Marine Le Pen suggests Wallonia become part of France

/58 Comments/in /by

Marine Le Pen has suggested that the French-speaking part of Belgium become part of France, pending a referendum of all Belgians. This follows last year’s vote in which a majority of voters in Flanders favored Flemish separatists. Le Pen stated that “if Belgian is going to split, if Flanders pronounces its independence, which seems more and more credible a possibility, the French republic would do well to welcome Wallonia into its heart.”

A related article, “End of Nationalism Dream Dying in Belgium” notes that “If even Belgium’s Dutch speaking Flemish and francophone Walloons cannot live together then how can Europe’s ‘Union’, a more recent and even more artificial construction, hope to bridge national differences?”

Indeed. The EU project was built on moral idealism of the left rather than on a realistic understanding of what motivates people. Attachment to ethnically similar people sharing a common language and culture is a bedrock part of human nature–hence the robustness of these differences no matter how much the left would like to engineer them away. Read more

Mesirah is alive and well in Brooklyn

/11 Comments/in /by

Writing in Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post, Michael Lesher, an Orthodox Jew, argues that the  city should not be giving money ($130,000) to street patrols manned by Orthodox Jews in Orthodox Jewish neighborhoods (“Orthodox Cops: Separate and Unequal“). Lesher’s article comes in the wake of a kidnapping and murder of Leiby Kletzky, a Hasidic boy, by an Orthodox Jewish man. He points out that “Leiby’s disappearance was only belatedly reported to the police, and that a privately run, Orthodox Jewish ‘patrol’ called Shomrim reportedly had video evidence that went unused during the crucial hours before the murder, while untrained Jewish laymen tried to handle the investigation themselves.”

Lesher notes such groups “all too often driven by religious proscriptions to keep their community’s crimes out of the public eye.” In other words, the groups operate by the code of mesirah in which it is a forbidden to inform on Jews. But of course Lesher is himself violating mesirah by loudly blowing the whistle on his fellow Jews. He has been very courageous in performing this public service. I wouldn’t want to be in his shoes.

Publication in the Post probably won’t help Rupert Murdoch in his present travails either.

The effect of Breivik’s actions on Geert Wilders and the PVV

/19 Comments/in , /by

The killings of Anders Breivik, although shocking by their sheer scale, are nothing new for Dutchmen: Holland is used to political killings since the murders of anti-immigration politician Pim Fortuyn in 2002 and Islam-critic Theo van Gogh in 2004. It has long since lost its innocence after a period of self-preceived tolerance. The meteoric rise of Wilders since 2004 is another dimension in which the discussion of Breivik’s killings is taking place, because Breivik has mentioned Wilders 30 times in his manifesto. What has been said in the mainstream Dutch media sheds an interesting light on the impact of Breivik’s actions.

The moment it was clear that the Oslo attacks were the work of Breivik, Wilders sent out a twitter-message: “That the fight against islam is abused by a psychopath is disgusting and a slap in the face of the global anti-Islamic movement. This fills me with disgust that the perpetrator refers to PVV and me in his manifesto.” The self-proclaimed intellectual newspaper NRC Handelsblad was quick to link the attacks with the right-wing intellectual discourse in their commentary on Monday July 25th: “Anders Behring Breivik is no fool, but an extremist. He knows his classics. The same philosophies that right-wing politicians craft their programs together.” The next day NRC and The Press stepped up their attack on Wilders by accussing him of ‘war-rhetoric’. Wilders replied by a new statement proclaiming: “We struggle in a democratric and non-violent way against further Islamization of our society and will continue to do that. The preservation of our freedom and security is our only goal.” Read more

Letter from Sweden: Fallout from Breivik

/54 Comments/in , /by

This appeared as a comment on a TOO article but has general interest. Ed.

I think many here have misunderstood why European nationalist parties have taken this much of the Zionist and neo-conservative position to heart. Firstly, ethnic nationalism is more or less failed for the moment – but may not be so in the near future, because the elites are losing power.

But for the moment there are very few successful ethnic nationalist parties in Europe. Those who have succeeded to some extent are the French National Front [which has taken a cultural position. Ed.], the British National Party (BNP) and possibly a couple of parties in Eastern Europe, such as Jobbik in Hungary and Ataka in Bulgaria.

Today, BNP has lost what had been gained in recent years, maybe because of internal struggles but also because they never took the important step of  “cleaning” itself from its history and therefore could not get access to middle class professionals. The situation has long been desperate for many nationalist parties.

So how could you make progress? Well, these “cultural-nationalist” parties studied the political climate and made the assessment that no one can achieve any progress if they do not adapt to the prevailing norms, which are mediated by the elite. The first thing they did was to “wash off” their history and rid themselves of those members who first built the parties. People with criminal backgrounds, a history of neo-Nazism, all religious radicals and conspiracy theorists had to leave the parties.

Those parties who were most successful at this were also the most successful in elections. After the Islamic terror attacks of 2001 these nationalist parties saw their chance to enter the establishment’s institutions. Read more

Breivik’s “The great Satan, his cult and the Jews”

/166 Comments/in , , , /by

The section of Anders Breivik’s 2083: A European Declaration of Independence titled “The great Satan, his cult and the Jews” focuses on Jewish issues. He is unsparing in his criticism of Hitler (the “great Satan”) and the National Socialists, blaming their defeat in WWII  for the rise of multiculturalism and European self-immolation. He makes a strong distinction between conservative Jewish nationalists and liberal Jews, arguing that only the former are opposed to the interests of Europeans. Like several other important European rightists, he expresses strong support for Jewish nationalism, arguing that Hitler should have cooperated in creating a Jewish homeland in the Middle East and deporting the German Jews there. “The deportation of the Jews from Germany wouldn’t be popular but eventually, the Jewish people would regard Hitler as a hero because he returned the Holy land to them.”

When the tides turned for the Nazis and the Russian campaign failed, they decided to massacre the Jews and thus further condemning the Germanic tribes and the conservative/nationalist ideology to hell… They knew perfectly well what the consequences would be for their tribes if they lost, yet they went ahead and completed the job. After WW2, the greatest anti-nationalist and anti-European propaganda campaign the world has ever seen was launched. And people like myself, and other cultural conservative leaders of today, are still suffering under this propaganda campaign because of that one man.

Breivik acknowledges that most German Jews were disloyal in Hitler’s time and estimates that 75% of European and American Jews favor “nation-wrecking” multiculturalism. He concludes that “we must embrace the remaining loyal Jews as brothers rather than repeating the mistake of the NSDAP,” and claims that Jews are not the problem in Europe “with the exception of the UK and France” where 800,000 of Europe’s 1,000,000 Jews live. And he acknowledges that the US with its 6,000,000  “actually has a considerable Jewish problem.” Read more

Anders Breivik as a Nordicist

/128 Comments/in , , , /by

It’s been noted, particularly on the racialist, paleoconservative right, that Anders Breivik’s ideas closely resemble the ideas usually associated with the neoconservatives: Strong support for Israel and opposition to Islam. For example, in his book, Breivik cites Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch, and he includes several excellent articles from the Gates of Vienna site. My article, based on his web comments, may have contributed to this perception.

However, unlike the great majority of neoconservatives who are focused mainly on supporting  Israel and for whom any other conservative attitude is a position of convenience, Breivik comes across as someone who is mainly motivated to preserve Europeans and their culture. (For example, neocons are typically very soft on immigration (see here, p. 26 and passim, including Muslim immigration; Breivik includes an article  by “Fjordman” that questions neocon Daniel Pipes‘ idea of promoting moderate Islam.)

And, despite condemning cultural Marxism as the main villain, in the end Breivik realizes that it’s a biological battle. In his book, Breivik comments several times on the eventual extinction of the  Nordics if something isn’t done. Breivik’s view is that a poisonous, maladaptive culture may result in evolutionary death just as surely as a genocidal military invasion. His ideas imply what I take to be correct, that evolutionary conflict is now mainly taking place in the arena of culture—the view of The Culture of Critique. Because cultural Marxism has resulted in natural selection against the Nordics, Breivik views it as a racist ideology of hatred toward Nordics: “Multiculturalism IS as evil and racist as Nazism and as brutal as Stalinism.” This strongly suggests that his web comments where he condemns ethnocentrism are strategic and don’t go to the heart of his thinking. Read more

Condemning the Messenger: Earl Ofari Hutchinson, Anders Breivik, and the Politics of Repression

/125 Comments/in /by

The Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable, led by Earl Ofari Hutchinson, has issued the following statement regarding one of my articles on the Anders Breivik:

Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable President Earl Ofari Hutchinson on Sunday, July 24 demanded that California State University Board of Trustees President Herbert L. Carter and the entire Board of Trustees condemn Cal State Long Beach Psychology professor Kevin McDonald who praised Norway mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik as a “serious political thinker” and for having “good practical ideas on strategy.” McDonald is an influential university professor and he praised Breivik in a July 23 op-ed piece in the well-read e Zine on-line alternative right newsletter.

The fulsome praise of Breivik a self admitted hater of Muslims, persons of color, and multi-cuturalism, by McDonald is vile and reprehensible and deserves swift condemnation. This gives back door validity and justification to mass murder, but also tacitly encourage others to believe that mass murder is the way to solve social problems.”

The censure of McDonald by the California Board of Trustees will send the strong message that professors at taxpayer supported institutions that spout racially loaded views do not speak for those charged with administering state supported institutions.

Endorsed by:

Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable

NAACP National Board Member Willis Edwards

Youth Advocacy Coalition

Black Ministerial Alliance

Los Angeles Civil Rights Assn.

National Action Network West Coast

Black Womens Coalition

See also this KABC-Los Angeles story that includes an interview with me, death threats, etc.

Hutchinson’s claims are ridiculous. Saying that someone is “a serious political thinker” and has “good practical ideas on strategy” is certainly not to endorse his actions. Indeed, the blogs I have written (see here and here) quite clearly show that I do not approve of his actions either as morally legitimate or as tactically well-advised. And it is at least highly doubtful that they will help the cause of keeping Europe European. Read more