Is Universalism So Bad for Whites?

/65 Comments/in , , , /by

Our current disastrous situation is that the White race is rapidly declining in absolute numbers and the countries it built are being taken over by the Third World.

There are, clearly, two elements to this. The first is that Whites are disappearing of their own volition because they don’t reproduce.

The second element is unrestricted immigration and multiculturalism.

It’s my argument that universalism in general and Christianity in particular didn’t produce either (for simplicity I’m assuming that Christianity is universalist although there are exceptions). The distortions of the Left did.

The elephant in the room which nobody is too happy to mention is that the evident reason for the demographic suicide of White, Western peoples is that they have dissociated sex from reproduction, which Christianity teaches not to do. Here, far from Christianity being the cause of this White birth decrease, there is its opposite, the erosion and abandonment of Christianity, at the root of this trend.

There is a Jamie Kelso video in which he confronts young Whites about such an issue as well. Read more

Les Juifs maintiennent la Pression pour la Censure d’Internet

/in /by

English version: Jews Continue Pressure for Internet Censorship

Article d’origine publié le 19 mai 2015

En mars dernier, ce blog a subi une cyber-attaque prolongée de la part des ennemis de nos peuples. Cette ressource vitale pour la vérité a été mise hors-service au moyen d’un nombre exagéré de demandes de service factices. Kevin MacDonald notait qu’une adresse IP en Israël avait “tenté d’accéder au site 13 125 fois en trois jours”. Notre mission, qui est d’éclairer et de libérer, est exécrée par ceux qui voudraient mettre notre race à genoux. L’Occidental Observer est vraiment un site unique, et l’on peut être sûr que l’analyse et le travail de recherche qu’il s’obstine à proposer donne des nuits blanches à nos ennemis. Je suis sûr que l’Occidental Observer, et d’autres sites qui partagent nos objectifs et notre vision du monde, tiennent une place spéciale dans le cœur haineux de nos élites étrangères. Ils ne s’arrêteront pas avant d’avoir trouvé un moyen de nous faire taire. Mais les cyber-attaques ne sont qu’une tactique parmi d’autres utilisées contre la vérité et notre droit à l’autodétermination. Un autre point d’attaque essentiel contre notre mission réside dans les croisades juridiques internationales visant à nous faire fermer boutique définitivement. Read more

The Bomb Iran Lobby Gears Up for 2016

/27 Comments/in /by

“The Bomb Iran Lobby Gears Up for 2016: A tight-knit group of neocon dead-enders is pushing Iran to the forefront of the GOP’s foreign policy agenda“ by Sina Toosi; Foreign Policy in Focus

In a recent TV ad, a van snakes its way through an American city. As the driver fiddles with the radio dial, dire warnings about the perils of a “nuclear Iran” spill out of the speaker from Senator Lindsey Graham and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The driver then steers the vehicle into a parking garage, drives to the top level, and blows it up in a blinding flash of white light. Words shimmer across the screen: “No Iran Nuclear Treaty Without Congressional Approval.” …

These think-tank gurus, special interest groups, and media pundits have peddled a plethora of alarmist narratives aimed at scuttling the diplomatic process — and they’ve relied far more on fear mongering than facts.

So who are these people?

A Close-Knit Network

Despite their bipartisan façade, these reflexively anti-Iran ideologues are in reality a tight-knit group. Many were also prominent supporters of the Iraq War and other foreign policy debacles from the last 15 years. They work in close coordination with one another and are often bankrolled by similar funders.

Four GOP super-donors alone — the billionaires Sheldon Adelson, Paul Singer, Bernard Marcus, and Seth Klarman — keep afloat an array of groups that ceaselessly advocate confrontation with Iran, like the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Other groups forming the core of this network include the neoconservative Hudson Institute  and the Foreign Policy Initiative, as well as more explicitly hardline “pro-Israel” groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the Republican Jewish Coalition, the Emergency Committee for Israel, The Israel Project, and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs.

Several of these outfits also rely on right-wing grant-making foundations such as the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation and the Scaife Foundations, which together funnel millions into hardline policy shops.

Hardline Senators

Together these groups have established what amounts to their own echo chamber. They’ve built an anti-Iran communications and lobbying infrastructure that enjoys substantial influence in Washington’s corridors of power, particularly in Congress.

And if you think that this has nothing to do with Jewish money aimed at furthering Israeli interests, you are simply avoiding reality. It’s very difficult to see how a Republican candidate could win the nomination without the support of the Republican Jewish coalition. It’s yet another example where Jews pursue a top-down strategy that begins by dominating elite discourse,  shaping public opinion by having access to the elite media, and by the role of money in influencing politics at the highest level.  Of course, many non-Jews are involved in this movement, from well-paid foreign policy hacks who work at the think tanks mentioned, Senators (Toossi mentions Tom Cotton, Lindsey Graham, Mark Kirk, Kelly Ayotte, and John McCain),  to presidential candidates. As Lindsey Graham famously said,

“If I put together a finance team that will make me financially competitive enough to stay in this thing…I may have the first all-Jewish cabinet in America because of the pro-Israel funding. [Chuckles.] Bottom line is, I’ve got a lot of support from the pro-Israel funding.”

It’s not just Republicans who are in fealty to Jewish pro-Israel money. Hilary Clinton, who seems to be the inevitable Democratic candidate despite being little more than a grifter, depends on Haim Saban and the liberal Jewish establishment ensconced in Hollywood. Saban is totally on board with bombing Iran. Clinton also has close ties to Wall St. and has welcomed important neocons like Robert Kagan to her foreign policy team. War with Iran in 2017 seems almost a foregone conclusion.

Toossi’s entire article is well worth reading. He concludes:

Yet by so vigorously denouncing the Obama White House’s negotiations with Iran, these armchair warriors are pushing for a war that wouldn’t only be terrible for the region and the people who live there. It would harvest more lives and limbs from American soldiers, waste trillions more taxpayer dollars, and undoubtedly erode U.S. standing in the world even further.

Read more

Groupthink in Sweden

/50 Comments/in , /by

Sweden has become something of a paradigm of what’s wrong with the West, but one doesn’t expect light to be shed on the subject in an article on the false confessions of a Swedish man. However, this article has an interesting observation. The basic facts:

Sture Bergwall … confessed to 30 killings in the 1970s and 80s and to dismembering and eating some of his victims. In trials beginning two decades ago he was convicted and locked up in an institution for the criminally insane.

But, in a story redolent of the darkest Nordic crime fiction, doubts continued to swirl around the case until an investigative journalist, the late Hannes Råstam, demonstrated that the confessions had no basis in fact. (“Lawyers blame groupthink in Sweden’s worst​​ miscarriage of justice“)

The false confessions have led to soul searching in the Swedish legal community and, as the title of the article indicates, the explanation is “groupthink.”

“In hindsight, it is easy to see mistakes in the Bergwall affair,” the commission in Stockholm said on Friday.

Read more

Friends of Israel: Old and New Patterns in British Politics

/14 Comments/in , , /by

Two interesting patterns became apparent after the recent general election in Britain. One of them has been extensively discussed in the mainstream media. The other hasn’t been discussed at all. Why not? Because it involves Britain’s most powerful ethnic group and that group intends to maintain its stranglehold on British politics. Power that can’t be discussed is also power that can’t be challenged.

Key qualities of the left

First, let’s look at the pattern that could be discussed in the mainstream: the resounding success of the Scottish National Party, which held six of fifty-nine seats in Scotland before the election. Now it holds fifty-six. A huge Labour majority has evaporated in a single day. The fiasco is further proof that the left doesn’t understand the societies it wants to control. As I pointed out in “The Toxicity of Truth,” parties like Labour are interested in power, not in facts, logic or objective reality. But their insatiable greed for power is sometimes thwarted by another of their key qualities: their boundless incompetence.

Mini-Obama: Nicola Sturgeon

Mini-Obama: Nicola Sturgeon

Labour gave Scotland more and more autonomy in the confident belief that this would “kill Scottish nationalism stone dead.” They thought they were injecting cyanide into the SNP. In fact, they were injecting steroids. Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP’s authoritarian, high-testosterone female leader, became a kind of mini-Obama during the election campaign. Just as millions of deluded narcissists in Europe wished they could vote for Obama in 2008, so thousands of deluded narcissists in England wished they could vote for Sturgeon in 2015. After all, she wants to put “equality and fairness” at the heart of Scottish politics, and she favours immigration and refugee policy that would only speed the Third Worldization of the U.K. What could be nobler than that? Read more

Excerpt from “My journey to race realism”: Reformers’ search to close “the gap”

/31 Comments/in , /by

The following is the second of two excerpts from an article, “My journey to race realism,” to appear in the Summer issue of The Occidental Quarterly. Prof. Ray Wolters is Thomas Muncy Keith Professor Emeritus of History at the University of Delaware.

First Excerpt: The Burden of Brown

Before 2010, I was aware of evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology.  As mentioned, during the 1990s I began to read American Renaissance, and about the same time one of my chums from grade school and high school, a bank examiner named Gene Stelzer, bent my ear with comments about Darwinism.  Gene was also the first person to call my attention to The Occidental Quarterly, a journal I later came to regard as an indispensable guide to understanding White racial consciousness.  At the University of Delaware, education professor Bob Hampel kept me informed about some of the best recent books in his field, and social scientist Linda Gottfredson told me about gene-culture co-evolution.  But from mainstream historians I heard and read nothing about Darwinism or the interaction of culture and genes, and my own written work was still based primarily on archival research.  It was not until 2010, when I was laid low by lung failure and could no longer rummage through archives that I began to read deeply and to think seriously about evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology.  As it happened, at this time I was also thinking about the modern school reform movement, which since about 1990 had become, above all else, an effort to close the achievement gaps that show American Blacks and Latinos lagging behind Whites and Asians on standardized achievement tests.

In some ways, the reformers’ concern with test scores is surprising.  In recent international comparisons, African Americans have done better on standardized tests than Blacks in Africa or the Caribbean.  Hispanic Americans have done better than Hispanics in Latin America.  White Americans are doing better than students in other predominantly-White nations (except Finland).  And Asian-American students have done as well as most students in Asia — and better than those in Korea or Japan.  These results were achieved, moreover, at a time when an increasing proportion of American students were being reared in single-parent families and a growing proportion of parents did not speak English. Read more

Excerpt from “My Journey to Race Realism”: The Burden of Brown

/15 Comments/in , /by

The following is the first of two excerpts from an article, “My journey to race realism,” to appear in the Summer issue of The Occidental Quarterly. Prof. Ray Wolters is Thomas Muncy Keith Professor Emeritus of History at the University of Delaware.

In the 1960s and 1970s I forged through the academic ranks.  My dissertation received favorable notice when it was published in 1970, and another book of 1975 received even better reviews.  At the age of 36, I was promoted to the rank of full professor at the University of Delaware, and I began to think about research for yet another book.  At that time, civil rights lawyers had brought a lawsuit seeking metropolitan busing for racial balance throughout the northern portion of New Castle County, Delaware.  From reading the local newspaper, I learned that the largest city in this region, Wilmington, had been one of the first five jurisdictions that the Supreme Court, in Brown v. Topeka Board of Education (1954), had ordered to desegregate its public schools.  Wilmington complied immediately, but desegregation led to inter-racial scuffles and a decline in cultural and academic standards.  This touched off White flight, and enrollment in Wilmington’s public schools tipped from 73% White to 90% Black.  I then learned that much the same had happened in three of the four other “Brown districts” — in Prince Edward County, Virginia, in Summerton, South Carolina, and in Washington D.C.  Only in Topeka, Kansas, where Blacks made up only 8% of the students, had the majority of Whites continued to patronize the public schools.  And desegregation had been problematic even in Topeka.[1]

In my best-known book, The Burden of Brown (1984), I told the story of how public education had fared in these five districts where desegregation began.  In the introduction and conclusion, and in a few statements that were interspersed in the text, I maintained that the misbehavior of Black students had created serious problems and that federal judges had made matters worse by redefining desegregation to mean something quite different from the original understanding.  When the implementation order for Brown was handed down in 1955, the Supreme Court defined “desegregation” as assigning students to public schools on “a racially non-discriminatory basis.”  Similarly,  in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Congress defined what “desegregation” meant and what it did not mean: “‘Desegregation’ means the assignment of students to public schools and within such schools without regard to their race, color, religion, or national origin, but ‘desegregation’ shall not mean the assignment of students to public schools in order to overcome racial imbalance.”[2] Read more