This is the way the world ends

With a Whimper

/245 Comments/in , /by
This is the way the world ends

This is the way the world ends

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.
— T.S. Eliot, The Hollow Men

Just as the more harsh totalitarianism of yesteryear has been replaced by the soft totalitarianism practiced by our hostile elites, the harsh collapses of yesteryear will be replaced by a series of insidious soft collapses. A levy will break over here. A riot will break out over there. Like a man who’s been castrated, we’ll steadily weaken by degrees both inwardly and outwardly. Where we were once muscular, we’ll find ourselves weak. Where we were once up to the challenges we faced, we’ll find ourselves shrinking from them. The West will likely be the last to know, as we’ll spiral even more deeply into denial and distraction while thing fall apart.

When the Mexican Army kicked off the Mexican-American War with the Siege of Fort Texas, they did not yet realize they were merely Mexicans up against a dramatically more capable opponent. They saw themselves—incorrectly—as the obvious and natural heirs of the great Spanish military tradition and were more surprised than anybody by the disastrous outcome. Similarly, contemporary Americans see themselves as the obvious and natural heirs of a great nation, a nuclear power with a sprawling military empire, an unparalleled economy, and an enviable commitment to the highest Christian and Enlightenment virtues—incorrectly. Read more

Judge Roy Moore says he does not share the views of James Edwards in newspaper interview

/22 Comments/in /by

Many of you will remember Alabama Judge Roy Moore for his righteous defense of the displaying of the Ten Commandments in his courtroom a few years ago. Judge Moore is now running for Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.

As it turns out, a former guest of The Political Cesspool Radio Program has contributed to his campaign and we all know what that must mean!

Yep, Judge Moore must be a “racist!”

The Montgomery Advertiser, which is the daily fish wrap of Montgomery, Alabama, has turned this “connection” into a major story.

Nearly two-thirds of Roy Moore’s funding in his race for chief justice has come from a Maryland-based attorney who has affiliations with extremist groups, including a Killen-based organization that advocates secession from the union and has been called “explicitly racist” by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Michael Peroutka has contributed $50,000 to the Moore campaign over the past two months, making up the vast majority of the $78,000 that the former chief justice received through Dec. 31.

Moore said during a Thursday interview that the money came from Peroutka and his brother. The former chief justice also said he was not aware of Peroutka’s affiliation with the League of the South, a group advocating secession, or of his appearance on The Political Cesspool, a Memphis, Tenn.-based radio program that advocates white nationalism. … Read more

Carl Schmitt’s “Jews in Jurisprudence” (Part 2)

/35 Comments/in , , /by

Carl Schmitt (1888-1985)

Introduction to Part 2:

Part 2 of “Jews in Jurisprudence” continues the glimpse into the mind of an important intellectual during the National Socialist period.  One has to remember that this is a speech to a gathering sponsored by a high government official in a nation with a very well-defined official ideology. It is not a treatise with elaborate and well-supported arguments tempered by qualifications sensitive to differences among Jews. Rather than an attempt to persuade by the weight of logic and argumentation, it reflects a shared understanding in a highly politicized context. Within these limitations, the essay is an important insight into perceptions of Jews among elite German academics during the National Socialist period. Read more

Non-white gangs of youths can be violent racists, too

/56 Comments/in /by

Editorial note: The following letter was published, with some deletions, in The Independent regarding the murder convictions of David Dobson and Gary Norris, both White, for the 1993 murder of Stephen Lawrence, who was Black, of West Indian origin. (Notice another letter that deals with the murder of a White police officer, Keith Blakelock, a crime by Blacks during a riot in 1985 for which there were no convictions.) This is Webster’s original letter, posted here with Webster’s permission:

Sir:

All murders are to be deplored; all murderers should be brought to justice; and the media should give coverage to all such crimes.

This said, I note the different treatment accorded by the Metropolitan Police, the judiciary and the media to the murders by teenage “racist gangs” of 18 year old Stephen Lawrence in Eltham, SE London, in April 1993 and 15 year old Richard Everitt in Somers Town, Camden, north London, in August 1994. Stephen was of West Indian origin; Richard was white.

The circumstances of the murders were similar. Both were attacked by gangs of teenagers who before and after the murders expressed violent racial hatred. Stephen was murdered by a white gang. Richard was murdered by an Bengali gang. Neither victim behaved in any way to provoke even verbal abuse, let alone being stabbed. Read more

Carl Schmitt’s “Jews in Jurisprudence” (Part 1)

/190 Comments/in , /by

Carl Schmitt, 1888 – 1985

What follows is the English translation of the little known closing speech, given by Prof. Dr. Carl Schmitt at a conference held in Berlin, Germany, on October 3 and 4, 1936. The conference, sponsored by Reich Minister Dr. Hans Frank, was attended by hundreds of German legal scholars, law professors and political scientists, most of them affiliated with the National Socialist regime. The speeches and minutes of the two-day conference were subsequently published in several separate short volumes under the title Jews in Jurisprudence (Das Judentum in der Rechtswissenschaft) and are available in the German language on line.

Carl Schmitt (also Karl Schmitt and Carl Schmitt-Dorotic) was a German legal scholar, philosopher, political scientist and critic of liberal parliamentarianism.  His voluminous writings span the fields of international law, political theory, comparative linguistics, geopolitics, philosophy of history and comparative literature. After WWII, Schmitt, along with hundreds of thousands of German and other European professors, teachers and academics, was subject to the process of “denazification” and was removed from all academic and teaching positions by the American  occupying authorities.

Some contemporary critics consider Schmitt a big time opportunist and “Hitler’s Crown Jurist.” While acknowledging Schmitt’s influence on modern political thinkers, some of his contemporary (mostly Jewish) critics, like Steven E. Aschheim, from Hebrew University in Jerusalem, also note how “Schmitt’s anti-Semitism demonstrates in great and nuanced detail how his anti-Jewish attitudes permeated the very structure and grounds of his thought and categories.” The speech reproduced here clearly shows Schmitt as a completely accepting the National Socialist world view.

Over the last 30 years, however, Schmitt’s works have gained immense popularity, both in the USA and Europe, among leftist, conservative, liberal and rightwing scholars. Recently, most of his work has been translated into English. Of significant academic interest today are Schmitt’s theories on “just vs. unjust war,” on “limited vs. total warfare,” on the “notion of the political” in different political systems and on the “state of emergency.” His theories on the legal status of “terrorists”, “freedom fighters” and “disarmed enemy combatants,” on guerilla and partisan warfare, are debated today by many legal experts, including military establishments and colleges all over the world. ‘C. Schmitt’ is a household name for many nationalist intellectuals and nationalist parties in Europe (see my Against Democracy and Equality). Read more

Robert Trivers Continues the Tradition of Moral Critique

/71 Comments/in , , /by

There was a time when evolutionary thinking was widely considered to be the key to racial self-defense.  Although it didn’t play a role in the Congressional debates (itself an indication of the rapidly changing intellectual context), evolutionary thinking was prominent among some of the elite intellectual  proponents of immigration restriction in the 1920s. This was the heyday of eugenics—motivated by concern about deterioration of the gene pool because modern civilization had increased the moral and intellectual burdens of life at the same time that natural selection had been relaxed. Lothrop Stoddard’s The Revolt against Civilization: The Menace of the Under-Man exemplifies these trends.

Even by the mid-20s the Boasian onslaught against the idea of race and against Western culture generally had become ensconced in elite universities. It continued that way for the next 50 years, when E. O. Wilson included a chapter on humans in his Sociobiology: A New Synthesis. This set off a storm of outrage by the usual academic suspects (see here), but all of their outrage could not prevent the establishment of evolutionary outposts, especially in psychology and anthropology, and academic societies such as The Human Behavior and Evolution Society.

What is remarkable about these developments is that they have completely failed to challenge the dominance of elite consensus on all things related to immigration and multiculturalism. Evolutionary psychology is a paradigm, loudly proclaiming the idea that evolution did indeed sculpt the mind, but that all humans were alike because we all evolved in the same environment. This takes issues like race differences completely off the table. It also avoids discussing IQ, a measure that is strongly heritable, shows rather large race differences, and is linked to success in life in contemporary societies. IQ is the one measure that is most feared by the anti-White coalition. Read more