An Un-Civil War: Part I, The Mueller Conspiracy

/33 Comments/in /by

Lincoln’s first famous speech on June 16, 1858 has become known today for one memorable quote, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” The phrase was taken directly from the Bible, Gospel of Matthew 12:25, KJV: “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand.”

This “house divided” quote has been used repeatedly in various political contexts by Americans before Lincoln, including Thomas Paine, Abigail Adams, and Sam Houston. I invoke it again here because I believe that there are greater divisions between Americans today than at any time in the Republic’s history, greater than the Vietnam era, equal in intensity but different from the Civil War.

Americans who have not been living under a rock have some intuition of this divide and could provide their own answer to the question: What divides us? Radical Islamic terrorism, immigration, sanctuary cities, Antifa, LGBT, Black Lives Matter, White privilege, Obamacare, taxes, and many other polarizing issues. We are divided as never before over how to interpret the Constitutiond Bill of Rights, how to teach our children about American history, how to preserve our values, etc.

President Trump often acts as a national lightning rod — but he did not create these existing divisions. The culture storm was already building towards a climax long before his election with major offensive campaigns conducted by mainstream journalists, the courts, the universities, Hollywood elites, AM and PM talk show hosts, to name a few of the cultural crusaders. Fundamental divisions and intolerance (remember “Deplorables”?) permeated the culture before Trump’s election and may well have been a key reason for his decisive defeat of Hilary Clinton one year ago. Since his election it has all gotten much worse. We have just witnessed 12 months of the greatest show of sour grapes on earth. Read more

American Education is a War on Whites

/113 Comments/in , /by

Is there really any use in trying to show that education in America is firmly in the hands of enemies of the White race?  Probably not, since it is so obvious. Plus it has been well addressed already time and again, including by gifted writer F. Roger Devlin, who delivered an address six years ago at the fourth annual meeting of the H.L. Mencken Club.  VDARE.com’s editor, Peter Brimelow, called Devlin’s presentation “a searing account of how the historic American nation has been, in effect, decapitated — its higher education facilities are now entirely in the hands of hostile forces.”

In his talk, “Higher Education: The Impossibility Of Reform,” Devlin began by noting   that by now there must be “a sizeable class of academically trained non-leftists for whom there is essentially no place in the contemporary academy.” This sense of not being welcome has now trickled down from potential teachers to White male students as well. “Young men,” Devlin observes, “are staying away to avoid what their enemies would describe as a ‘hostile learning environment.’”

Not surprisingly, the knowledge that all levels of American education show hatred toward White males — either implicitly or explicitly  — is the reason that the younger cohort of what constitutes today’s Alt-Right addresses the topic so often. I can think of no better example than Mike Enoch, main host of the “Daily Shoah” on The Right Stuff alternative media platform. He and his fellow hosts speak from personal experience when discussing the hostile environment they encountered in school as White non-Jewish males. Typically, this is from kindergarten on up.

While neither Brimelow nor Devlin mentioned any Jewish influence on the transformation of higher education into a bastion of anti-White male positions, other sources easily confirm this. For instance, Ron Unz, a wealthy Jewish businessman who runs The Unz Review, provided us with a stunning 26,000-word treatise that convincingly shows how White Gentiles are systematically excluding from Ivy League schools precisely because undeserving Jewish students are taking their place. Titled “The Myth of Meritocracy”, this seminal essay includes numerous graphs showing that once Jews are disaggregated from Gentile Whites, the number of White students in the Ivy League is drastically out of proportion to the actual number of qualified White students out there. To me, this is part and parcel of higher education’s undeniable War on Whites.

Again, this hyper-critical and destructive (of White civilization) process at American universities is well known. (I wrote about it earlier this year: ”No Campus for White Men.”) Nothing new here. For instance, Jewish writer Mona Charen lamented six years ago that “Academia is a conquered land — the playground of the ultraleft.” Well, isn’t “ultraleft” a proxy for “anti-White”? I’d say it’s close. Charen goes on to say, “We scrape together our hard-earned income (lots of it) to deposit our cherished offspring at schools that are determined to teach them to despise everything we revere — even learning.”  Sounds like the culture of critique to me! Read more

On the Rise of Mixed-Race Britain

/76 Comments/in , /by

“The intermarriage of nations gradually extinguishes the characters, and is, despite any pretended philanthropy, not beneficial to mankind.”
          Immanuel Kant

The recent engagement of Britain’s Prince Harry to a mixed-race actress of Black and Jewish origins has delivered something of a propaganda coup to the promoters of miscegenation. It’s been hailed as a “great day for interracial relationships and mixed race girls everywhere.” It’s been claimed that it will “change Britain’s relationship with race forever.” The New York Times has even suggested it will “save the monarchy.”

While hyperbole saturates each one of these statements, they all betray the truism that, in a ‘celebrity culture,’ such events can spark ill-informed attempts at imitation among the dedicated and dim-witted followers of fashion.

The excitement over the racial status of Meghan Markle is all very reminiscent of similar propaganda in the wake of London’s 2012 Olympic Games, when a number of mixed-race athletes, Jessica Ennis in particular, were singled out and promoted as the ‘new face of Britain.’ According to a celebratory report published shortly after the Olympics by British Future, a ‘think-tank’ funded by George Soros’s Open Society Foundation, Ennis and other mixed-race celebrities had “helped to change perceptions about interracial relationships.” This seemed to have been largely borne out by the 2011 census, which revealed “the mixed race population is the fastest growing in Britain with more than one million people born of interracial parentage.” British Future point out, probably with good justification, that this figure “is only half the story of the rapid growth of mixed Britain. Twice as many people have ethnically mixed parentage – but over half of them choose other census categories, such as black or white.” Ennis, in some senses the precursor to Markle as the darling of miscegenation propagandists, was chosen by British Future to grace the front page of its report, The Melting Pot Generation: How Britain Became More Relaxed About Race, and opened it with the line: “Jessica Ennis was not just the face of the Olympics this summer; she could stake a fair claim to be ‘the face of the census’ too.”

One of those most concerning aspects of the report, if accurate, concerns the statement that “it is Britain, not America, which has the stronger claim to be a “melting pot” on race.” The rationale here is that those of mixed racial parentage tend not to marry or reproduce with American Whites — those of mixed race normally become absorbed into the minority ethnic group. By contrast, those of mixed race in Britain marry heavily into the White majority. We might therefore state that while America currently has the more pressing demographic concern in terms of the White share of the population, miscegenation may be considered a greater concern in Britain. The report explains:

“On no other country on earth is my story even possible,” said Barack Obama, a product of Kenya and Kansas, as he burst onto the US political scene in 2004. His is a great story, but he was wrong about that. Mixed marriages are more likely in Britain, where the dynamics of mixing are different too, and accelerate faster in Britain. That is because most Americans from mixed parentage marry somebody from a minority group, as Obama himself did. By contrast, three-quarters of Britons from mixed parentage marry somebody from the majority white group (it does contain over three-quarters of the population, after all)…10% of African Americans are in mixed marriages [with Whites]…compared to over 40% for British born black Caribbeans.

It is difficult to make a full assessment of the true scale of the problem because the Black population of Britain (including those described as “African/Caribbean/Black British”) is roughly 3% of the overall population of England and Wales. One might be tempted to conclude that, while the number of Black men marrying or reproducing with White women is very high, their relatively small percentage of the overall population means that the number of White women entering relationships with Black men is also relatively small. However, these relationships are almost exclusively forming at the lower end of the socio-economic scale, and often at the very bottom. Read more

Save Net Neutrality: Why Net Neutrality Is Necessary for White Advocacy

/55 Comments/in /by

Since the recent announcement that Trump’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is almost certainly going to do away with net neutrality when they vote on the issue on December 14, pundits on every side of the issue have been weighing in with their opinions. This contributes to the confusion of what is no doubt a very difficult, even slippery, topic. Pro-White activists haven’t been remiss in sharing their view and some circles have been inflamed by the debate, with a growing consensus that net neutrality is not good for our movement and we will be better off when the FCC gets rid of it. I will try to explain why they are dead wrong.

What is the Internet?

Judging from much of the befuddled commentary, it appears that we might benefit from a brief (and somewhat simplified) primer on exactly what the Internet is. The Internet is an actual physical thing; it isn’t some abstraction of software or websites or users, per se. At its simplest, it is machines (servers, routers, etc.) connected by wires (technically speaking, networks — hence the term Internet). These machines run protocols like the File Transfer Protocol (FTP), email, gopher, etc. One protocol, the HyperText Transport Protocol (HTTP) is king of the Internet. The websites that we connect to via this protocol, constitute the World Wide Web (WWW). Many conflate the WWW with the Internet — it’s important to remember, for the purposes of this discussion, that they are not the same thing.

What is Net Neutrality?

The Wikipedia article on net neutrality gives a surprisingly useful definition:

Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers must treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication. For instance, under these principles, internet service providers are unable to intentionally block, slow down or charge money for specific websites and online content.

Put succinctly, net neutrality means that all Internet traffic must be treated the same. (This site gives state-by-state data on support for net neutrality.)

Keep the above definitions in mind as we explore the arguments against net neutrality and demonstrate why they’re false.

Unpacking the Arguments against Net Neutrality

After reading articles and listening to the podcasts of a handful of alt-right pundits who are in favor of allowing the FCC to eliminate it, I was able to boil-down their commentary to six essential arguments against net neutrality.

Argument 1: Our enemies, large Silicon Valley-type mega corporations (particularly social media Web sites like Google, YouTube, Twitter, etc.), are in favor of net neutrality, so it must be wrong.

First, it should be obvious that, whilst our enemies are extremely powerful, they are not infallible. Just because they think something is good for them, doesn’t mean it is and even if it is, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s bad for us.

Second, and more importantly, it is more likely that these mega-corporations are merely virtue signaling to their Social Justice Warrior (SJW) supporters and are secretly working behind the scenes to promote the end of net neutrality. That said, there is one compelling reason why these large content sites might want to maintain net neutrality: without it, ISPs will be able to charge them more money to send data down their wires (more on that below).

As a side note, it might be edifying to understand that SJWs are in favor of keeping the net neutral for all the wrong reasons. They, like those of us on the pro-White right, seek to maintain freedom of speech because they see themselves as discriminated against dissidents whose voices won’t be heard without freedom of speech. Of course, they’re wrong; they aren’t victims of discrimination. They are the empowered — useful idiot pawns of the regime who are favored, not discriminated against. The similarities between the cultural Marxist left and the White right go even further when we understand that the foundational belief of both groups is that there is a conspiracy of elites to dominate the globe. The only difference is that SJWs believe in the conspiracy theory that those elites are “rich White men” (ignoring the role of Jews as a moving force in this elite), while we believe in the fact that this opposes the true interests of Whites. The difference means everything. Read more

Review of Gilad Atzmon’s “Being in Time”

/54 Comments/in /by

Being in Time by Gilad Atzmon (Skyscraper Publications, UK, 2017)

…the Radical party, who, to gratify their political prejudices, would join with Satan himself. (George Borrow, Lavengro, Chapter XLII)

In this well-produced and sturdily presented 213-page book the internationally celebrated jazz musician and political commentator continues the analyses of Jewish religion, culture, history and political influence in world politics which he initiated earlier in his 2011 book The Wandering Who?: A Study of Jewish Identity Politics. After reading it twice, I conclude that, among other things, he has provided very strong support for two men, often publicly reviled, whom I have admired and thought much about since 1964: Eric Butler, founding director of The Australian League of Rights, and Captain A. H. M. Ramsay, the British Conservative MP in the 1930s and 1940s.

Butler in 1946 published his book The International Jew which was very strongly attacked by hostile critics as being a deplorable anti-Semitic tract. His unwise use of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as a framework for his study made the book an easy target, though its hostile critics did not successfully come to terms with its overall contents. However, his use as an epigraph of a sentence by Oscar Levy, who in his time was a famed Jewish writer and disciple of Nietzsche, would appear to have been thoroughly justified now by Atzmon, another Jew. ‘The question of the Jews and their influence on the world, past and present, cuts to the root of all things and should be discussed by every honest thinker.’ That could equally be an excellent epigraph for Being in Time.

Atzmon cites Yuri Slezkine’s 2006 book The Jewish Century as a confirmation of ‘Jewish dominance’ in world politics. He writes: ‘I do not care about ethnicity, biology or race, but I do care about ideology…. I see the cultural and ideological impact of Jerusalem on pretty much every aspect of Western life. But, unlike most commentators, I allow myself to voice my criticism of that aspect.’

Read more

“Moneybull”: An Inquiry Into Media Manipulation

/79 Comments/in , /by

The film Moneyball was well-received by both audiences and critics and an Academy Award contender for best film at the 2012 Oscars.   It was based on Michael Lewis’ 2003 nonfiction book by the same name and directed by Bennett Miller from a screenplay written by Aaron Sorkin (who I understand was the guiding force behind the film) and Steven Zaillian.  Moneyball recounts the story of the 2002 season of the Oakland A’s major league baseball team.  The film centers on A’s general manager Billy Beane’s efforts to put together a winning team that year despite a limited budget.  The thesis of this writing is that Moneyball is a good illustration of how the media distort reality and transmit negative perceptions of white people and their ways.

The dramatic conflict in Moneyball revolves around Beane, portrayed by Brad Pitt in a superb performance, trying to interject new ways of assessing players and thinking about game strategy amid strong opposition from the tradition-bound A’s player personnel people and field manager.  Beane is advised in this effort by his young, mid-twenties, assistant, Peter Brand — short, pudgy, non-athletic, baseball outsider.  Brand is portrayed by Jonah Hill in an impressive performance — both Pitt and Hill were nominated for Academy Awards.  The Brand character, the only one who doesn’t go by his real-life name, is based on Paul dePodesta, an assistant to Beane at that time.

Brand makes the case to Beane that statistics should guide player selection and game decisions rather than the experience and judgment of the team’s baseball-lifer scouts and field manager.   Beane, in his early forties, is himself a long-time baseball man as a player and front office executive.

Brand underscores the importance of OBP (the percentage of times at bat a hitter gets on base by any means — hits, walks, and being hit by a pitch) as a key indicator of a player’s productivity.  The numbers reveal, says Brand, that the more times on base the more runs, and the more runs the more wins.  Brand points out to Beane that, contrary to accepted thinking in the game, bunts, stolen bases, and fielding count for little in producing victories.  He also makes the case that productive players have been overlooked when putting together the team in the past because they didn’t look or act like ballplayers by the conventional standards of the A’s scouting department.  Outcomes, Brand insists, which statistics measure objectively, are what matter in winning games, not antiquated notions about the physique or face a player needs to possess, or requisite personality traits or personal habits. Read more

Excerpt from “Human Sin or Social Sin”

/20 Comments/in /by

Below is an excerpt from my book Human Sin or Social Sin. It will be of interest to those concerned with the intersections of politics, immigration, and ethnicity. The book is endorsed by Paul Gottfried and Tom Sunic. See the Amazon page for more information regarding endorsements.

During the nineteenth century, sex and the body were viewed as evil, but notions of race, class, gender, or “society” were viewed as good and legitimate. With sexual liberation, we displaced evil to the public sphere. With the displacement or socialization of evil, now the body is viewed as legitimate, even glorious, but race, class, gender, and “society” are viewed as evil, illegitimate and to be purged. As “society” during the nineteenth century was viewed as glorious, and the body as sinful, now the body is viewed as glorious and society as sinful. As the evils of the body were to be purged, now the evils of “society” or the social body are to be purged. As the individual was viewed as potentially sinful or “hegemonic,” so we now view the social body that way. Specifically, the resistance to race science, or any other “hegemonic discourse,” results, it is shown, from the perception that it is socially hubristic or evil.

This perception in turn resulted from the fact that the traditional Seven Deadly Sins were, with sexual liberation, displaced from the body to the social sphere, thereby creating the pathological Seven Deadly Social Sins, which need to be purged through social and political action. These deadly social sins are (1) Pride, which became Racism; (2) Covetousness: Class Elitism; (3) Lust: “Sexism” and “Gender” existing “Out There”; (4) Gluttony: Consumer Fetishism; (5) Vanity: Media Images of Beauty; (6) Envy: National Honor and Expansionism, the National Socialists’ irredentist impulses being notorious; and (7) Sloth: the Lack of Social Action: “Are you fighting for diversity?” As it was once imperative to purge the sins from our body, so it is now imperative to purge the sins from the social body. Read more