Moralism and Moral Arguments in the War for Western Survival, Part 1

/43 Comments/in , /by

Obviously President Obama was a horrific president in pretty much every possible way. His domestic policies in particular have been anathema to the Alt Right — he would, after all, have loved to sign an immigration amnesty/surge bill into law. Nevertheless, couple of things he said in his farewell address made a lot of sense, although he probably wasn’t thinking about the Alt Right when he said them.

Obama said that too often people think of those who oppose them as not merely misguided but malevolent. This is a huge problem for the Alt Right. The very label is typically associated in the media with words like ‘Nazi,’ ‘White supremacist,’ and ‘racist’ — all of which have strong moral connotations after years of browbeating by the media.  These words produce psychological reflexes intended to preclude honest debate or any rational discussion of our ideas. And they have been very effective in doing just that.

During an interview with an NPR reporter, I mentioned that I hoped the phrase “White supremacist” would not be used in whatever eventually gets aired. The interviewer seemed surprised, thinking that “White supremacist” was a perfectly reasonable label to use, and defending his stance by claiming that some Alt Rightists have talked about Europeans as a superior and uniquely talented group. Depending on how an idea like that is phrased and conceptualized, I have no problem with it. We should have pride in the accomplishments of our European ancestors, as tabulated, for example, by Charles Murray.

But our desire to preserve a European identity and culture really has nothing to do with European talents, and I think pretty much everyone on the Alt Right is aware of this. We could be the most average or below average people on the planet but still have a legitimate interest in wanting to preserve our people and culture — and the territories needed for that. None of the people shouting about “White supremacists” would suppose that Africans should be supplanted from African states they control, no matter what their talents or lack thereof, and the same goes for Korea and every other country with a historical ethnic and cultural core. And of course, many of the same people comfortable with condemning “White supremacists” are quite content with Israel being a “Jewish state.”

But being called a White supremacist in today’s political climate has obvious moral implications (happily the phrase did not appear in the NPR interview). Such a person is not only misguided, he or she is malevolent. Such a person is consumed by hatred, anger and fear towards non-Whites, gays, women and the entire victim class pantheon, or so goes the stereotype And that’s the problem. Being cast as evil means you are outside the moral community. There’s no need to talk with you, no need to be fair, or even worry about your safety. You are like an outlaw in Old Norse society  —“a person [who] lost all of his or her civil rights and could be killed on sight without any legal repercussions.”

So the antifa at the November NPI conference felt entitled to beat up a cameraman, throw foul-smelling liquids at attendees, and break into a dinner venue. There have been other assaults, notably of Richard Spencer in January in Washington DC, but also in February at the UC-Berkeley riots. So we often hear “no free speech for fascists,” not only at antifa protests but in university classrooms, designed to shut down errant professors and students. College students showing sympathy for Donald Trump can be hounded into dropping out of school. We find students protesting having White philosophers on the curriculum. No need to discuss their ideas because they are dead White males and ipso facto a component of racial oppression. Read more

Communism In Romania: The Anti-Humans by Dumitru Bacu

/63 Comments/in , /by

To this end the students were obliged to crush under-foot everything they held most sacred ­– God, family, friends, love, wife, colleagues, memories, ideology ­– everything which bound them to the past, anything that might give them inner support while in prison. (Dumitru Bacu, The Anti-Humans)

The story of Communism in Romania may not be a unique story. The familiar elements all present their ugly heads. As the Bolsheviks came to power the lives of the indigenous population worsened precipitously — the ideology of the enlightened government against the backward people. Foreigners became policy makers. Peasants starved. Prisons swelled. Slave labor killed hundreds of thousands. And lastly, the indigenous intellectual class was suppressed. What is unique about what happened in Romania is how the intellectual class was suppressed. Rather than simple suppression through imprisonment and discouraging political activity, the intellectual class in Romania was subjected to sadistic experimentation in what has been dubbed “re-education experiments.”

The intellectual class targeted for re-education was a specific group of people. Rather than target older academics or those of influence, the Communist regime targeted university students for their experiments. These students were chosen for a variety of reasons. To become a student in a Romanian University was a difficult task. For example, to be a student, an individual was expected to know French and German as well as either Latin and Greek or English and Italian. This demanding language requirement as well as other academic requirements brought a high degree of prestige to the very word student. The prestige of being a student could not be bought either. The wealthy who wanted to send their children to university had to send their children to another country if they did not meet the requirements. The result was that a large portion of the student body came from peasant backgrounds.

The final, and perhaps most important reason for targeting students, was their ardent patriotism. Students in Romania were patriotic for a number of reasons. Just as our American rural class is disproportionally conservative, the Romanian students who mostly came from an agrarian background were also a highly conservative group. Furthermore an influential man on the student body was Corneliu Z. Codreanu. He established the Legion of Michael the Archangel (the Iron Guard or simply the Legionary Movement) in 1927. The organization’s principles were love of country, a code of honor and moral intransigence, the reciprocal loyalty of knighthood, rigorous subordination of body to spirit, and an absolute faith in Christ. These high-minded ideals attracted students and other intellectuals to the movement. Even 30 years after Codreanu’s murder by Bolsheviks in 1938 he had faithful followers, many being students who were still part of the nationalist Legionary Movement.

The most intense and psychologically damaging experiments were done at Pitesti Prison between 1949 and 1951. The primary victims were students, the majority of whom had previously been a part of the Legionary movement. The students were often arrested for being involved in “anti-Communist activities” which could mean essentially anything that the Communists found politically expedient. Often times being part of the Legionary Movement was reason enough to arrest a student but in other instances, telling an anti-Communist joke could be grounds for arrest. Regardless of how or why they were arrested, the true horrors of Communism made themselves apparent inside the walls of Pitesti. Read more

Jewish Privilege Devours Itself

/30 Comments/in , /by

Octopus self-cannibalism

Octopuses can sometimes engage in self-cannibalism, eating their own arms in what is thought to be a stress reaction. What initially begins as a nervous biting of one’s own limbs, descends into frenzy, as bacteria take hold in the resultant wounds. As the infection spreads, and the stress levels increase, the octopus savages its own arms at a rate faster than it can heal, or grow new limbs. Survival in such instances is rare. There is only a terminal fate for a cephalopod in which such behavior has firmly taken hold.

Stress-related self-destruction is also relatively common among humans, and not merely in the obvious form of deliberate suicide. Melville captured it best with Moby Dick’s Captain Ahab, a figure so psychologically and spiritually wounded, so bitterly sensitive, that he would give his own life and the lives of others in pursuit of revenge — the only palliative he felt would appease his mental self-gnawing. Rebuking the admonishments of Starbuck, he cries with barely concealed anguish: “Talk not to me of blasphemy, man; I’d strike the sun if it insulted me.” Ahab’s insatiable hate for the white whale was certainly not intended as an allegory for the hatred felt by modern ‘progressives’ for the White man, and yet I feel that such a comparison is apt. These people will do anything to ‘strike the sun,’ to bring down their great opponent, and we may expect self-destructive behaviors to be an aspect of their maniacal pursuit of ‘Whiteness.’

The last few weeks have witnessed a couple of important instances in which the memes of ‘privilege,’ racism, and anti-Semitism, the chief intellectual harpoons forged to pierce the White behemoth, have been turned inward on those largely behind their construction. Very recently, England’s Bristol University has been caught up in a scandal after it emerged that one of its lecturers, Dr Rebecca Gould, who is almost certainly both Jewish and a ‘progressive,’ penned an article for CounterPunch in 2011 in which she argued that “Jews should stop privileging the Holocaust.” Given that such an argument simultaneously infringes upon several taboos, and thus casts Dr Gould into the nebulous category of a ‘self-hating Jew,’ it is a miracle that her career has managed to progress uninhibited for the last six years. Apparently the piece was only brought to light, and subjected to ‘social justice’ action, after one of her undergraduate students unearthed it and initialized a campaign against her. Read more

How to Cure a White Zombie: Ants, Crabbs and Societal Control

/35 Comments/in , /by

If grovelling ever becomes an Olympic sport, Britain has a potential world-beater ready and waiting. He’s called Stephen Crabb, and he was a minister in David Cameron’s Tory government. Here he is displaying his skills before an appreciative audience at Finchley Synagogue in London:

Israeli Independence Day: Work and Pensions Secretary Stephen Crabb leads UK celebrations

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions addressed over 1000 people at the service at Finchley Synagogue, organised by youth organisation Bnei Akiva, as Israel’s Remembrance Day (Yom Hazikaron) led into Israeli Independence Day (Yom Haatzmaut). Mr Crabb began: “The remarkable sense of fellowship and unity felt in Israel, and in Jewish communities all around the world, as we remember those who have given their lives in the defence of Israel, is something truly beautiful and inspirational.”

He went on to describe Israel on Remembrance Day as “a country united as one to remember their fallen.” The former Wales Secretary said that “the need for a Jewish state remains as crucial now as it was in 1948”, and that the British Government “does not take the safety of the Jewish people for granted.” He said that on Israel’s 68th birthday, “we recall that this relatively young country – young but with deep ancient roots – has endured so much. It has also achieved so much.” …

The Minister, who visited Israel for the first time in 2007 with CFI, said that, as a Christian, he has “always felt a very close affinity with the Holy Land”. “At a time when the Christian population of the Middle East is in steep decline due to systematic and sustained persecution, Israel continues to be a place where Christians are welcomed and feel safe,” he said. …

Mr Crabb referred to the “repugnant rise in anti-Semitism both in Europe and here in the UK”, describing it as representing “a stain on our nation”. He said: “I want to reassure you that this government has an unequivocal zero-tolerance approach to this racist ideology. We need to make it clear that anti-Semitism, whether it is expressed through the pernicious illiberal boycotts and sanctions bandwagon; through pouring out hate on twitter; or through any other means, is totally unacceptable.”

He emphasised that “we should in particular hold those in public life to the highest standards on this.” The UK’s Jewish community, Mr Crabb said, “is, unquestionably, part of the fabric of our society and the contribution of Jewish people in business, in media, in politics, in culture, in all parts of our national life, has been truly immense.”  (Israeli Independence Day: Work and Pensions Secretary Stephen Crabb leads UK celebrations, Conservative Friends of Israel website, 12th May 2016)

Read more

https://youtu.be/tv6OnvK-LRw

Henrik Palmgren – Trump is Right about Sweden – Identitarian Ideas IX

/in /by

The Failure of Multiculturalism in Polish Ukraine

/26 Comments/in , /by

Mykola Pymonenko – To War!

We are often told today that multiculturalism, that is to say a state made up of a diversity of peoples, is a great strength. No, it is in fact our greatest strength! To state any concerns or criticisms, no matter how mild, is seen as sacrilegious.

However, the opposite is true and throughout history where there are many examples of diverse and multicultural societies falling into discord and strife. The focus of this piece will be on a place that has been praised in hindsight for its liberalism and tolerance: the Commonwealth of Poland-Lithuania.

Poland-Lithuania came into being after the 1569 Treaty of Lublin when the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania were unified and made into one country. Prior to this, in the 1385 Union of Krewo, the two were linked in a personal union under the reigning Lithuanian monarch. Before 1569 what are now Belarus and the bulk of Ukraine[i] were also part of the Grand Duchy, which was the largest European country at the time. As per the 1569 treaty, however, Ukraine was handed over to Poland, thus setting the stage for a violent future of ethnic conflict.

The Polish nobility or szlachta was used to a high degree of autonomy which only became greater after the old Lithuanian Jagellonian dynasty died out. After this occurred, the monarchy was elected and became increasingly subservient to the nobles. The szlachta, it should be noted, was not entirely ethnically Polish. It would come to include Lithuanian, Ukrainian and other non-Polish noble houses that Polonized to such an extent that they may as well have been ethnically Polish. Examples of the power to which the nobility held include their ability to bring back serfdom (so-called neo-serfdom) and a 1518 law which stated that the king could not accept in his royal courts complaints of subjects on noble land, giving the nobility a free hand. Nobles eventually gave themselves power to introduce corvée labour, seize peasant land and the peasants working it.[ii]

Yet all was not well with the nobility during the years leading up to the tumultuous seventeenth and eighteenth centuries,

Perceptive foreigners… saw, for instance, that the much vaunted freedom of the szlachta, which gave Poland the reputation of being one of the freest states in the world, rested on the complete deprivation of rights and enslavement of all the other classes of the population, that along with the unlimited freedom of the nobles, the burgesses were deprived of all participation in political life, hampered in their economic development, and shut within the walls of the towns. Parliamentarianism was flourishing in Poland, but alongside it, the executive was powerless to function. … The royal power was rigidly limited, and all decisions were made by the powerful ruling classes of nobles. This class, moreover, was degenerating. The Polish nobles had lost their former chivalrous and fighting spirit. They were corrupted by wealth and had lost their former energy which could now be aroused only to fight for privileges against real or imaginary attacks by the royal power.[iii]

Not only were they corrupted by vice and power, but the szlachta had ceased to see themselves as having any relation to the people they ruled over. The nobility had developed, from the sixteenth century on, an ideology known as Sarmatianism, which erroneously said szlachta were the descendants of Sarmatians, a steppe people originating in what is now southern Russia. Importantly, szlachta saw themselves as ethnically distinct from even the Polish peasants.[iv] It also came to view Roman Catholicism as the only true form of Christianity. Such an ideology was bound to create sharp social divisions but especially with their Ukrainian subjects. This was to have a great and terrible impact on the Commonwealth in the mid-late seventeenth century. Read more