The Toxicity of Truth: Honesty as a Handicap for White Nationalists

/90 Comments/in /by

For me, the most important question in the world is this: What is truth? The question underlies every attempt to understand the world and to act therein. In a biological sense, the problem of formulating true representations of the world existed long before humans and language. Animals seek accurate information about the world: what is edible, what is not; what is dangerous, what is not.

This means that deception also existed long before human beings. Animals are in competition and although they want accurate information for themselves, they often want to deny it to their competitors. Think of camouflage. The truth about a stick-insect is that it is good food for birds or lizards. It conceals that truth by its appearance. The truth about a cuckoo-chick in a reed warbler’s nest is that it is a parasitic interloper. It conceals that truth by its behaviour.

Wasps and monarch butterflies do the opposite: they broadcast the truth about themselves as clearly as possible. “We sting!” “We taste bad!” But their clear warnings can then be stolen by deceivers. Some harmless moths mimic wasps; some edible butterflies mimic monarchs. To understand biology, you have to investigate not just flows of energy, but also flows of information. When you do, it’s clear that control over information is an essential part of biological competition. Deception is a very common evolutionary strategy both between and within species.

These biological realities also apply to human beings, but there are extra layers in the human world. We have language, and our psychology is far more complex. However, this does not alter one essential fact: Truth is often toxic. Revealing it can be very harmful. It’s easy to see how this applies in personal life, but I want to examine how it applies in politics too. The naïve assumption might be that it is good for a political movement to have the truth on its side. But is it? For example, are White nationalists, who recognize the truth about racial differences, actually handicapped by being in the right?

I would suggest that they are. And I’m not simply referring to the hostile media, which celebrate charlatans like Stephen Jay Gould and persecute truthful men like James Watson. We have to ask: why has a strategy of lies and deceit been so successful in politics? Read more

On Jewish Privilege and the “Dictator Mentality”

/60 Comments/in , /by

It’s been noted previously at TOO that Jews are happy to be considered White when they benefit from it. Historically, Jewish efforts at crypsis and gaining acceptance among Whites were pursued in order to obtain significant political, social, educational, and economic benefits.[1] Efforts at being seen as White have varied over the course of millennia. Some of the earliest efforts involved abandoning phenotypic characteristics that marked them out as a very distinct population, and which provoked White hostility. Since the Enlightenment in particular, there has been a powerful trend towards abandoning special Jewish languages, modes of dress, styles of hair, and ways of dressing. Even in modern times, rhinoplasty, or nose reshaping, has been so common among Jewish female teens that Tablet argued it was at one point a Jewish “rite of passage” that fell “somewhere between their Bat Mitzvahs and their wedding.” Aside from alterations to outward appearance and behavior, prior to emancipation the Jews of Europe often saw conversion to Christianity as a meal-ticket to mass acceptance, and with it admission to the franchise, political office and commercial opportunities. These “conversions of convenience” were hardly sincere, but were sufficient for Whites to admit Jews into the ranks of their society. A major part of the Jewish evolutionary strategy is therefore the penetration of White society, assisted by the adoption of the outward appearance of conforming to White norms, thereby enabling the untroubled transfer of resources from Whites to the cryptic Jewish population.

The Jewish evolutionary strategy is also adaptive and responsive to cultural and demographic change, and humans more generally are “flexible strategizers” in pursuit of evolutionary goals.[2] Jews in particular have employed countless strategies involving crypsis in their bid to combat hostility from Whites and other ethnic groups. They have been assisted in this by their above-average IQ, and related talents in general purpose cognitive processes — enabling them to constantly adapt, shift and change posture in response to novel situations. One of the simplest and most basic of these strategies is what has been called the “shell game of Jewish identity.”[3] This is the game where Jews will describe themselves primarily as either an ethnic group or a religion, depending on the angle of the attacks, or the nature of the disabilities, they face. New contexts demand the need for new “games.” American demographics are shifting ever faster against Whites, and Leftist dogma has taken on a life of its own within some of the new minorities — on occasion quite apart from Jewish intellectual influence. In the new context, Jews are seen by minorities as too phenotypically and culturally similar to Whites to escape the accusation that, even if not White, they have enjoyed the fruits of that social unicorn, “White Privilege.” Read more

Does Jewishness matter?

/48 Comments/in , /by

A while ago, there was a minor media firestorm about a situation at UCLA that erupted when a Jewish student was being confirmed for a position on the student council’s Judicial Board. The student was asked a series of questions about whether her Jewish commitments would affect her performance on the Board. This, of course, violates a major taboo. From the NYTimes account:

“Given that you are a Jewish student and very active in the Jewish community,” Fabienne Roth, a member of the Undergraduate Students Association Council, began, looking at Ms. Beyda at the other end of the room, “how do you see yourself being able to maintain an unbiased view?”

For the next 40 minutes, after Ms. [Rachel] Beyda was dispatched from the room, the council tangled in a debate about whether her faith and affiliation with Jewish organizations, including her sorority and Hillel, a popular student group, meant she would be biased in dealing with sensitive governance questions that come before the board, which is the campus equivalent of the Supreme Court.

The discussion, recorded in written minutes and captured on video, seemed to echo the kind of questions, prejudices and tropes — particularly about divided loyalties — that have plagued Jews across the globe for centuries, students and Jewish leaders said.

The council, in a meeting that took place on Feb. 10, voted first to reject Ms. Beyda’s nomination, with four members against her. Then, at the prodding of a faculty adviser there who pointed out that belonging to Jewish organizations was not a conflict of interest, the students revisited the question and unanimously put her on the board. …

“We don’t like to wave the flag of anti-Semitism, but this is different,” Rabbi Aaron Lerner, the incoming executive director of the Hillel chapter at U.C.L.A., said of the vote against Ms. Beyda. “This is bigotry. This is discriminating against someone because of their identity.”

The university’s chancellor, Gene D. Block, issued a statement denouncing the attacks on Ms. Beyda. “To assume that every member of a group can’t be impartial or is motivated by hatred is intellectually and morally unacceptable,” he said. “When hurtful stereotypes — of any group — are wielded to delegitimize others, we are all debased.”

The esteemed Dr. Block, whose Jewish identity is doubtless completely irrelevant to his statement, is going way beyond the evidence by saying that the proceedings assumed that “every member of a group can’t be impartial.”  The obvious reason for the questions was because there was doubt, not assumption. Anyone in his or her right mind would realize that it would not exactly be surprising if Ms. Beyda’s Jewish identity influenced how she voted on a lot of issues, most particularly Israel and the now common controversies over the BDS movement on campus. Read more

“The Last Free Man?” — Rivarol Interview with Jean Marie Le Pen

/55 Comments/in , /by

                                                                    Translated from the French by Tom Sunic 

Below are some lengthy excerpts from a long interview with Jean Marie Le Pen (86), the honorary president of the Front National, published in the French nationalist weekly Rivarol  on April 9, 2015.  One must emphasize the recent fall-out between him and his daughter, the current head of the FN, Marine Le Pen, in regard to some of the comments made earlier by her  father on  WWII gas chambers and the state of Israel.  In commenting on the interview, Marine Le Pen stated that his remarks have resulted in an “unprecedented crisis” for the FN and that they are “political suicide.”

“An apparently furious Marine Le Pen on Wednesday accused her 86-year-old father of taking the party hostage in an attempt to damage her and said she intended to stop him standing as an FN candidate in regional elections at the end of the year.” … [JM Le Pen] attacked Prime Minister Manuel Valls as an “immigrant”: “Valls has been French for 30 years, I’ve been French for 1,000 years?” he says. What is Valls’s real attachment to France? This immigrant, has he completely changed?”

One must also single out JM Le Pen’s own and unique figures of speech, teeming with irony and combativeness, often difficult to transpose into English. As of now the interview is stirring up a great deal of intellectual and media commotion all over France.

Rivarol: In regard to the National Front what is your assessment of the second round of departmental elections?

Jean-Marie Le Pen: It was to be expected that the results could not quite match our big success of the first round. According to the official documents from the Ministry of the Interior, the FN is the first party in France having obtained in the first round over 25% votes, which makes more than 5 million voters. Read more

The seething ethnic hostility behind the Rolling Stone scandal

/29 Comments/in , /by

Editor’s Note: Since Rolling Stone has now officially retracted its article on the fabricated UVA rape case, I thought that this would be a good time to repost Frances Carr Begbie’s article focusing on the ethnic angle that is, of course, completely missing in the mainstream media. 

You would need a heart of stone not to laugh at the humiliating predicament of Rolling Stone magazine. The hipster bible’s lurid account of a gang rape at a University of Virginia fraternity house has spectacularly blown up in its face and the magazine has been forced to issue an excruciating apology to its readers.

The story, by Sabrina Rubin Erdely, seems to have been written without the most basic journalistic checks and safeguards. There was no police investigation or third-party witnesses. The “suspects” were never approached for their side of the story, and now there are openly voiced doubts as to whether any rape took place at all.

Bloggers such as Steve Sailer and Richard Bradley ruthlessly pulled the original story apart. The affair has become a perfect case study of leftist journalism modus operandi in that where the facts clash with the narrative, it is the facts that have to give way.

It is also an instructive in media ruthlessness; for the magazine has chosen to shift responsibility for the debacle on the hapless woman herself with the words that, because of “discrepancies” in the story, its “trust” in her “was misplaced” — a cynical way to treat an obviously vulnerable young person who, whatever happened to her, is clearly still in distress.

But there is another dimension which has only so far been mentioned by Jewish convert blogger Luke Ford — that is the undertow of seething Jewish ethnic resentment that permeates the entire affair.

This can be heard in the initial squawks of indignation from Rubin Erdely’s stoutest defenders — Jewish female journalists.  Jezebel’s Anna Merlan initially dismissed Richard Bradley as an idiot and seemed to think gang rape was too foul for ethics. “Uurgh, it’s about ethics in gang rape journalism as well now?” She grudgingly back-pedalled later.

New York Magazine ‘s Kat Stoeffel was similarly indignant that anyone would question the veracity of the affair. Read more

Anti-White Privilege: The Case of Aeman Ansari

/40 Comments/in , /by

Huffington Post recently posted an article titled “Ethnic Minorities Deserve Safe Spaces Without White People” by Aeman Ansari. The article is in response to two first-year journalism students being turned away from an event organized by Racialised Students’ Collective because they were White. A quick Google search turned up RSC’s website with the following info:

“Racialised Students’ Collective opposes all forms of racism and work towards community wellness for students. Through education, campus and community organizing, and our commitment to struggle across differences, we seek to responsible [sic] reflect, represent and serve racialized students,” with their mission statement being, “To create and [sic] anti-racist climate on campus that will foster a healthy and rich working and learning environment for all.”

The RSC is a part of the Student Union at Toronto’s Ryerson University. When RSU coordinator Vajdaan Tanveer was contacted via phone about the incident, he responded by saying, “We don’t want (racialized) students to feel intimidated, that they can’t speak their mind because they are afraid of being judged or something they say might be used against them.”

A couple quick thoughts come to mind: 1) it’s another example validating the meme, “Anti-Racist is just a code word for Anti-White”; 2) White students are expelled from school and make National headlines for chanting a racially insensitive song while Student Union groups can openly discriminate against White students without consequence (beyond getting an ambitious student journalist’s op-ed published on a major internet site) and with limited publicity; 3) hypocrisy always has an agenda (usually hatred and/or ignorance).

Being a “person of colour” is central to Ansari’s world view:

Marginalized groups have a right to claim spaces in the public realm where they can share stories about the discrimination they have faced without judgment and intrusion from anyone else.

I am a person of colour and a journalist and so there are two conflicting voices inside my head. But in this case one voice, that of a person of colour, is louder and my conscience does not allow me to be impartial. I have to take a side.

Ansari’s choice between speaking on behalf of the best interest of her “colour” (whatever that is; see photos below) or standing up for normal professional standards is definitely a privilege unavailable to Whites of any occupation. Speaking with a White voice in pretty much any occupation has an entirely predictable result: unemployment.

But just what colour is Ms. Ansari? The two photos accompanying the article are very different in terms of skin color and perhaps nose shape.

 

Unless the darker woman is intended to be a generic “woman of colour” and not the author (which seems odd on the face of it), we seem to have a situation where someone of South Asian descent wants to appear as dark as possible in order to increase her claim to victimhood. After all, South Asians have unfashionably light skin tones which must be downplayed in order to advance one’s career as a professional victim.

Read more

The Lavon Affair: How to Make Jews Look Good and Muslims Look Bad

/24 Comments/in , /by

There’s so much talk — usually derogatory — these days about “conspiracy theories” and “false flags”.

Contrary to a widespread understanding of this term, the noun “theory” does not have a connotation of falsity or groundless, far-fetched speculation.

Science is made of theories. Relativity is a theory, and so is quantum mechanics. Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton created theories that gave birth to the science of physics.

A theory can turn out to be false but can also turn out to be true.

Specifically, I’ll describe a historical case — one of the many — in which a real event was dismissed and derided as an “anti-Semitic conspiracy theory”, just as it happens today. Read more