A Shameless Shabbos-Shiksa: Priti Patel Shills for Israel

/52 Comments/in , /by

If you thought Harvey Weinstein looked creepy, take a look at Stuart Polak:

Stuart Polak of CFI

Lord Polak, as Stu became thanks to David Cameron, is currently receiving some unwelcome attention in the British media. For such a small minority, Jews certainly get involved in a lot of scandals, don’t they? However, Lord Polak hasn’t been molesting women or, as might seem more likely, molesting children and small animals. Instead, as a proud and patriotic British Jew, he’s been busy on behalf of the only nation that matters to him: Israel. He was director of Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) for twenty-six years. The Jewish Chronicle, no less, has described how “under his guidance, CFI became the biggest lobbying group in Westminster, holding lunches for 700 guests, making countless Downing Street visits, and developing contacts throughout Israel and the Middle East.”

Vibrant Vacation

The scandal he’s now in goes like this. In August this year, he was present at unauthorized and unrecorded meetings held between Israeli officials and the International Development Secretary Priti Patel, a high-testosterone female politician who had taken her prime-ministerial ambitions on holiday to Israel. Among others, she met the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Yuval Rotem of the Israeli Foreign Ministry, and Gilad Erdan, Minister for Public Security, Information and Strategic Affairs.

High-T fem-pol: the vibrant Priti Patel

Those are important people, but she didn’t bother to involve her own government in the meetings or to have any minutes taken. What was she up to? Well, inter alia she seems to have been discussing ways to send more British taxpayers’ money into Israeli bank accounts. And a lot of that money already heads there: “It’s a little known fact that over 20 per cent of the medicines that the NHS [National Health Service] uses come from Teva, an Israeli company, and it’s rising, heading towards 25 per cent.” Patel wanted to fund the Israeli army’s aid work in the occupied Golan Heights, which isn’t recognized as Israeli territory even by the very pro-Zionist Conservatives, and to give British aid money to Israeli organizations working in Africa.

Would all that have been good value for money? Who cares? What matters is that it would have been good for Israel and for Patel herself, who could then have relied on more help from Conservative Friends of Israel with her political ambitions. Read more

A Forgotten Revolutionary: John Jacobs, Founder of Weatherman

/57 Comments/in , /by

John Jacobs. From Columbia College Today, “Six Weeks That Shook Morningside: A Special Report.” Spring 1968, p. 31

Introduction

John Jacobs was the founding father of Weatherman, the late 1960s ultra-radical spinoff from Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). While Weatherman has enjoyed remarkably positive coverage in recent years, Jacobs has been virtually forgotten. One reason for that is that his rivals in the organization have been able to shape present-day perceptions of Weatherman; another is that he vanished after his expulsion from the group, relatively early in Weather’s history, never to reappear. His life is an interesting case study in Jewish revolutionary activism. (For a complementary view of Weatherman, see my previous article on Ted Gold.)

John Jacobs represents a vicious but relatively minor Jewish assault against Whites. This attack erupted out of the larger American Jewish body, at a time when the Jewish group as a whole was oriented in the same direction as Weatherman, but working with nonviolent means. The Jews in America had worked long and patiently to increase their power and to delegitimize American society in moral terms, but were not working to launch a direct attack.

Then a small group of youthful Jews formed Weatherman. At their head was John Jacobs, who led them in a frenzied attack on Whites. Although this first, premature, terroristic offensive came to a dead end, Weatherman foreshadowed a potentially far greater Jewish assault on White America.

Early Life

John Jacobs, often called “JJ,” was born in September 1947, one of two sons born to wealthy leftist Jews. His father, a former journalist, sent him to prep school in Vermont. There, Jacobs read deeply on the Russian Revolution, Marx, and Lenin in his spare time. He also became captivated by the revolutionary of the hour, Che Guevara. Jacobs’ interest in this area reveals a strong alienation from mainstream American culture — an entirely mainstream orientation among American Jews. The sources on Jacobs are sparse, but it is virtually certain he gained this cast of mind from his parents and perhaps other relatives, not from feelings of any real inequity in American society, especially since he came from an affluent background. Unlike many other 1960s radicals, he was a revolutionary from the beginning, not a reformer. In the fall of 1965 he entered Columbia University.[1] Read more

The Opioid Crisis: Media Complicity and Political Inaction

/36 Comments/in /by

It is undeniable that President Donald J. Trump has been a steadfast advocate for many White working-class Americans.  His ability to connect with them is often cited in the analysis of his victory in traditionally Democratic stronghold states such as Michigan, Wisconsin, and of course the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania which put him over the top in terms of electoral votes on election night.  He was able to advocate for their specific interests such as the revival of the coal mining industry, the revival of manufacturing, the renegotiation of trade deals and international agreements in order to provide economic opportunity to White American blue-collar workers, and a crackdown on illegal aliens who are in competition with White American workers.

While Trump was great on many issues pertaining to the American working-class during the campaign, he never really put emphasis on the opioid crisis which has been particularly damaging to the White working class.  An academic study by Anne Case and her husband, Nobel Prize-wining Angus Deaton of Princeton titled Rising Morbidity and Mortality in Midlife among White non-Hispanic Americans in the 21st Century examines how the average mid-life mortality rates of Americans have decreased over time for every demographic group except for Whites.  According to the study, “Midlife increases in suicides and drug poisonings have been previously noted. However, that these upward trends were persistent and large enough to drive up all-cause midlife mortality has, to our knowledge, been overlooked.”  While the opioid crisis certainly effects people of all backgrounds across all fifty states, it has had a particularly strong effect on White people in America.  The study goes on to say, “The increase in midlife morbidity and mortality among US white non-Hispanics is only partly understood. The increased availability of opioid prescriptions for pain that began in the late 1990s has been widely noted, as has the associated mortality.”  The study clearly asserts that the opioid crisis has influenced the increasing mortality rates among Whites.  A staggering finding:

If the white mortality rate for ages 45−54 had held at their 1998 value, 96,000 deaths would have been avoided from 1999–2013, 7,000 in 2013 alone. If it had continued to decline at its previous (1979‒1998) rate, half a million deaths would have been avoided in the period 1999‒2013, comparable to lives lost in the US AIDS epidemic through mid-2015. Concurrent declines in self-reported health, mental health, and ability to work, increased reports of pain, and deteriorating measures of liver function all point to increasing midlife distress.

While there are many factors at work here, the ongoing opioid crisis cannot be overlooked. Read more

Thoughts on “Decolonization” as an Anti-White Discourse

/57 Comments/in , , , /by

Take up the White Man’s burden
And reap his old reward,
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard

Rudyard Kipling, The White Man’s Burden

Along with ‘Whiteness Studies’ and ‘Black Lives Matter,’ the concept of ‘decolonization’ is currently rampant in Western institutions of higher education. In the most recent example, academics at England’s University of Cambridge are considering how to implement a call from a small group of Black and leftist undergraduates to “decolonize” its English literature syllabus by taking in more Black and ethnic minority writers and bringing ‘post-colonial thought’ (a branch of critical theory) to its existing curriculum. Seen in the context of similar agitation at Yale last year, ongoing “Rhodes Must Fall” agitation in South Africa, the removal of portraits of White founders from King’s College London, and attacks on statues of prominent White historical figures in the United States, the ‘decolonization’ effort is clearly part of an escalating craze for removing White presence and reducing White space throughout the West. This reduction of White space is occurring in demographic, cultural, and even historical areas; the latter involving a ludicrous ‘Blackwashing’ of periods of European history which were overwhelmingly monocultural, with gross exaggerations of non-White presence in places like Roman Britain.

Today, White nations are being demonstrably colonized by non-Whites, White culture is increasingly marginalized (or dismissed as non-existent), and White history is being rewritten to support and advance the agenda of contemporary multiculturalism. Whites are thus abused as colonizers while simultaneously being subjected to an unprecedented and multifaceted colonization. This jarring incongruence between rhetoric and reality requires an interrogation of what is meant by terms like “colonize,” “empire,” and even “genocide,” particularly in regard to the political uses they have come to acquire, and also an interrogation of what we understand by historical processes of colonization. It is argued here that the growing clamor for ‘decolonization,’ like Whiteness studies, exists only to encourage and facilitate an aggressive anti-White discourse.

Several years ago I had the opportunity to attend a conference on ‘genocide studies,’ during which I was introduced to the work of the leading academic in this field, the Australian scholar A. Dirk Moses. Despite his last name (which apparently is also English and Welsh as well as Jewish), Moses evidences no discernible Jewish ancestry, his father John Moses being a notable Anglican priest and his mother Ingrid a full-blooded German from Lower Saxony. Moses has built his career around broad explorations of the themes of colonialism and genocide, and the relationship between the two. Although he wasn’t present at this particular conference, I was very much interested in those presentations concerning his work, which I have since come to regard as being generally of a very high quality and, most importantly, wide-ranging and devoid of the mawkish (not to mention mendacious) moralism that often saturates Jewish academic treatments of these themes. To my mind Moses remains one of the most essential writers on colonialism, conquest and genocide as perennial features of the human existence, and I would have a difficult time engaging in discussion on these subjects with someone unfamiliar with his work. Importantly, Moses argues that terms like “colonization” have fluid rather than fixed definitions, especially in their discursive usage, and stresses that the meaning of such terms as “colonization” and “imperialism” have rather been adapted in recent decades in order to facilitate a political agenda — to condemn European nations and to question Western moral legitimacy. Read more

Addictions:  An Example of the Interplay of the Public and Private

/47 Comments/in , /by

Very often, the opposite of a good thing to do is also a good thing to do.   Loving is a good thing to do, obviously.  But despite what whites are admonished to condemn and repress in themselves (by people who don’t mean well by them), loving’s opposite, hating, is also a good thing to do.   Some things — injustice, abuse, attacks against us and those we care about — deserve our hating them and acting accordingly.

There is a Pete Seeger song from the 1950s called “Turn! Turn! Turn!” that gets at this value-of-opposites idea.

To everything
There is a season
And a time to every purpose, under heaven
A time to be born, a time to die
A time to plant, a time to reap
A time to kill, a time to heal
A time to laugh, a time to weep
A time to build up, a time to break down
A time to dance, a time to mourn
A time to cast away stones, a time to gather stones together

Almost exclusively, white racial discourse has focused on public concerns: white identity and culture, historical and current realities, philosophical and ideological concepts, and proposals and strategies for collective action.  And that’s all well and good, keep it going.   But the argument here is that at the same time we’re doing that, let’s give attention to the opposite of a public focus: let’s look at things from a private, or personal or individual, frame of reference; and take note of the interplay of the public and private, how each affects the other.

The private concern I shine a light on here is addiction.  Not addiction as a problem for the society and culture as a whole — though it is good to look at it from that angle — but rather as a problem for individual people: for him and her and you and me.   Read more

The Folly of Civic Nationalism

/26 Comments/in /by

Civic nationalism — the idea that a nation is little more than an abstract set of ideas and not a group of people bound by blood. The idea that anybody, anywhere, can one day become an American. The idea that America is a homeland for all, and that we are all immigrants. The idea that if you replace the founding stock of the US, or any Western nation for that matter, with alien migrants, so long as the ideas remain, so too will the nation.

Civic nationalism: perhaps the largest gamble of all time.

The principal fallacy of civic nationalism is that the American and European ideal can be taught to non-Europeans. The principles and ethics that made our civilization great arose from European DNA. It was no mistake and no magic dirt. There is a reason certain ideals and political forms appeared in the Occident and nowhere else through the world. There is a reason non-Whites do not accept the truths we hold to be self-evident.

We can look at hard data to support the idea that there are big differences between Whites and non-Whites on a wide range of issues, and in particular on the fundamental question of the proper role of government. Non-Whites are more likely to believe that government control is more important than individual rights. A 2015 study found that 50% of Hispanics and 62% of Blacks in the US support hate speech laws that would make it illegal to make offensive comments, compared to 36% of Whites that would support such legislation.

Pew Research asked the question “What do you think is more important — to protect the right of Americans to own guns, OR to control gun ownership?” 75% of Hispanics and 66% of Blacks felt that gun control was more important than protecting the right to own firearms. On the other hand, the majority of White Americans — 54% — answered that gun rights were more important than gun control. Sorted by party we see that 70% of Republicans, compared to 30% of Democrats answered that protecting gun rights was more important than gun control.

From these surveys we see very clearly that the ideas put forward in our Bill of Rights are upheld far more by the White majority than by Blacks or Hispanics. It is thus quite reasonable to think that neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights can survive a non-White majority. The Founders understood this type of high-trust nation that afforded individuals tremendous freedom was predicated upon a White society. The phrases “for ourselves and our posterity” of the Constitution and “free white persons of good moral character” from the Naturalization Act of 1790, are quite explicit in envisioning a White future for the U.S.

Non-Whites are also far more likely to favor a government that provides lots of free stuff. Pew asked if people would prefer “a smaller government providing fewer services or a bigger government providing more services.” The results were striking. Of Blacks, 68% reported they would prefer a larger government with more services, compared to 35% of Whites. First-generation Hispanics answered at a colossal 81%, second-generation Hispanics at 72%, third-generation and greater, 58%, thus showing continued divergence from White norms. Second-generation Hispanics are actually more likely to identify as Democrats than first-generation Hispanics — meaning that the Republican pipe dream that migrants will someday be just like them is not based in reality.

So it’s reasonable to think that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights will not survive a non-White majority. As it stands, the current greatest threat to fundamental liberties and our way of life as Americans is not an opposing ideology, but an unnatural shift in demography.

There is a common misunderstanding that policy, not population, determines the outcome of a city or of a nation. The neo-Marxists liberal policies of San Francisco are not all that different from Camden, New Jersey. The type of ideology that governs Portland, Oregon, is arguably quite similar to that of St. Louis. While San Francisco and Portland are relatively safe, clean, and functioning, Camden and St. Louis are among the most dangerous cities in the world. This is not a result of politics, but a result of population. Functioning societies, like the one our forefathers designed, were predicated upon a high-trust, high-IQ, and hard-working population.

The heart of civic nationalism is the idea that a nation is a proposition, that we as Americans, are nothing but a disparate group loosely bound by the Constitution is a laughable notion both in theory and in practice. In theory, it means that any of the world’s seven billion inhabitants are simply Americans that have not yet migrated here. It means so long as their paperwork is filled out properly and they “believe” in the same values the nation was founded upon, anybody can become an instant American. In practice, we see that the majority of non-Whites do not even meet the most minimal of standards of what it means to be an American. Per their own admission, most do not believe in some of our most foundational principles, the right to free speech, and the right to keep and bear arms. These very basic ideas are often ungraspable abstractions to the foreign mind. In a sense, this can be articulated to mean that the descendants of our nation’s founding stock are the only true Americans, all others are paper citizens, mere guests in a foreign land.

Expansive liberties and minimal government intervention are predicated upon a White population. The type of liberty we were granted requires a certain level of self-reliance and tenacity. These are things that cannot be taught to the global masses. Foreigners are never going to be all that interested in free speech, or limited taxation and limited governments, or in the right to own firearms, because none of these things are a part of their culture, as they are not part of their DNA. These Western values are not mere abstractions or propositions, they are things that only exist in the West because they come from the Western mind.

If we remove our shared culture, which stems from race, our shared history, and our shared traditions, we no longer have a nation. We are left with nothing but a multinational corporation inhabitant by deracinated, atomized, and amorphous proles, meandering through life without an identity except perhaps as the fan of a certain football team or the owner of a certain model of car.

***

My views are often confronted with questions such as, “what about minorities (non-Whites) that voted Trump?” and “what about migrants that do very well in the USA such as Indians and East Asians?” I always reply, “what about them?” Citing to Indians, East Asians, Blacks, or Hispanics that fall on the far end of the bell-curve in no way repudiates their collective ethnic groups, nor can they make amends for the significant drain their people pose to our nation.

“Based” Latinos that voted Trump and champion “legal” migration are not our our allies. Legal migration is a globalist fiction to convince the European peoples that so long as it was government-sanctioned, the invasion of our homelands is justified. If 200 million “legal” Mexicans come to the USA, does that somehow make it any better when we are forced to live in North Mexico? Not at all. The English became a minority in London through “legal” migration, mind you. What those “based” Latinos are really saying, is they want to come to our homeland, benefit from the society we created, and ensure the erasure is slow enough that they do not experience the detrimental effects.

The idea that “high-skilled” migrants should be allowed to come to the US or Europe to work or to get an education is equally as absurd both in theory and practice. Indians, Africans, and Asians coming to the US to obtain advanced degrees are seen by most as a wonderful thing, and it is far from it.

I was struck by the incredible irony when a friend of mine described her recent trip to Africa as a part of a Doctors Without Borders group, to provide humanitarian health care. I asked if the group that she went with was mostly White. She was at first struck by the question, as most people are when anybody speaks candidly about race. The truth is, the majority of people who travel to Africa, India, and Asia to provide humanitarian aid, are White. The irony is that the top African, Indian, and Asian students routinely flock to the US, leaving behind their own homeland, abandoning their own people, so they may earn more money in the states. The same people that are often used as examples of American “success stories” are not only displacing native-born White Americans in medical programs at universities thanks to diversity quotas, they are also exacerbating the problem in their home nations. They leave behind their own tribe, simply to make more money. Motivated by pure greed. And then, the shortage of medical professionals all over the third world is supplemented by altruistic Whites, when the people who should be offering free medical care in those nations left years before so they may enjoy the material trappings of a White nation, live in a White neighborhood, and send their children to White schools.

***

Civic nationalists believe in the Emma Lazarus-Israel Zangwill-Emmanuel Celler-Horace Kallen version of America — no surprise, because they and people like them created and promoted the idea throughout the twentieth century. They promote the image of America as a melting pot or, more recently the idea that non-Whites retain their ethnic identities. They have the bizarre idea that the Founding Fathers mutually pledged their “lives, fortunes, and sacred honor” to each other to create a “homeland for all”. By doing so, they explicitly reject the Founding Fathers view of what it means to be an American, as well as nearly 175 years of law that limited immigration to Europeans.

At best, civic nationalist are people who think that paying taxes, which most migrants do not do, and feigning belief in a set of values will make you an American. At worst these soft-globalists believe that the Mexican kid born in Texas after his 9-month pregnant mom jumped the border, is every bit as American as somebody whose family fought in the Revolution.

The end result of civic nationalism is White families, paying a third of their income in taxes, so they can feed, house, clothe, and educate a family of seven Somalis, which will have twice the voting power as the White family that funded them. Civic nationalism is an ideology that suggests Somalis that fly into JFK airport, are picked up by their HIAS representative, and driven to their newly furnished apartment, are just as American as the person whose family came here on a 50-day boat ride from England with a few pence in their pockets.

Nobody, not even the most ardent open-border, globalist, rootless Liberal, would honestly suggest that Japan or Israel is merely a set of ideas and beliefs. Japan is the homeland of the Japanese people and Israel is the Jewish state. This seems rather obvious. Yet the same axiomatic truism is entirely abandoned when it comes to European nations. Decades of multicultural propaganda, suicidal immigration policies, and a widespread cover-up by the media and political elites have convinced several generations of Europeans that our ancestral homelands, are in no way ours. We are being told that the nations our forefathers created, defended, and died for, belong just as much to us, as they do to any of the world’s seven billion people who manage to wash upon our shores.

So-called conservatives are still hopelessly holding onto Leftists platitudes, “we are a nation of immigrants” and “diversity is our greatest strength.” These platitudes claim that because Europeans once migrated to the US, after a nation was created specifically for Europeans, by Anglo-nationalists, that we should allow unlimited Third World migration.

Democrats understand very well that they will never convince Whites to pass “hate speech” laws. The only way is to import enough non-White voters to get their agenda in place. The Left understands this on a visceral level. They know with no doubt in their minds, that the way to recreate this nation in their image, is to alter the demographics and to eviscerate the founding stock. Anybody on the Right that believes in the idea of civic nationalism, or any other nationalism aside from ethnic-nationalism, is either willfully blind or at heart nothing but soft-globalists.

Everything in politics and policy — and I mean everything — falls in the end comes down to race. Everything else is really quite secondary. Nations can survive famine, communism, plagues, war, pestilence, but they cannot survive mass-migration.

Beliefs alone do not make up a nation. We are a people bound by history, culture, heritage, and blood. If we are replaced, if the founding stock of America, or any other European nation is replaced with those who are nothing but paper citizens, mere visitors, and welfare tourists, the nation dies alongside the founding stock.

Homage To The Post-First World: My Wanderings in Europe, Part 3

/27 Comments/in /by

Stockholm, Sweden

Greg and I left the club in a state of shock. I had been to some terrible night clubs back in Washington, DC, but this one took the cake.

I mean, c’mon, what about Swedish House music? When people think of Stockholm, they think DJs and house music, hot blond women and Svedka vodka.

I had seen the ads, so I felt like I knew what to expect.

But we had started to notice that something was up the minute we went down into the metro. It was like leaving the land of the Eloi and entering the land of the Morlochs. The smell of fresh piss was hard to miss, as were the gypsy beggars, and the fact that we suddenly found ourselves to be in the minority. Africans jumped the turnstiles ahead of us and the cars were filled with full hijab’d women pushing baby strollers.

The minute that we got out in downtown Stockholm, near Stureplan, things got better. There were only well-to-do Swedes around us now. Boomer Swedes burning their life-savings away at fancy restaurants and Millennial Swedes dressed up for a night out on the town.

Anyway, despite laying down 300 Swedish Krona (about 35 USD) at the door, we were keen on leaving almost as soon as we got in.

It looked inviting from the outside, to be fair. All the local guide books recommended the place and even the globetrotters on the PUA forum that I frequented back in the day had a thread up praising the place. To be fair, we should have noticed how the Arab bouncers at the door looked at us.

But we had no choice. Read more