s history, by contrast, contains nothing like the Katyn Massacre or the Ottoman invasions. The last conquest of England was a thousand years ago, when Duke William of Normandy arrived with his army in 1066. Furthermore, the Norman Conquest was carried out by a closely related racial group who practised exactly the same religion as the English. It was not like the conquest of Catholic Poland by atheist, anti-Catholic communists who were disproportionately drawn from non-Slavic minorities like Jews, Latvians and Georgians — the sadistic rapist Lavrentiy Beria, the NKVD chief who oversaw the Katyn Massacre, was Georgian like Stalin. Duke William saw himself as the rightful heir to the English throne and did not want to replace England’s culture or wipe out its religion. The communists who conquered Poland did want to do all that. That’s why they committed the Katyn Massacre, following a version of the ancient rule of conquest set forth in the Hebrew Bible: “And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.” (Numbers 31:7)

Another ancient rule of conquest comes next in the Bible: “All the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.” (Numbers 31:18) Conquered men were killed and conquered women became the sexual property of the victors. Those were the ancient rules, obvious both in the Bible and in the genetic analysis of prehistoric DNA. The Soviet Union applied the first rule in Poland at the beginning of the war and the second rule in Germany at the war’s end. Like the Katyn Massacre in 1940, the Rape of Berlin in 1945 is nowhere near as well-known as it should be. But the mass rapes committed in Berlin and elsewhere by Soviet troops were not isolated or anomalous. Those troops raped their way across Europe and didn’t spare their own female comrades or Soviet women who had been imprisoned by the Nazis.

Portents for worse horrors

Such war-crimes didn’t happen in England, where enemy bombs fell but no enemy boots trod. Again, the English never learnt the true meaning of Vae victis! That’s why so few English people today fully understand the rape scandals in Rotherham, Huddersfield, Newcastle, Oxford, Telford and many other English towns and cities. Muslim men are behaving like conquerors and taking native women and girls as their sexual property. Rotherham, Huddersfield, Newcastle and the rest are not merely present horrors, but also portents for an even more horrible future. Muslim men clearly understand that immigration is invasion. They also understand that they have collaborators in local councils and the police: “Karrar was brazen in his exploitation of Girl D and acted in the belief that the authorities would never challenge him — something that for years proved to be true.”

Mohammed Karrar was one of the Muslim rape-gang that raped, tortured and prostituted under-aged White girls in the university city of Oxford, where so many of England’s liberal elite complete their education before entering politics and the media. Some of those liberals are now working on the British government’s official anti-hate website. Did any of them attend Oxford during the “years” when Mohammed Karrar and his buddies were left free to rape, torture and prostitute White girls? If so, this dramatic image used at the site in 2019 becomes even more ironic:

Evil White Male vs Innocent Muslim Woman , on official British Government website. Notice: A hate crime is any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim, or anybody else, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice towards someone’s race,  religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity, or disability. So a hate crime is a perception by an alleged victim or, say, an activist. It does not necessarily need to have any basis in a reasonable construction of reality. One can easily see how such alleged victims and activists may perceive things in an unreasonable or hostile manner.

The image has a simple, lying message: White men are a threat to women, minorities and especially women-from-minorities. White men are racists, misogynists, Islamophobes, xenophobes, homophobes, and haters of every other variety going. Except one variety. There is a hate that has no official name, even though it’s practised throughout the West and harms far more people than all the rest put together. There’s no name for hatred of Whites and of White men in particular. But that hatred is plainly at work in the image at the British government’s official anti-hate website. The government is using the taxes of Whites to broadcast a message of hate against Whites: “Look at the poor Muslim woman being abused by the evil white male! We must protect such women with tough laws against White male hate!”

But what is the origin of this anti-White pathology? Well, if you look at the bottom of the government’s “Hate Crime” page, you’ll find these two anti-hate groups standing proudly together:

Tell MAMA UK: A national hate crime support and monitoring service for victims of anti-Muslim hatred.

Community Security Trust: Deals with antisemitic incidents and provides victim support.

Muslims and Jews united against Whites

Tell MAMA might come first in the list, but it’s not pulling the strings of the anti-White propaganda campaign. The Jewish Community Security Trust (CST) is a veteran at the anti-White game, having worked at the highest levels of power for decades. Labour governments have replaced the Tories and Tory governments have replaced Labour, but the song has stayed the same: “Whites are evil oppressors. Minorities are innocent victims. Crush hate speech!”

Jews and Muslims want to destroy free speech

The Jewish anti-White activist Dr Richard Stone, High Priest in the martyr-cult of Stephen Lawrence, has described Muslims and Jews in Britain as “natural allies.” By this, he means that Muslims should join Jews in attacking free speech and demonizing Britain’s White and historically Christian majority. When free-speech warriors like Mark Steyn, Douglas Murray and Rod Liddle criticize the “Islamophobia” industry, they never mention that Jews have played a central role there. Jews supply the industry with the legal expertise and propaganda skills lacked by low-IQ Muslims. And Jews are proud of their role in helping Muslims attack free speech and demonize Whites, as you can see from this story in the Jewish Chronicle back in 2014:

Former CST boss will help Muslim group battle Islamophobia

British Jewry’s leading communal security expert has explained why he felt obliged to help a Muslim group tackle Islamophobia. Richard Benson, who retired as chief executive of the Community Security Trust last year after 12 years at the helm, was appointed co-chair of the Tell Mama group this week. Tell Mama — the Mama stands for “measuring anti-Muslim attacks” — was set up to help British Muslims report discrimination and monitor incidents in a similar way to the CST’s recording of antisemitism. CST has worked closely with the group.

Mr Benson said Fiyaz Mughal, the anti-extremist campaigner who helped set up the group, had approached him to help take Tell Mama “to the next level, to have more success and ensure it has a future”. “They wanted professional support and that’s why I considered it,” said Mr Benson. “I wanted to be a co-chair with someone from the Muslim community and that’s being finalised now. This won’t be a Muslim organisation led by someone from the Jewish community. My role is to take the expertise I’ve got from CST and give those tools to Tell Mama.”

Government officials are said to have voiced concern at Tell Mama’s data-gathering methods, but Mr Benson said such stumbling blocks were to be expected: “CST has been attacked with accusations of over-inflated figures for years. Part of my job will be to give Tell Mama the systems to help ensure it doesn’t happen with them.” …

A CST spokesman said: “Over the years CST has helped many different organisations as part of our commitment to work for the benefit of everybody, inside and outside the Jewish community. We already support Tell Mama’s efforts to tackle anti-Muslim hate crime and we are happy that Richard’s expertise will be put to such good use.” (Former CST boss will help Muslim group battle Islamophobia, The Jewish Chronicle, 10th April 2014 / 10th Nisan 5774)

When Richard Benson spoke of “stumbling blocks,” he meant that Tell MAMA were being dishonest in their “data-gathering methods.” Fortunately, the CST are experts in peddling dishonest data to the government and media, so they’ve trained Tell MAMA in how to do the same.

Three-in-one victims

Richard Benson also knows that emotive images are excellent ways to convey anti-White propaganda. That’s why the government website prominently displays a distressed Muslim woman in a headscarf being shouted at by hate-filled White male. Liberals love to virtue-signal about a victim like that because she combines three sacred groups: Muslims, non-Whites, and women. Taken together, these three groups are maximally different from the White men who supposedly oppress all of them. As a result, liberals can feel especially compassionate, caring, and morally superior.

But there is a strict condition on the use of three-in-one victims. The non-White women in headscarves must never be associated with crimes by the group that really does oppress and harm them. And so the following image will never be used to illustrate the theme of hate on a government website:

Janbaz Tarin and his two victims

The image shows an Afghan Muslim male called Janbaz Tarin and two Muslim women, his former wife Raneem Oudeh and her mother Khaola Saleem, whom he brutally murdered in August 2018. Raneem Oudeh had discovered that he had a wife and children back in Afghanistan, so she left their Islamic marriage. Tarin thereupon murdered her and her mother out of spite. The case was a particularly shocking example of what liberals would call toxic masculinity and femicidal male entitlement. But Raneem Oudeh and Khaola Saleem will never become part of a liberal martyr-cult like the one that surrounds the Black teenager Stephen Lawrence.

Another Afghan male, another double-murder

This is because liberalism is an ideology built on lies in pursuit of power. The murder of Stephen Lawrence is used to promote a lie: that White men are a huge and ever-present threat to the lives and well-being of non-Whites. But the murders of Raneem Oudeh and Khaola Saleem reveal a truth: that the greatest oppressors of non-Whites are in fact other non-Whites. Therefore, their murders are useless to anti-White liberalism.

Ahmad Otak and his two victims

So are the murders of Kimberley Frank and Samantha Sykes in 2017, although these girls too were the victims of a viciously entitled male steeped in toxic masculinity. Remarkably, this male was also an Afghan Muslim, an “asylum-seeker” called Ahmad Otak who lied about his age in order to gain the benefits of being an unaccompanied minor. A White girl called Elisa Frank foolishly became his girlfriend, then left him because of his violent and domineering behaviour. Otak thereupon punished her by murdering her sister: “Afghan national Ahmad Otak laughed and spat on 17-year-old Kimberley Frank’s body after stabbing her 15 times at her home in Yorkshire while her sister Elisa watched helplessly.” But that wasn’t enough for Otak and his toxic masculinity: “He then tied his ex-partner up with electrical flex and lured her friend Samantha Sykes, 18, to Kimberley’s flat in Wakefield, where he stabbed the teenager repeatedly before slitting her throat.”

Kidnap, rape and more throat-slitting

There is no liberal martyr-cult for Kimberley Frank and Samantha Sykes, despite the horrific way in which they died at the hands of a patriarchal monster. Why so? It’s simple. They were victims of a non-White Muslim. Therefore, their murders can’t be used to promote hatred against White men. Liberals do not genuinely care about the lives and well-being of women: they care about winning and expanding their own power. That’s why they have forgotten the horrific double-murders described above. They’ve also forgotten the horrific murder described below, which narrowly failed to be another double-feature:

Freezer body murder: Uncle jailed for Celine Dookhran rape and killing

An uncle has been jailed for life for kidnapping, raping and slitting the throat of his niece before putting her body in a deep freezer. Mujahid Arshid, 33, was found guilty of murdering Celine Dookhran, 20, and the attempted murder of a second woman.

Arshid, who will serve at least 40 years in prison, snatched the women in July before taking them to a house in Kingston, south west London. … Arshid, of Homefield Gardens, Mitcham, has also been convicted of sexual assault charges against the second woman between 2008 and 2010. …

The surviving victim took to the witness box to face Arshid and read her own victim impact statement. She said “flashbacks and nightmares prevent me from moving on” and physical scarring from the attack is a “constant reminder of what Celine and I went through”. A statement from Ms Dookhran’s mother Iman was read out, in which she said her daughter “fell victim to pure evil” and that “coming to terms with her death is likely to be a lifelong assignment”. …

Prosecutor Crispin Aylett QC said Arshid was obsessed with his niece Ms Dookhran, who worked in a bank. Arshid spent weeks planning to abduct and kill both women in a plot that was as “bizarre as it is terrible”, Mr Aylett said. … At the empty six-bedroom house in Kingston, Arshid raped both women in turn before slashing Ms Dookhran’s throat in the bathroom.

The second woman, who cannot be identified, was badly injured but managed to escape after talking Arshid round. Speaking to police from her hospital bed, she described hearing screams and thuds as Arshid killed Ms Dookhran while she was tied to a chair downstairs. … “He molested Celine’s body while she was dead and then he molested me thinking I was dead. He’s such a psycho.” … (Freezer body murder: Uncle jailed for Celine Dookhran rape and killing, BBC News, 14 February 2018)

Mujahid Arshid and his victim Celine Dookhran

The story of Celine Dookhran’s murder is full of details that should horrify and anger liberals and impel them to create a martyr-cult in her memory. As in the double-murders by Janbaz Tarin and Ahmad Otak, there were big police failings that could have stopped the murderer well before he attacked two helpless women. And Mujahid Arshid had an accomplice who remains unidentified and still at large. Liberals have spent decades complaining about police failings in the Stephen Lawrence murder and demanding that all his killers be identified and brought to justice.

More kidnap, rape and murder

So why are liberals silent about very similar things in Celine Dookhran’s far worse and fully premeditated murder, which involved kidnap, rape and significantly more violence? Again it’s simple. Liberals are silent because Celine Dookhran’s murder can’t be used to promote hatred against White men. Instead, it once again reveals the truth: that the greatest oppressors of Muslim women are Muslim men. It also reveals that the greatest threats to all women in 21st-century Britain are non-White men. Although non-White men are still a minority here, they’re committing femicide — the murder of women — at disproportionate rates and with the worst brutality and sadism. Celine Dookhran’s murder is not unique in modern Britain. As I described in “Black Saints, White Demons,” five Blacks and an Albanian “asylum-seeker” kidnapped, tortured and raped two White girls in 2005, before stabbing one of them to death and trying to kill the other with a bullet in the head.

The girl who died, sixteen-year-old Mary-Ann Leneghan, is long forgotten by liberals, because her death can’t be used to promote liberal lies. Instead, it reveals the truth: that the worst abusers and oppressors of women are non-White men. That truth cannot be used to win power for liberals, therefore they deny it and pretend that White men are the problem. The liberal message is simple: White men are evil and must be stripped of power and thrust to the bottom of society. As the Audacious Epigone has said at the Unz Review: “The days of white male Democrats rising to the top of the party are over. There are those like … Biden and Sanders who will be grandfathered in, but the door to national-level leadership is shut for new entrants.”

Sowing the seeds of atrocity

When liberals accuse their opponents of “hate,” they’re projecting their own psychology and motives onto those opponents. It is liberals who are the worst haters, because liberalism is a power-cult fuelled by hatred, envy and lies. Liberals are trying to destroy the White men who stand between them and their dreams of absolute power. But more and more White men understand that they are targeted for destruction. As they wake up, they are starting to fight back. The stakes are very high. We have never had anything like the Katyn Massacre in Britain because we have never had the conditions for it: occupation by hostile outsiders who despise our culture and want to subjugate us for ever.

But liberalism is creating precisely those conditions, not just by importing hostile outsiders and subsidizing their reproduction on British soil, but also by actively encouraging them to hate Whites and seek revenge on us. Indeed, liberals have sown the seeds of atrocity throughout the West and all the horrific crimes above have parallels elsewhere, from the Knoxville Horror committed by Blacks against a White couple in America to the rape and murder of the White girl Maria Ladenburger by yet another Afghan Muslim in Germany. These crimes are portents of what will come if Whites lose control of their own nations. Vae victis! — “Woe to the vanquished!” That’s why liberalism has to end and hostile outsiders have to return where they belong.

The Migrant Invasion of Europe and the Dawn of a New Multicultural Dystopia

Refugees from all over the world keep pouring into Europe in an endless tide.
What can we do to stop this invasion of our homelands?
CLICK TO EXPAND

 

“Migrant crisis? What crisis?
There is no migrant crisis!”

— Ian Birrell, British political pundit, in the Daily Mail

I do Mr Birrell a wrong by implying that he is unaware of the caravans of illegal immigrants pouring into Europe unrelentingly, mostly from five Muslim countries: Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria and Eritrea.

He would have to be living on a different planet not to be aware that the “migrant crisis” is a crisis indeed: not so much for the migrants who have everything to gain if they can smuggle themselves into Europe, but it’s obviously a crisis to their European host countries who have everything to lose if the migrants should succeed in gaining a foothold here and, in the process, force their alien values and culture upon us.

This is what multiculturalism, if the truth be told, is all about: destroying the existing culture initially by dilution, and later on by subtle discrimination, verbal attacks, and, finally, by criminalisation.  Traditional values and the Christian ethos, once the prevailing norms in Europe and the US as late as the 1950s, are now quaint relics of the past, held in almost universal contempt by a thoroughly brutalised population of decadent philistines and tiresome trendies. Widespread neurosis, if not mental sickness, is rapidly becoming normative; and the vices of our ancestors are now the age’s new virtues.

Britain, new ‘Promised Land’ for Asylum Seekers

Mr Birrell, in the startling epigraph quote above—unavailable online but found in the Daily Mail hardcopy edition of 31 December 2018, p.15, under the headline ‘Myopic May damages our nation’—was in fact referring to the 139 illegal immigrants, mostly from Iran, who had recently been caught sneaking into Britain. His sympathies lie with them entirely. He regards them as heroes for surviving torture and oppression in their own countries, for braving the storms and treacherous tides of the Mediterranean, and for slogging their way over mountain passes and through inhospitable enemy terrain in immense caravans of misery, finally to fetch up in the icy waters of the English Channel in a last desperate attempt to get to the land of their dreams—the glorious shores of Great Britain.

This is hardly a “crisis”, Mr Birrell opines. It is a cause for rejoicing.

Apart from Matteo Salvini, there is not a single influential politician anywhere in Western Europe who is lifting a finger to stop this ongoing invasion of our homelands by hordes of African, Asian, and Middle Eastern migrants, all claiming to be “refugees.” And it just keeps getting worse. During the Christmas season more boatloads of illegal immigrants were welcomed into Britain by an inept and dysfunctional British government, most of whose MPs are incidentally “Friends of Israel.” These so-called “representatives of the people” seem to bend over backwards to appease the powerful Jewish lobby here, ignoring the wishes and diktats of this small minority at their peril, a situation not unfamiliar to our equally pressured American confrères.

The man in charge of dealing with the migrant crisis in Britain, Sajid Javid, is himself the offspring of a Muslim immigrant family of Pakistani origin. (See his picture here). His other credentials for dealing with the migrant influx, which he has done nothing remotely effective to limit or discourage so far, are his obsequious loyalties to the state of Israel. A long-time supporter of the Conservative Friends of Israel, Mr Javid has endeared himself to Jewish interests by declaring in 2012 that of all the countries in the Middle East he would like to settle in permanently, his first choice would be Israel. That’s where his Utopia lies, his Promised Land of milk and honey. Only in Israel, he says, would his children feel “the warm embrace of peace and liberty.” The problem, of course, is that he can’t prove Jewish ancestry. Would that Britain had analogous laws.

Javid is the man who is now Britain’s Home Secretary and a current contender for the ‘Top Job’, hovering patiently in the background like a hungry vulture for the corpse of Theresa May to be borne out of 10 Downing Street on a metaphorical stretcher at any moment.

Well, we can’t wait either! Britain’s first Pakistani Prime Minister should provide an interesting landmark in British history, like the conquest of Mount Everest by Sir Edmund Hilary in May 1953.

Curiously enough, the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan (pictured), is also of Pakistani origin and cut his teeth working for a solicitors’ firm in London called Christian Fisher which later changed its name to Christian Khan. (See here). It’s interesting to note that the chief partner in the firm, Michael Fisher, was (he died four years ago) half Jewish on his father’s side. So it appears that both our current Home Secretary and our Mayor of London have two striking features in common: both are of Pakistani origin and both have had careers which have advanced steadily under Jewish influence.

The alternative government-in-waiting, led by Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, widely reputed to be “anti-Semitic” and pro-Muslim, would be just as bad (if not worse) if it ever got into power. This party of the left, purportedly founded to look after the interests of the working classes, is even more committed to multiculturalism and mass Third World immigration than the rival Tory party. The “migrant crisis” in Britain actually  began under Tony Blair, the mendacious war criminal who founded “New Labour,” and it has continued without intermission under successive British governments ever since. Only today this headline (unavailable online) appeared on page 2 of the Daily Mail, 14 January in large, bold-face type: CORBYN: I WANT TO KEEP OUR BORDERS OPEN TO MIGRANTS. This from the “Workers’ Party,” the party whose members voted overwhelmingly for Brexit in June 2016 in an unprecedented referendum in which 17.4 million Brits insisted on an end to uncontrolled mass immigration and the enforcement of the strictest border controls.

Democracy? If you’re hunting for that critter, you won’t find it in Britain. Both the Prime Minister and the majority of MPs seem determined to give the people the very opposite of what they voted for over two years ago: a fake Brexit or no Brexit at all, with the country remaining a vassal state of Europe for the foreseeable future. Even Corbyn, however dangerous he may turn out to be, got it right when he described the Prime Minister’s treacherous Brexit plan as a “Frankenstein deal” cooked up by a “zombie government” (16 January).

The deliberate wreck of the British referendum vote by the political class in this country calls to mind the German poet Bertolt Brecht’s scathing comment, “Would it not be easier for the Government to dissolve the People and elect another?” Just substitute “import another” for “elect another.”  Read more

Martin Luther King, Jr. Day Should Be Ended

In the early evening of April 4, 1968, a gunshot rang-out in the Memphis sky. It immediately shattered the peace and quiet of an otherwise uneventful day at the Lorraine Motel, and soon after, the peace of an entire country.

The death of Martin Luther King Jr., at the hands of James Earl Ray, brought about a period of unrest and Black violence that has been matched only occasionally since. Worse, it engendered more than half-a-century of anti-White discrimination and public policy which has transformed America from a peaceful, prosperous land into a country wherein almost one-in-four working-age people are forced to accept some form of government assistance[1] (the numbers are much worse when non-working-age seniors and children are factored-in). Black-on-White crime is rampant; more than 650,000 Whites are beaten, robbed, raped, or murdered by Blacks every year[2]–and that number is steadily rising. Yet, for more than a quarter of a century, the federal government and all 50 states have officially declared the third Monday in January, “Martin Luther King Jr. Day.” Here’s why you shouldn’t celebrate such an anti-American holiday.

Mini-bio

Thirty-nine years prior to Mr. Ray’s fateful rifle-shot, Martin Luther King Jr. was born Michael King Jr., the eldest of three children to Michael and Alberta King, on January 15, 1929. Michael Sr. was a Southern Baptist preacher with a traditional fire-and-brimstone temperament who believed that dancing and playing cards were evil and regularly “whipped” little Mike for bad behavior.[3]

In 1934, after a tour of Palestine at his congregation’s expense, Michael Sr. (perhaps believing the prestige of Martin Luther among Southern Baptists would lend him more cachet) declared that, henceforth, he would be called Martin Luther King, and that little Mike would be known as Martin Luther King Jr. The names stuck; both men used them for the rest of their lives.[4]

The Canonization of Martin Luther King Jr.

Besides the inherent dishonesty of using Martin Luther’s name to convey credibility, there is not much untoward thus far; the enigma of who was the real Martin Luther King Jr., begins in college. (See “The Fundamental Dishonesty of the Man” below.) However, after his death, the establishment undertook a campaign to lionize King. Using their control over the institutions of power (particularly the media, academy, and government), they created a carefully crafted image that portrays him as a saint, who only ever exuded love and concern for humanity — an image that relies heavily on the fact that King’s FBI surveillance records have been sealed until 2027. However, quite a bit of information is available, and if one ignores the hagiography and considers original sources, a much darker, even sinister figure emerges. Mr. King (no one should address him as “doctor” or “reverend” for reasons revealed below) was a profoundly dishonest charlatan who regularly associated with criminals, traitors, and other deviants, both for reasons of personal gratification and as part of a quest to destroy White America and all other White nations in order to institute global governance.[5] Many non-Whites believe globalist institutions like the UN will favor them over Whites, if not in the language of their policies, then certainly, in their enforcement. Read more

The Censor’s Handbook

More people and organizations are legally fighting back against smear campaigns and libel.

Editor’s note: We on the dissident right are under siege. A number of major figures are battling bogus but expensive lawsuits stemming from Charlottesville. Others have been banned from social media or have seen their accounts restricted in various ways. Many sites, including TOQ and TOO, have been denied financial services that facilitate donations. Most devastatingly, people have been fired from their jobs as a result of a simple phone call from the Southern Poverty Law Center. 

Tom Kawcyznski, the author of this article, is one of those who have lost their livelihood and their reputation within their local community as a result of this evil. TOO has posted a review of Tom’s book, Someone Has to Say It: The Hidden History of How America Was Lost. This book recounts his experiences in losing his position as town manager for Jackman, Maine, but also shows someone who has thought deeply about all the issues facing White America. Since his firing, he has been a fearless and honest warrior in our struggle. 

The good news is that there is increasing pushback against these efforts to stifle our ideas. Attorney Glen Allen has sued the SPLC as a result of being fired by the city of Baltimore. Jared Taylor is suing Twitter for banning him from the social media site. And the Center for Immigration Studies, a non-profit critical of immigration is suing the SPLC because the SPLC labeled it a “hate group” simply for criticizing immigration. If the legal system retains any integrity, all of these lawsuits have a good chance of prevailing. Of course, our legal system, like our other institutions, has been corrupted, so the outcomes of these cases are far from certain.

*   *   *

Amendment I – United States Constitution

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Americans assume based on long practice and as a cherished principle that the freedom of speech, encapsulated within the First Amendment of our Bill of Rights, offers universal protection to free exercise of political opinions — provided the basic constraint that one cannot advocate for bodily harm to another.  Our country has risen to international preeminence and global hegemony on this basis.  The Internet, our latest and greatest contribution, has served as a powerful force for human liberation in thought and practice by spreading this understanding to new regions.  Yet, for all the good it has done, never has this most basic freedom been under greater assault or in more perilous jeopardy.

Knowledge is power. Those with knowledge have always recognized this truth and tried to keep awareness of what is happening in the world away from others who don’t share their interests. From the shamans of tribes, to the clergy of the Church, or the mandarins of an imperial court, restricting knowledge has ever been the way by which the powerful maintained their supremacy over the people.  We imagine ourselves living in a world apart from those concerns, and our ignorance and apathy are enabling the creation of a censorship system so subtle and complete that we will not even realize it exists.

The single recurring conspiracy in human affairs has been the willingness of those with power, especially when representing institutions with authority and substantial assets, to do anything to maintain their status.  In our world, this represents a consortium of multinational corporations and the largest governments with which they constantly do business.  For these actors, life is good, and the globalism promises a united tomorrow, more profits, and more power. It is only threatened by those nagging voices who cry out for the old ways: nationalists, racial identitarians, Christian traditionalists, and anyone else who holds principles that depart from the new consensus of materialism/consumerism/relativism. All are all targeted without respect to their ideologies. They are targeted if and only if they are seen as threatening the state/corporate duopoly. Read more

Populism in the Liberal Mind: A Review of Brexit: The Uncivil War

I recently had the opportunity to watch Channel 4’s made-for-TV movie The Uncivil War, which recreates the story of the June 2016 British referendum on withdrawal from the European Union, commonly known as “Brexit.” Personally, I am not a fan of biopics and docudramas covering very recent history. More time needs to pass before we can get the perspective necessary to judge events. In the case of this film, the storytelling is very much distorted by the contemporary manias of the liberal mind. That is instructive in itself.

The film stars Benedict Cumberbatch (Sherlock, Dr. Strange . . .) as Dominic Cummins, the chairman of the official Leave Campaign. Cummins is portrayed as brilliant, irascible, and indeed intellectual (he’s spent all spring reading Thucydides and Tolstoy, we are told with no subtlety). He’s a maverick, who would flourish if only the suits would let him play by his own rules, a typical TV trope. Cummins is too smart, too ahead of the curve for the old-fashioned British politicians to understand. He’ll have to impose his online campaign strategy by hook or by crook. And he did so, with great success. We are never shown Cummins’ motivations in leading the charge for Brexit. He comes across as largely amoral.

As depicted in the film, Cummins’ main strategic decisions are twofold. First, the rejection of any collaboration with Nigel Farage and UKIP. For you and me, Farage may be a funny bloke to watch on TV, but he and UKIP are a pretty thin gruel indeed. Hovever, for the writers of Uncivil War, these folks are already beyond the pale. They are no more than unscrupulous troglodytes. In particular UKIP financier Arron Banks, played by Lee Boardman, is portrayed as gratuitously vicious and petty. Second, a ban on explicit discussion of immigration by the Leave Campaign. Instead, Leave would emphasize the EU’s cost to the UK (allegedly £350 million per week) and potential Turkish membership of the EU. (That’s a good dog whistle, since Turkey is, ridiculously, an official candidate country to join the EU, although is unlikely to join for the foreseeable future.) These two strategic decisions tell you how policed things are in mainstream UK politics. Read more

On Yellow Vests and Monsters

 

 

“Any appeal to the white working class, as in today’s alt-right populism, betrays class struggle.”
Slavoj Žižek, The Philosophical Salon, 2019.

Commenting on the political aspects of Shelley’s life and poetry, Virginia Woolf asserted in 1927 that the poet’s England “has already receded, and his fight, valiant though it is, seems to be with monsters who are a little out of date, and therefore slightly ridiculous.” Woolf was referring to Shelley’s nineteenth-century opposition to a system in which journalists were imprisoned for being disrespectful to the Prince Regent, men were stood in stocks for publishing attacks upon the Scriptures, weavers were executed upon the suspicion of treason, and boys (Shelley included) were expelled from Oxford for avowing their atheism. Dramatic in its own time and context, by the decadent mid-1920s such activism had indeed become a little anachronistic on paper, even if I disagree with Woolf that it had become slightly ridiculous. The exertion of political power, after all, is a monster that may change costume and migrate in certain seasons, but is also a fixed reality of human relations and therefore no more ridiculous, in any guise or era, than the people it rests upon.

The profundity of Woolf’s comment, for me, therefore lies less in its discussion of Shelley’s poetry than in its exposure of Woolf’s own interwar sense of political security. It is this sense of political security that today seems the more out of date, and therefore slightly ridiculous, especially as we live in an age where the monsters of the past, present, and putative future, are perpetually invoked in all areas of life. Today, people are imprisoned for being disrespectful to certain races, men are stood in the postmodern equivalent of stocks for attacking certain ideologies, workers are today arrested more often for patriotism than treason, and children are threatened with expulsion for the new sin of ‘racism.’ Woolf’s smug security, and not Shelley’s poetic demonology of the political, thus seems quaint at a time when everything in the tumultuous present is discussed via reference to monsters that may at any moment return from their slumber or drop their mask, and are certainly not to be laughed at.

How does one fight today’s monsters, and who is fighting them? One of the most interesting aspects of the persistent Yellow Vest protests, about to enter their tenth weekend and once more growing in size, is that they have been claimed by almost everyone on the political spectrum. As such, no-one is yet clear as to what monsters the Yellow Vests fight, or which monsters the movement itself may give birth to. Although coming from an avowedly Marxist/Maoist perspective, Slavoj Žižek is almost certainly correct is his recent assertion that:

The yellow vests movement fits the specific French Left tradition of large public protests targeting the political, more than the business or financial, elites. However, in contrast to the 68’ protests, the yellow vests are much more a movement of France profonde (“deep France”), its revolt against big metropolitan areas, which means that its Leftist orientation is much more blurred. (Both le Pen and Melenchon support the protests.) As expected, commentators are asking which political force will appropriate the energy of the revolt, le Pen or a new Left, with purists demanding that it remain a “pure” protest movement at a distance from established politics. One should be clear here: in all the explosion of demands and expression of dissatisfaction, it is clear the protesters don’t really know what they want. They don’t have a vision of a society they want, just a mix of demands that are impossible to meet within the system, even though they address them at the system.

Attempts to define the protesters in simple terms appear doomed to failure. Not only have factions of French Yellow Vest protesters been filmed fighting each other in Paris, but in almost every attempt to export this protest model there have been similar splits and fights, as competing groups attempt to see themselves, and only themselves, in the Rorschach of riotous assembly. Most recently, in London, pro-Brexit Yellow Vest protesters and anti-Brexit Yellow Vest protesters clashed at Trafalgar Square, with reports of both sides calling each other ‘Nazis.’ Both the collapse into Yellow Vest vs Yellow Vest, and the mutual use of the ‘Nazi’ pejorative, are illustrative of the wider confusion of ideology and childish terror in the face of name-calling in postmodern politics. These phenomena also illustrate the fact that, as Žižek points out, none of these groups have a vision of a society they want (or will admit to wanting). One guide to characters in James Joyce’s Finnegans Wake is titled “Who’s Who When Everybody is Somebody Else?” — a question that could as easily be put to the labyrinthine and evasive nature of a postmodern political activism in which identities are claimed and simultaneously disavowed by all concerned. Read more

Norman Podhoretz on Jewish Liberals

Editor’s note: This review is from 2010, originally posted at Altright.com, and it appeared in Radix. However, it seems to have disappeared from the internet. And in any case it raises important issues, particularly Jewish perceptions of their own history, that bear repetition. We Westerners have a sense of our history — a traditional pride in accomplishment that has now been propagandized into guilt for past sins. Jewish conceptions of Jewish history are much different. Jews are proud of the many Jews who have achieved wealth and other markers of success, but they tend to be virtually obsessed with what they see as their persecution of blameless Jews, especially in Western societies. This has major effects on Jewish activism in the contemporary world. And given the power and influence that Jews now have throughout the West, its importance cannot be overstated. Andrew Joyce’s work on historical anti-Semitism, much of it posted on TOO, as well as my book Separation and Its Discontents and the work of several other mainstream historians (e.g., John Klier and Albert Lindeman), are attempts to provide a more balanced perspective. But, not surprisingly, they have fallen on deaf ears within the mainstream Jewish community.

Some aspects of this review require an update. Podhoretz makes a major point that the right is more sympathetic to Israel than the left. Whereas some on the right, such as Pat Buchanan, are critical of Israel, they tend to emphasize the disastrous influence of the Israel Lobby on U.S. foreign policy, while the left emphasizes Israel’s brutal treatment of the Palestinians. I argued against Podhoretz’s position, but since 2010, the left has become increasingly anti-Israel, particularly in the U.K. where the Labour Party is routinely labeled “anti-Semitic” and the great majority of Jews no longer support it. In the U.S., only around half of Democrats support Israel, and the 2018 election brought in radical leftists, such as Palestinian-American Rashida Tlaib, who have been vociferous opponents of Israel.

Nevertheless, it is far from obvious that the anti-Israel component of the left will actually gain power, either in the U.K. or the U.S. Although Jews have indeed stopped being major funders of the Labour Party, they remain a backbone of the Democrats, and this is not likely to change any time soon. Among likely presidential candidates, only Tulsi Gabbard has deviated from standard Israel Lobby positions in the Middle East, opposing U.S. military interventions and “forever wars.” 

Norman Podhoretz
Why Are Jews Liberals?
Vintage, 2010

Norman Podhoretz is something of an anomaly in the American Jewish community. His entire life is centered around his Jewishness, but he sees himself as an outsider in the mainstream Jewish community. He shares a great many of the attitudes typical of that community, but draws different conclusions about how to navigate the contemporary American political landscape in a way that’s “good for the Jews.”

Podhoretz’s Lachrymose View of Jewish History

One area where Podhoretz is absolutely mainstream among American Jews is his sense of history. The first half of the book lays out his version of the “lachrymose” theory of Jewish history in Europe and America in which the Diaspora has been one long vale of tears since the beginnings of Christianity. Whether or not this view of history is correct (and quite a few of his claims are simply wrong), the important point is that this is how the great majority of Diaspora Jews see themselves and their history. (My view is that our evolved ingroup/outgroup psychology and real conflicts of interest are by far the most important contributors to the main historical outbreaks of anti-Jewish feeling.)

This lachrymose view has major implications for understanding contemporary Jewish political behavior in the Diaspora. It proposes that, beginning with an unfortunate theological belief (that Jews killed God), Jews have been passive, innocent victims of marauding non-Jews.

The lesson that Jews learned from the Middle Ages carries down to today: The Jews “emerged from the Middle Ages knowing for a certainty that — individual exceptions duly noted — the worst enemy they had in the world was Christianity: the churches in which it was embodied — whether Roman Catholic or Russian Orthodox or Protestant — and the people who prayed in and were shaped by them. It was a knowledge that Jewish experience in the ages to come would do very little, if indeed anything at all, to help future generations to forget” (p. 29). Read more