Turbans from Amsterdam: The Demise of the Labour Party

/27 Comments/in /by

 

The quintessential Dutch flower is of course the Tulip. But few people realize that the origin of the word is actually derived from an Islamic word for “turban”—an ill omen indeed!

This is sadly appropriate now because Amsterdam, the main city of the Netherlands, is fast becoming a Muslim city (15 to 20%). It was also the centre of the electoral breakthrough by Denk, the new Turkish political party in Holland, which gained 2% of the national vote and three MPs in the 150-seat parliament.

In fact, one of the most shocking statistics from the election is that in Amsterdam itself, Denk actually did better than Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party, which finished second nationally. In the main Dutch Metropolis, Denk got 7.5% of the vote, against only 7% for the Freedom Party.

Denk also got close to the vote of the Labour Party, which collapsed nationally but also slumped from 35.8% in the city to 8.4%.

This is interesting because one reason the Labour Party’s vote collapsed is because it not only lost Dutch voters but also non-Dutch voters, and especially Turkish voters. In particular, it is clear that almost all of Denk’s voters would previously have voted Labour, as the Party’s founders got their start on Labour’s ethnic fast-track. Read more

“I love myself. So I must be good”

/18 Comments/in , /by

If you read the links on previous posts you’ll find  ‘a lack of self-esteem’ adduced as one of the main explanations for low Black SAT scores. This is ridiculous on any number of counts, most obviously by avoiding the IQ elephant in the room. But where do they get the idea that Blacks have low self-esteem? In fact the contrary is the case, especially for the younger cohort for whom a preening swaggering bravado, totally unrelated to actual capabilities, is standard behaviour. And that’s not just my impression.

Bernadette Gray-Little, a professor of psychology at the University of North Carolina, performed a complex review of every piece of research available on black self-esteem.’There have been inconsistencies in the results of the studies on this topic over time,’ says Gray-Little. ‘I wanted to see if I could find any basis for a firm conclusion. And if inconsistencies occurred, I wanted to know when and why.’ …

She found that before the age of 10, whites slightly surpass blacks in self-esteem. Everyone’s self-esteem dips in the later years of school. After that, blacks narrowly but consistently surpass whites, up to the age of 21, the upper limit of the study.

The self-esteem gap seems to depend on wealth. Low-income blacks show higher self-esteem than low-income whites. But the gap disap pears at higher income levels. The study also shows that black self-esteem has not risen over time. The theory of many psychologists was that as blacks gained in civil liberties, their self-esteem would rise. But the study shows it has never been low.

The report will confound black activists who have seen raising black self-esteem as the key to overcoming social disadvantage. At the all-black Paul Robeson Academy in Detroit, students start the day by standing up and proclaiming: ‘I feel like somebody. I act like somebody. Nobody can make me feel like a nobody!’

In Britain, many companies now have mentoring schemes to help people from ethnic minorities. The Millennium Commission is funding a three-year programme to expand such schemes.

Read more

Rep. Steve King gets shamelessly racist — or not

/42 Comments/in , /by

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) caused a major liberal media meltdown by tweeting positively about anti-Islamic Dutch politician Geert Wilders and repeating his comments in an interview with CNN’s Chris Cuomo, “We Can’t Restore Our Civilization With Somebody Else’s Babies.”

On the face of it, this sounds like a certain type of DNA — the DNA from our babies, not theirs — is a prerequisite for maintaining our civilization and culture. The horrors! Pass the smelling salts.

However, in explaining what he meant in a follow-up interview (where super liberal Cuomo states “[America is]known … as a bastion of diversity and it is an unqualified strength for us”), King makes it clear that he is all about cultural and genetic assimilation — that he opposes setting up of isolated ethnic/religious enclaves that remain isolated from the rest of society even after 2 or 3 generations. Indeed he looks forward to the day when all Americans look the same as a result of intermarriage, presumably some shade of brown, with genetically recessive blondness entirely eradicated. He is opposed to allowing people into the US (or Europe) who hate Western civilization, and he complains that the left is out to destroy Western civilization and “replace it with something entirely different.” He is unabashedly pro-Western civilization (“Western civilization is a superior civilization and we want to share it with everybody”), noting that the spread of Western civilization via the English language has been associated with increased personal freedom and higher standards of living.

Cuomo then presses the point, asking if Muslims, Jews, Christians, Italians, etc. are Americans, and asserting that “they are all equal … We don’t need babies from any one of those groups more than from any other of those groups.” Rep. King then seems to say that, although everyone is equal in the eyes of God and equal in the eyes of the law, not all groups contribute equally to society: “Certain individuals contribute more to society than others, and certain groups of people will do more on the productive side than other groups, that’s just a statistical fact.” Cuomo, being your standard liberal, says that these differences are entirely explained by differences in opportunity, whereas King puts the blame squarely on culture. But in any case, according to King, it has nothing to do with race: “It’s the culture, not the blood … it’s never been about race.” If children from other cultures were adopted into American homes (i.e., assimilated American homes), they would all grow up to be good Americans. Read more

No Campus (Or Country) for White Men

/39 Comments/in , /by

Does anyone remember my column of nine years ago called “Letter of Termination to the White Race?” I don’t believe we know who really wrote this letter — or why, but the point is, it paints a chilling picture of what is in fact happening to the White race right before our eyes.

For instance, in the letter the author laid out what is in sad reality unfolding:

By carefully controlling and managing the schools, universities, media, and press, this “out group” has managed to convince the great bulk of your racial kinsmen that not only is resistance futile, but that it is immoral, barbaric, depraved, and unworthy of a “thinking” individual. By promoting the stereotype of a “racist redneck resistance,” they have made the idea of a struggle for White Identity a veritable sin in the minds of nearly every White person. In short: they have convinced European-derived peoples that a prolonged suicide is preferable to the unmitigated evil of “racism.”

Do I need to suggest who this “outgroup” might be?

TOO has emphatically emphasized the reality of this War on Whites, featuring the topic Anti-White Attitudes in fifty-three articles, and in particular the topic Jews as a Hostile Elite, fifty-five times. My article today belongs in either category [Ed.: actually both!].

Nine years ago, I was very taken with a literal belief that Whites were being systematically attacked in a coordinated strategy against us. I have no reason to doubt this now. Around the time I wrote “Letter of Termination to the White Race,” I also wrote kindred columns. For instance, I wrote about former Washington Post political columnist, Harold Meyerson, no friend of the White race. Read more

Juan Thompson was not the Perp they were Hoping for

/17 Comments/in /by

Juan Thompson

I don’t want to say that the revelation of the identity of the perpetrator of multiple bomb threats against Jewish schools, community centers and museums is “funny,” because of course bomb threats are nothing to joke about.  And if such threats were made by someone “on our side,” which is rarely the case, it would not do us any good in our eternal struggle against Cultural Marxism.   But we’ll have to admit that the whole affair is steeped in irony; and as usual, the MSM is left with some egg on their face (not that they would ever acknowledge said egg).

Let’s try to map out the sequence of events: “hate crimes” and threats are perpetrated against the Jewish community (but no actual bombs).  Outrage ensues and Trump is called upon to denounce these actions with just the right level of intensity. And his denunciation must be phrased with just the right words — because apparently we’re not even allowed to choose our own words anymore.

Somehow he is responsible, the media seems to suggest, because of the environment of rampant hatred that he has created.  While Trump has done nothing but lavish praise on Jews, the fact that he has hinted that not every last human being is a boon to America has seriously rubbed the Jewish community in particular the wrong way; and they somehow infer that this leads directly towards anti-Semitism and indeed, a holocaust.  Indeed, any hint of nationalism or populism is taken rather personally by the Jewish community, to the extent that they have identified members of such movements as dire political enemies.  As a result of this dialectic, they assume that they are in turn identified as enemies by followers of populist or nationalist movements, with a bit of psychological projection and paranoia in the mix.  In my opinion, this can lead to somewhat of a vicious cycle, to the point where these two sides may become enemies in fact, so that it is no longer a matter of paranoia and projection.

Trump, meanwhile, affirms himself to be “the least anti-Semitic person you’ve ever seen in your entire life.”  More media rage ensues.  Trump then suggests it might be some type of false flag (“Sometimes it’s the reverse”).  Even more media rage ensues.  On February 28th, Trump opened up his excellent Joint Address to Congress with a more full-throated condemnation of the anti-Semitic activity:

Recent threats targeting Jewish community centers and vandalism of Jewish cemeteries, as well as last week’s shooting in Kansas City, remind us that while we may be a nation divided on policies, we are a country that stands united in condemning hate and evil in all of its very ugly forms.  (Applause.)

Mainstream conservatives were gratified by this new obsequious tone.  But still no love was forthcoming from the MSM.  Shortly thereafter, the threats were confirmed as a hoax of sorts, and the Alt Right was vindicated (not to mention that Trump too was vindicated, at least in his earlier, more frank thoughts on the matter.) Read more

Moralism and Moral Arguments in the War for Western Survival, Part 3

/37 Comments/in , /by

Part 1
Part 2

Is It Possible to Develop a Specifically Moral Argument for the White Past of Conquest and Slavery?

A second message is that in order to appeal to a wide range of Whites, we have to fashion an underlying moral message or at least have good rejoinders to the moral arguments of others. We already see that to some extent among conservatives who have nothing but scorn for the Alt Right. They emphasize the treatment of women and homosexuals in Muslim countries and refer to “radical Islamic terrorism” — implying that the terrorism has something to do with Islam (while avoiding the idea that jihad is central to Islam.  They will bring up the criminality and lack of labor participation of Middle Eastern and African immigrants. These are effective moral arguments because they argue for immoral, unfair effects on the traditional populations and culture.

But this doesn’t really get at the overriding moral argument that uniquely evil Whites are responsible for the actions of their ancestors in conquering land settled by others, slavery, etc. Of course, these accounts are carefully contextualized to ignore things like morally crusading Whites who uniquely ended slavery after a campaign based on empathy for far-away Africans. Whites ended slavery, passed Civil Rights, have funded endless uplift programs for Blacks, and twice elected a Black president — the liberal tradition so common among Northern Europeans aided and abetted in contemporary times by our hostile Jewish elite.

Also ignored are the characteristics of Whites and non-Whites that feed into current realities (e.g., IQ and personality differences, the Faustian soul of the West, etc.). Apart from the West, I have yet to hear of a movement opposed to slavery or anything else that worked by eliciting empathy. Appeals like this only work with Wersterners. These movements are a Western phenomenon and the media thrives on showing photos of suffering refugees and immigrants; “we need to help them,” never mind the short term and long term costs to our own people.

Pressing the guilt/empathy button doesn’t work in Africa or Asia despite the fact that huge swaths of humanity there (Arabs, Han Chinese, Bantu) have achieved their present territories as the result of the conquests of their ancestors. And slavery persisted in these areas long after it was abolished in the West. And even if these areas were prone to messages of guilt/empathy, you won’t see them there because these societies are not controlled by elites hostile to their traditional peoples and cultures of those areas.

One does not see Chinese people agonizing over the fact that the Han Chinese greatly expanded their territory at the expense of other peoples—a point brought out by Ricardo Duchesne in his groundbreaking The Uniqueness of Western Civilization. Nor does one see the Bantu peoples of Africa worrying about the ethics of displacing other African peoples as they spread far and wide from their homeland in Central Africa, including into South Africa where their treatment at the hands of White South Africans became Exhibit A for White evil during the apartheid era; nor do the Bantu-speaking peoples agonize about the widespread practice of slavery in Africa. Arabs do not apologize about their conquests in the name of Islam or their centuries-old role in slavery and the slave trade.

The lack of contextualization and the continual deluge of messages hostile to the White majority are good indications that the button pushing is an exercise in propaganda emanating from a hostile elite, enabled because of their control over the moral, intellectual, and political high ground. It’s not just emotional buttons that are pushed. Some of these memes are much more purely intellectual — a good example is the “race does not exist” meme, although I suppose many of these terms have emotional overtones as well because they are often linked in such a way that that they plug into the guilt mechanism. This means that they are addressed to  the higher brain centers which are able to exert substantial control over the more primitive (and self-preserving) lower brain centers responsible for things like ethnocentrism. Control of the  media and the academic high ground by the left means that Americans are bombarded by messages that enjoin them to inhibit their natural self-preserving tendencies and indeed, to feel guilt for them. These messages have also filtered down to churches and schools, so, unless they tune in to dissident media on the internet, Whites can spend their entire lives without hearing any contrary messages. It’s hard to overcome that.

Only Whites have been made to feel moral disgust at their own past of conquest and expansion. And only Whites—not all, to be sure, but a significant and important proportion—have felt moral outrage about slavery, to the point of banning it despite its material benefits to the society as a whole and to a great many individuals much more like themselves than the slaves they were freeing.

But this “everyone does it” is not really a moral argument, but rather an argument based on how we understand human nature and genetic self-interest, combined with showing that Whites uniquely developed moral arguments against the very things they were so good at—colonization and slavery. As an evolutionist, I am quite comfortable with these because they have been common throughout human history and again, Whites uniquely ended slavery. But the “anti-racist” answers that Whites have no moral claim to North America, Australia, and New Zealand, and that present-day Whites have “White privilege” as a result of the immoral actions of their ancestors. Of course, such an argument would not apply to Europe where we see the same phenomena of massive non-White immigration presented as a moral imperative.

So be it. Can Europeans make a moral argument to retain the lands they have controlled since the glaciers receded? Is longevity in a certain area a moral argument? I think not. But if it is, it would apply to every other people in one way or another, as Jared Taylor notes in a recent video. We would find that some native American groups displaced others, and we would talk about the Aztec empire and its subject peoples. Even the Hawaiians who came to the pristine islands eventually developed a society dominated by a particular chief that unified the islands at the expense of their close relatives holding power on the various islands but vicious fighting took place long before that between various islands. So then the White people take it over and suddenly we have a moral crisis. It’s what they call “selective prosecution.”

Fundamentally, if we take the ethical perspective that dominates the West today based on fairness and impartiality rooted ultimately in individualism and egalitarianism, we cannot make a specifically moral argument for White conquest. Such a perspective was foreign to the ancients who prized aristocratic values and were profoundly opposed to egalitarianism. In The Genealogy of Morals Nietzsche sketches this alternative morality — the morality of the strong versus the morality of the weak, the ethical world view of our Indo-European ancestors.

There is nothing strange about the fact that lambs bear a grudge towards large birds of prey: but that is no reason to blame the large birds of prey for carrying off the little lambs. And if the lambs say to each other, ‘These birds of prey are evil; and whoever is least like a bird of prey and most like its opposite, a lamb, – is good, isn’t he?’, then there is no reason to raise objections to this setting-up of an ideal beyond the fact that the birds of prey will view it somewhat derisively, and will perhaps say: ‘We don’t bear any grudge at all towards these good lambs, in fact we love them, nothing is tastier than a tender lamb.’ – It is just as absurd to ask strength not to express itself as strength, not to be a desire to overthrow, crush, become master, to be a thirst for enemies, resistance and triumphs, as it is to ask weakness to express itself as strength. (25–26)

The point of the left is to abolish any argument for retaining control of any territory for historically White countries—open borders for Whites and only for Whites. There are a variety of motives: hatred for Whites as ethnic competitors, monetary compensation (the massive infrastructure that incentives anti-White activism), and virtue signaling for many White SJW’s made possible because the control of  the media by the left has created a morally defined community opposed to the legitimate interests of Whites. Forget about ecological arguments—that bringing in 1 million plus immigrants yearly is an ecological disaster, forget about arguments from IQ, welfare dependency, criminality, not to mention the ethnic genetic interests of Whites. Forget about intellectual consistency — these people would be horrified at the thought that Korea or Nigeria ought to have displacement-level immigration. We are asked to ignore the evil effects of the racialization of politics and increasing political violence as non-Whites coalesce in the Democrat Party, the disuniting of society as community ties are destroyed, less willingness to contribute to public goods, etc.  These consequences of the invasion all have clear moral overtones and they support our interests because they have negative impact on people who cannot control the behavior of some of their ancestors.

Was it fair to the traditional White majority to bring in these millions of non-Whites given that the flood gates were opened by the 1965 immigration law presented dishonestly as having no effects on the ethnic balance of the country? Was it fair given that the arguments in favor of ending the bias toward Europe were the result of scientific fraud and developed by Jewish ethnic activists motivated by hatred toward the traditional White populations of the West?

Conclusion

In conclusion, I would love to be able to present a specifically moral argument within the current egalitarian zeitgeist for why it is morally okay for White people to take over North America at the expense of the natives. I can’t do that. Being susceptible to such moral arguments may well be part of our nature. But if so, we have to get over it. I suspect that the people in this room are quite proud of the accomplishments of our ancestors. And as an evolutionist, I have no problem with that.

Moralism and Moral Arguments in the War for Western Survival, Part 2

/17 Comments/in , , /by

Part 1.

Moral Indictments of the West as Characteristic of Jewish Intellectual Movements

Here I want to stress one aspect of my book The Culture of Critique. It’s no accident then that all of the intellectual and political movements discussed in the Culture of Critique were moral indictments if the West. These Jewish intellectuals understood how to appeal to Westerners. They knew what buttons to push. Together these movements comprise the intellectual and political left in this century, and they are the direct intellectual ancestors of current leftist intellectual and political movements, particularly postmodernism and multiculturalism. From Chapter 6 of The Culture of Critique (p. 213–214).

Collectively, these movements have called into question the fundamental moral, political, and economic foundations of Western society. A critical feature of these movements is that they have been, at least in the United States, top-down movements in the sense that they were originated and dominated by members of a highly intelligent and highly educated group. These movements have been advocated with great intellectual passion and moral fervor and with a very high level of theoretical sophistication. Each movement promised its own often overlapping and complementary version of utopia: a society composed of people with the same biological potential for accomplishment and able to be easily molded by culture into ideal citizens as imagined by a morally and intellectually superior elite [Boas and the war on IQ and behavior genetics]; a classless society in which there would be no conflicts of interest and people would altruistically work for the good of the group [communism, socialism]; a society in which people would be free of neuroses and aggression toward outgroups and in tune with their biological urges [psychoanalysis]; a multicultural paradise in which different racial and ethnic groups would live in harmony and cooperation [the Frankfurt School]—a utopian dream that also occupies center stage in the discussion of Jewish involvement in shaping U.S. immigration policy in Chapter 7. Each of these utopias is profoundly problematic from an evolutionary perspective, a theme that will be returned to in Chapter 8.

The originators of these movements were all vitally concerned with anti-Semitism, and all of the utopias envisioned by these intellectual and political movements would end anti-Semitism while allowing for Jewish group continuity. A generation of Jewish radicals looked to the Soviet Union as an idyllic place where Jews could rise to positions of preeminence and where anti-Semitism was officially outlawed while Jewish national life flourished. The psychoanalytic movement and the Frankfurt School looked forward to the day when gentiles would be inoculated against anti-Semitism by a clinical priesthood that could heal the personal inadequacies and the frustrations at loss of status that gentiles murderously projected onto the Jews. And the Boasians and the Frankfurt School and their descendants would prevent the development of anti-Semitic ideologies of majoritarian ethnocentrism.

A palpable sense of intellectual and moral superiority of those participating in these movements is another characteristic feature. This sense of intellectual superiority and hostility to gentiles and their culture was a recurrent theme of the leftist movements discussed in Chapter 3. I have also documented a profound sense of intellectual superiority and estrangement from gentile culture that characterized not only Freud but also the entire psychoanalytic movement. The sense of superiority on the part of a “self-constituted cultural vanguard” (Lasch 1991, 453–455) of Jewish intellectuals toward lower-middle-class mores and attitudes was a theme of Chapter 5. [This was a prominent theme really of the Trump victory.]

Regarding moral superiority, the central pose of post-Enlightenment Jewish intellectuals is a sense that Judaism represents a moral beacon to the rest of humanity (SAID, Ch. 7). These movements thus constitute concrete examples of the ancient and recurrent Jewish self-conceptualization as a “a light of the nations,” reviewed extensively in SAID (Ch. 7). Moral indictments of their opponents are a prominent theme in the writings of political radicals and those opposing biological perspectives on individual and group differences in IQ. A sense of moral superiority was also prevalent in the psychoanalytic movement, and we have seen that the Frankfurt School developed a moral perspective in which the existence of Judaism was viewed as an a priori moral absolute and in which social science was to be judged by moral criteria.

The “Holier than Thou” Phenomenon and the Advantages and Disadvantages of Online Anonymity

I think part of the dynamic pushing things right now is that there is a “holier than thou” phenomenon that often characterizes political and religious movements of all stripes. Strongly religious people compete with each other to be most virtuous in their local church. On the left, we see vegan fanatics shunning vegans who even talk to people who eat meat or eat in restaurants where meat is served — even family members. I am sure there is a dynamic within antifa groups where people who are do not condone violence or are unwilling to crack heads themselves are ostracized or at least have much less status.

This is also true on the Alt Right. People often vilify me for not coming down squarely on the side of Holocaust revisionism. And I don’t have swastikas on my page, nor do I tweet pictures of Jews going to ovens, or advocate National Socialism.

I think quite a bit of this, on both the left and on the right, has to do with anonymity made possible by the internet, but is especially true on the right given the moral opprobrium we are subjected to. I have found that as editor of TOO it is not unusual for me to have to tone down articles from people who use pen names. And there are some who may well have felt that there will be no consequences for them personally if they engage in Roman salutes or joke about the Holocaust while at the same time it marks them as on the cutting edge, as more authentic and more “in your face.” Ironically, people taking these positions are often plugged into this moral dynamic of being holier than thou. They see themselves as more honest — no matter what the consequences for the movement as a whole.

There is definitely a place for such things. There are different audiences out there, and different things work better with some people than with others. We should never get caught in a “one size fits all” approach. For some people, this brash sensibility may turn them on to a whole new way of thinking and make them read more about Jewish power and influence. It may appeal to them as a young person just because it is cutting edge and definitely not your parents’ attitudes. My approach is doubtless too boring and academic for quite a few people — I suspect the demographic for TOO readers and certainly TOQ readers is a bit older than some. But then, people who resonate to approaches like mine quite often are repelled by any hint of advocating National Socialism.

The problem comes when people do Roman salutes in a mixed situation where some people stand to lose a lot by being associated with such things and where the media is sure to be all over it — and make sure that their readers never forget. In that situation, the moral opprobrium that a large majority of the public feels about such things gets attached to everyone present. It is unfair of course, to suggest or imply that everyone present approves of such things, but who ever said life was fair? The media is indeed the opposition party to the Trump administration, and that goes double for us. They care nothing for fairness.

Of course, anonymity is indispensable for many of us. We are all aware that the left is only too eager to make us lose jobs and family ties. We see the disastrous results that can occur to people like Mike Enoch and the TRS crew when they are doxxed. But the anonymity has to always be tempered with responsibility and understanding of other people’s interests and concerns, especially when one is in a mixed group where not everyone is on the same page and where people are likely to be compromised (albeit unfairly) by media exposure. Losing livelihood and family connections are difficult indeed.

So an obvious message is that we have to have a clear understanding of our particular audience and act accordingly.

Go to Part 3.