Joe Sobran (1946-2010)

/19 Comments/in , , /by

Joe Sobran will be much missed. I met him only once, but I am a great admirer of his writing. The American Conservative wrote this:

The 20th century produced many great conservative writers, but none brought together wit, erudition, and humanity on a single page so well as Joseph Sobran.

At VDARE.com, Steve Fulford included this very appropriate quote from Joe:

Most prejudices aren’t created by official doctrines; they result from popular experience and the slow spreading of a group’s reputation. The first gypsy I ever met — on a street in Rome — grabbed a wad of money out of my hand. I’d been too naive to be wary of her, though my companions had warned me against her.

(Editor’s note: Readers of this post have posted many other wonderful quotes from Sobran in the comments section. Well worth reading. Joe clearly understood exactly what was going on and who our enemies are.) My own favorite quotes, culled from Chapter 2 of Separation and Its Discontents, include the following:

In comments reminiscent of those of Heinrich von Treitschke, columnist Joseph Sobran has also raised the issue of Jewish media control and how it shapes discussion of Jewish interests versus those of the Christian Right:

The full story of [Pat Buchanan’s 1996 presidential] campaign is impossible to tell as long as it’s taboo to discuss Jewish interests as freely as we discuss those of the Christian Right. Talking about American politics without mentioning the Jews is a little like talking about the NBA without mentioning the Chicago Bulls. Not that the Jews are all-powerful, let alone all bad. But they are successful, and therefore powerful enough: and their power is unique in being off-limits to normal criticism even when it’s highly visible. They themselves behave as if their success were a guilty secret, and they panic, and resort to accusations, as soon as the subject is raised. Jewish control of the major media in the media age makes the enforced silence both paradoxical and paralyzing. Survival in public life requires that you know all about it, but never refer to it. A hypocritical etiquette forces us to pretend that the Jews are powerless victims; and if you don’t respect their victimhood, they’ll destroy you. It’s a phenomenal display not of wickedness, really, but of fierce ethnocentrism, a sort of furtive racial superpatriotism. (Sobran 1996a, 3)

This quote ended with the following footnote:

In another column, Sobran (1996b) quoted an essay, reprinted in the May 27th issue of the New York Times, by Ari Shavit, an Israeli columnist describing his feelings on the killings of a hundred civilians in a military skirmish in southern Lebanon. Shavit wrote, “We killed them out of a certain naive hubris. Believing with absolute certitude that now, with the White House, the Senate, and much of the American media in our hands, the lives of others do not count as much as our own.” Sobran comments that “in a single phrase—‘in our hands’—Shavit has lighted up the American political landscape like a flash of lightning. Notice that Shavit assumes as an obvious fact what we Americans can say publicly only at our own risk.” Sobran lost his position with National Review because of his views on the influence of American Jews on U. S. policy toward Israel.

As indicated in the last line, Sobran paid for his honesty about the Israel Lobby. His departure marked the rise of neocon domination at the Buckley’s execrable National Review and the equally execrable Republican Party. It was a huge loss for conservative thought in America.

The following may be called  Joe Sobran’s Dictionary. These are quotes attributed to Joe. I can’t vouch for the authenticity of these, except for the definition of an anti-Semite (which has become a classic). But they certainly fit his character. A particularly insightful comment, not included in the dictionary, is the  following — very appropriate in an age where the courts routinely overturn popular referenda, such as the recent Arizona immigration law: “Our constitution has never been an impediment to those who rule us.” The same thing happened to California’s Proposition 187. As Sam Dickson notes, the American legal system is a fraud.

Joe Sobran’s Dictionary

anti-Semite: a person who’s hated by Jews

association, freedom of: discrimination

bigot: one who practices sociology without a license

bribe: an irregular transaction through which the citizen may get his money’s worth of service from the government

civil rights: government power used in behalf of large groups

guilt: the deepest vested interest

isolationist: an American who thinks America should behave like other countries

opinion polls: clever devices to make the hostages think they control their captors

political correctness: the felt pressure of enlightened public opinion, under which we sense that certain thoughts, though technically legal now, are already destined to become taboo.

psychoanalysis: a form of aggression for humorless people

public opinion: what everyone thinks everyone else thinks

rich: politicians’ nickname for “other people” (as in “tax the rich”)

rights: authorizations for new areas of government control

rogue nation: a country that behaves like America

voting: trying to say something with a gag in your mouth

Rest in Peace.

Solzhenitsyn’s “The February Revolution”: Chapter 13 of 200 Years Together

/in , /by

Chapter 13 of 200 Years Together recounts the period of the February Revolution of 1917—the revolution that toppled the czar and led to a period of instability followed in October by the Bolshevik Revolution. (See here; donations are of critical importance for finishing this important project.) Solzhenitsyn is critical of the radical slogans of the period—e.g., “All Russian life must be rebuilt from the roots.” Solzhenitsyn responds as a cultural conservative, aware of the danger of uprooting ancient institutions because they do not conform to an ideal as decreed by an intellectual elite: “A thousand-year life! — why, all of a sudden from “the roots”?

There was a consensus that Jews must have the same legal status as any other citizen. Quotas in education were repealed, as were restrictions on land ownership. For example, Jews were allowed to serve as military officers and as full-fledged attorneys. Those with a reputation of having anti-Jewish views were targeted for prosecution or dismissal. For example, the chief investigator of the Menahem Beilis ritual murder trial was dismissed because he had allowed testimony of an expert witness for the prosecution, not only for the defense.

Given Solzhenitsyn’s views on the restrictions on Jews discussed in Chapter 5, his quoting Jewish sources describing the old regime is presumably meant to suggest Jewish hypersensitivity and over-dramatization of their plight under the Czar; for example, a Jewish commentator:  “Like hard labor camp prisoners on their way to camp, all Jews were chained together as despised aliens…. The drops of blood of our fathers and mothers, the drops of blood of our sisters and brothers fell on our souls, there igniting the inextinguishable revolutionary fire.”

The revolution did indeed improve life for the Jews. But “as for the rest of the country, falling, with all its peoples, into an abyss — that was the unpredictable way of the history.”

Solzhenitsyn notes that the American Jewish financier Jacob Schiff had long had a prominent role in opposition to the Russian government.

[After the February Revolution, Schiff wrote,] “I was always the enemy of Russian absolutism, which mercilessly persecuted my co-religionists. Now let me congratulate … the Russian people for this great act which they committed so perfectly.” Schiff was quick to provide credit and financing for the new Russian government. “Later in emigration, the exiled Russian right-wing press published investigative reports attempting to show that Schiff actively financed the Revolution itself. Perhaps Schiff shared the short-sighted Western hope that the liberal revolution in Russia would strengthen Russia in the war. Still, the known and public acts of Schiff, who had always been hostile to the Russian absolutism, had even more effect than any possible secret assistance to such a revolution.”

The role of Schiff in financing the revolution is acknowledged by mainstream historians:

In fact, American Jewish capitalists like Jacob Schiff did finance Russian radical movements directed at overthrowing the Czar and may well have had considerable impact (Goldstein 1990, 26–27; Szajkowski 1967). The leaders of Western Jewish communities were highly committed to the overthrow of the czar. For example, in 1907 Lucien Wolf wrote to Louis Marshall of the AJCommittee that “the only thing to be done on the whole Russo-Jewish question is to carry on persistent and implacable war against the Russian Government” (in Szajowski 1967, 8). “Western Jewish leaders actively participated in general actions in favor of the liberal and revolutionary movements in Russia both during the revolution and after its downfall” (Szajkowski 1967, 9). (Separation and Its Discontents, Ch. 2, p. 37.)

Although traditional Jews reacted with caution to the revolution, the secular Jews who created the dynamic energy of the Jewish community were “eager to build ‘the happy new world.’” Jews quickly achieved important offices in the new regime. Nevertheless, Solzhenitsyn blames the Russians themselves for what happened:

No, the February Revolution was not something the Jews did to the Russians, but rather it was done by the Russians themselves, which I believe I amply demonstrated in The Red Wheel. We committed this downfall ourselves:  our anointed Tsar, the court circles, the hapless high-ranking generals, obtuse administrators, and their enemies — the elite intelligentsia, the Octobrist Party, the Zemstvo, the Kadets, the Revolutionary Democrats, socialists and revolutionaries, and along with them, a bandit element of army reservists, distressingly confined to the Petersburg’s barracks. And this is precisely why we perished. True, there were already many Jews among the intelligentsia by that time, yet that is not basis enough to call it a Jewish revolution.

Solzhenitsyn sees the February Revolution as a Russian ethnic revolution, but one that in the long run most benefited the Jews, whereas the Russians “got nothing but harm and destruction.”  With the revolution, the Jewish community had attained everything it wanted, so that “the October Revolution was altogether unnecessary for them, except for a small slice of young cutthroat Jews who, with their Russian internationalist brothers, accumulated an explosive charge of hate for the Russian governing class and burst forth to ‘deepen’ the Revolution.” Solzhenitsyn acknowledges that in his earlier work he had exaggerated the role of the Russians and minimized the Jewish role—not wanting the Russians to deceive themselves on what happened by blaming others. He makes the important point that “the ideology [of the February Revolution] was permeated and dominated by intransigent hostility to the historical Russian state.” Such an ideology did not characterize “ordinary Russians” but it did characterize Jews and the Russian intelligentsia. The character of the revolution was therefore determined not by popular attitudes but by the attitudes of an intellectual elite and by ethnic outsiders—the forerunner of the hostile elite that came to power with the Bolsheviks.

[adrotate group=”1″]

Solzhenitsyn places particular importance on the ethnic composition of theExecutive Committee of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies — a powerful committee that became an important focus of power outside the Kerensky government. “It was precisely this Executive Committee, and not the judiciary, not the timber industrialists, not the bankers, which fast-tracked the country to her doom.”  Not counting soldiers placed on the committee to give it a Russian face, of the 30 people “who actually wielded power, more than half were Jewish socialists. There were also Russians, Caucasians, Latvians and Poles. Less than a quarter were Russians.”

Solzhenitsyn claims to resist the temptation “to look for a guilty party” in this, but the implication is clear: Russia had fallen into the hands of foreigners. Worse, they were foreigners with a grudge against the entire fabric of traditional Russian society — holding views quite at odds with the vast majority of Russians. The grudge was not only against the government of Czar, but against all social strata and all manifestations of traditional Russian culture.

In any crime, there is a perpetrator and a victim. One can always blame the victim for not resisting sufficiently, for not understanding the gravity of the situation, or for having illusions about the consequences of the crime. But clearly, the moral onus is on the perpetrator—the individual or groups that commit the crime. Solzhenitsyn is being very clear where the onus of guilt for the direction of the February Revolution lies, especially given his views that the restrictions on Jews were nowhere near as oppressive or unreasonable as claimed by Jewish activists. Thus there was no legitimate motive to rebuild all of the thousand-year Russian life “from the roots.” Given the totality of Solzhenitsyn’s view, the blame lies with the Jews and other foreigners who together made up the great majority of the most revolutionary elements that propelled the country into the abyss.

One can certainly blame the Russians for losing this battle, as Solzhenitsyn hints. But in the end, what mattered is that losing the battle unleashed a torrent of murderous hostility not only against the previous elites but against millions of ordinary Russians.

It is a lesson that Whites throughout the West would do well to ponder. Alliances among non-White ethnic groups, led by Jews as an element of the elite, are already a reality of politics of America, centered around the Democratic Party; similar phenomena exist in other Western countries. As was the case in the February Revolution, the motive for multiculturalism is fear and loathing of the traditional peoples and cultures of the West. Although a sudden anti-White revolution on the model of the February Revolution is unlikely in the near term, the long term trends are clear. The ultimate folly for any ethnic group is to give up political power.

Kevin MacDonald is editor of The Occidental Observer and a professor of psychology at California State University–Long Beach. Email him.

The American Legal System is a Fraud

/24 Comments/in , , /by

The governing philosophies that rule the legal system are: (a) “legal realism” by which is meant that the judge decides whom he wants to prevail (or who “should” prevail as the legal theorists would claim, not wanting to let the cat out of the bag that the judge is not a philosopher king and is likely to rule for his former law partner or for the utility companies); and (b) “critical legal studies” which is an basically a Marxist theory that mirrors “legal realism” but is even nastier because the criteria by which the judge is supposed to decide who should prevail is based on which litigant belongs to the “victim class” and which one belongs to the “oppressor class.”

These two philosophies work very well upon a foundation of the “common law system” which we in Anglo-Saxon countries “enjoy” as opposed to the code system most European countries use.

When I was in law school, the professors would tout the benefits of the common law system especially its “flexibility.”

What has happened is that on most issues there are contradictory so-called “precedents” from which the judge can choose much like an artist chooses which color to use from his palette.

I followed the cases of several White dissidents who were prosecuted in trumped up claims that they incited someone else to commit a crime.  (The SPLC’s Morris Dees specializes in such cases and such claims.)

Some decades ago a White businessman won a lawsuit against the NAACP arising out of a boycott of White-owned stores in a small town in Mississippi.  The local Blacks had ignored the NAACP’s calls for the boycott.  Enraged by the failure of the brothers and sisters to obey instructions, the NAACP sent the brother of Medger Evans to speak in the local Black churches.

In his sermons Evans warned the local Blacks that the NAACP was going to be taking down the names of Blacks who shopped with White merchants and that they were “going to break your necks.”

Sure enough the houses of Blacks who didn’t obey were burned down.

This was the case of Claiburn Hardware vs. NAACP.

The U.S. Supreme Court indignantly overturned the judgment against the NAACP and said that the 1st Amendment protected such speech.  In order for speech to constitute an incitement and to give rise to liability the speech had to be a direct and immediate incitement.

This “precedent” has been cited by attorneys defending White activists over and over again.  Never has any Judge cited it or relied on it.  Instead, the Judges have chosen other precedents and have allowed Dees to get judgments against White activists whose statements really did not threaten any violence at all.  Dees and his witnesses were allowed to deconstruct the text of the statements and to explain to the jury that when a White racist tells an audience “we are non-violent” and things like this, that such statements are “code” for “go out and commit crimes.”

The fact that not one court has ever cited Claiborne Hardware vs. NAACP in cases brought against White activists even if only to distinguish it shows just how fixed the system is.

The icing on the cake is a little known “rule of court” in the federal courts which allows the Judges to make a ruling and include in the ruling a holding that the decision will not be precedent on any other case and to order that the decision never be published!

This was done in the Georgia case of Carver vs. State so the federal courts could uphold a kangaroo court conviction of a Klansman in which — among numerous other outrages in the conduct of the trial — the trial judge denied the defendant the right to subpoena evidence in violation of Mapp vs. Ohio and the Fourth Amendment.

Almost no lay Americans are aware of this unspeakable star chamber rule and the vast majority of lawyers don’t know about it either.

There was a proposal a few years ago to change this rule and the federal judges vehemently opposed taking their “discretion” away from them.

The American justice system is held in awe by its victims who haven’t got a clue about how it works.  Its filth and corruption are made all the worse by its hypocrisy.

Obviously, there are many judges who are fine men and women and do follow the law.

But they are very much in the minority.

As Montesquieu said there is no crueler tyranny than one in which the forms of the law and justice are maintained without the reality.

Thorborne Richardson is an attorney.

Christopher Donovan on Melvyn Weiss: Being Jewish Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry

/14 Comments/in , /by

Jews amass great fortunes by unethical means, can depend on a network of high-powered figures to defend them, and continue their shamelessness even after having been convicted of a crime.  Released from prison, they sit around their Florida homes with deep tans and gold jewelry and want to wax serious about Israelis and Palestinians with a friendly reporter from the Jewish press.

Valid pattern revealed by sustained analysis, or a nasty stereotype?

Before answering, read through this recent story from The Jewish Week about Melvyn Weiss, the class-action fraudster.

The article is almost too juicy to quote any one part — read the whole thing, as Instapundit says.  Weiss comes off like a cartoon caricature of the oleaginous Jew:  vain, self-centered, ethnocentric, excuse-making, ruthlessly unethical, lauded by the Anti-Defamation League — and through it all, completely unapologetic.  His Holocaust legal efforts are a nice comedic touch.  His own prosecution is simply a sign of how the “government is taking our rights away,” though it’s easy to imagine Weiss taking the precise opposite stand on the Justice Department’s Nazi-hunting efforts, hate crimes, or sending federal troops to force school integration.

Should Whites adopt the same aggressive and shameless approach?  Could they, even if they wanted to?

Christopher Donovan: "We Pay $4,000 a Month to Live Here"

/44 Comments/in /by
I lived in New York City for seven years.  It was quite a time:  I grinded through the hellfires of law school, watched as Plane No. 2 hit the World Trade Center, and came to racial and ethnic consciousness.
 
I do not miss living there.  It had its excitement, its restaurants and museums, its bright lights and maximum adventure.  But ultimately, it was not a place to call home.  I could have been hit and killed by a bus and it would not have been even a brief item in the newspaper.
 
As an “undifferentiated White”, or white man without clear Irish, Italian or other ethnic source, I certainly did not have an ethnic family to embrace.  I paid a handsome sum for rent for the privilege of living in an atmosphere of vague to explicit racial hatred toward straight White non-Jews with traditional yearnings.
 
I was never comfortable with the juxtaposition of extreme wealth and extreme poverty.  As a practical matter, if civil unrest got out of hand, New York’s wealthy would be sitting ducks for armies of poor Blacks and Hispanics:  unarmed, exposed, forced to use the same streets if not the same elevators.  Everyone’s on the same power and support grids.  How long could one survive in the Trump Tower with complete anarchy down below?  You didn’t have to go farther than an outer borough — even Staten Island — or above 125th Street — to feel unsafe as a white person.  And that was with Rudy Giuliani as mayor. 
 
In midtown and downtown, smartly-dressed White (and Jewish) law firm partners making seven figures would glide along fine carpeted hallways high above the honking, yelling and grit down below, munching on $15 sandwiches and $4 coffees while small-time drug deals unfolded below.  Tom Wolfe‘s written about this somewhere — was it Bonfire of the Vanities?  The whole affair just seem unnatural, untenable, unhealthy.
 
A recent story gives a clue. Residents of this buidling downtown pay $4,000 a month in rent — only to have drug-related execution-style killings right inside the building.  That’s your reward for billing 2200 hundred hours a year?  By what standard is that a good life?  By what standard is that a good society?
 
This differential is too much to sustain, which is why the middle class is leaving.
 
Some statistics show that the steady half-century of white flight from New York has slowed, and their numbers have even gone up slightly.
 
I don’t know what to make of that — the beginnings of a White ghetto in Manhattan?  If there’s a racially conscious White ingathering in Manhattan, by all means, join it if you will.
 
But I doubt it.  My advice to young Whites wrapping up their big city adventure is to aim for White community and the acquisition of real property where it will be safe in the event of meltdown.

Valiant Swede: Some Good and Bad News from Sweden.

/29 Comments/in , /by

Editor’s note: I noticed that in the comments section of a previous blog there was another very nice comment on the election and the general state of things in Sweden. I have been unable to contact the author, but I am sure he won’t mind if give it a bit more exposure by posting a slightly edited version here.

Valiant Swede: It is not logical to open the door for millions of young Muslim men. Still this is going in all European countries, partly because of Jewish lobbying. The result has been that Jews cannot walk around with religious symbols, in cities like Malmo. In northern Europe Jewish religious clothing was extremely uncommon to see on the streets 30 years ago, but it is even rarer today. The Swedish Jewish community is not blaming ethnic Swedes for this persecution; they blame Muslim youth and partly the left wing communist establishment. In interesting thing is that parts of the media and politicians care less and less for Jewish sensitivities. On the other hand, they do care for the Muslim population, which is growing rapidly. The Social Democratic party did not travel to industrial cities and meet the workers. They traveled to immigrant ghettos, mostly Muslim.

Little more than a week ago, the paleo-conservative and cultural nationalist party “Sweden Democrats” (SD), was elected to parliament. Their main goal is to assimilate all immigrants and reduce immigration by 90 percent. Here in Sweden you are called a “Nazi” if you open your mouth and talk positively of assimilating immigrants. Our elite says that Swedish society must adapt to the immigrant culture and let it flourish alongside our own. But parts of the elite claim that Swedish culture does not exist, rather the Swedish culture is the sum of all the immigrant cultures. Swedish culture is just a social construction …. But on the other hand the same people claim that Kurdish, Islamic and African cultures exist and have distinctive characters.

Today, our elite are the most extreme in Europe when it comes to multiculturalism and mass immigration. All the media (even the state owned) are openly saying that they have a plan to stop the Sweden Democrats from further success. Sweden Democrats got 5.7 percent of the votes and are now a larger party then the Christian Democrats and the party of the left (Socialists). What is more important is that the success of the SD makes is impossible for the center-liberal alliance to rule the country without support from the Green Party (multiculturalists, hippie-liberals and radical Muslims). On other hand, the green-red Alliance (Green Party, Social Democrats and the Left Party) cannot rule the country either without support from Sweden Democrats, and the Center party and the People Party refuse to leave the center-Liberal Alliance. (Which is just called “The Alliance”?)

The election statistics show that if everything continues in the same path next election, the Christian Democrats and Center-Party would get less than four percent and be forced out from the parliament. This would mean that the conservative-liberal Moderate Party would be forced to work together with the Sweden Democrats, or they must give their hand to the Social Democrats and end 100 years of antagonism.

Yesterday, I heard the Sweden Democrats on the state-owned radio. The Sweden Democrat Member of Parliament and spokesman for “Cultural issues” really kicked some liberal butt. His debate partner, the general director for a Swedish-cultural heritage foundation, was in the end saved by the bell when the program ended.

This guy is the head of the largest Swedish cultural preserveation society, and yet he rejected money from the Sweden Democrats, calling them “Nazis” and claiming that Swedish culture does not exist — rather it is the sum of all immigrant cultures. When he was asked by the a Swedish Democrat MP if Kurdish culture exists and if it would be racist for them to preserve it, the General Director could not answer; instead he begun to shout and call this MP a Nazi pig. As always the journalist who moderated the session took the position of the general director.

This is pretty much how the elite debate with the Swedish Democrats. In every debate they take part in, the Sweden Democrats win. Even my very liberal-hippie friends agree with me that the mainstream politicians, journalists, academics and NGO-general directors lose all debates with the Swedish Democrats. Some of them try to say “Oh, how can you say that illegal aliens (who are called “paperless” by the elite) should not be eligible for free education and medical aid.” For most people, they would back down because they do not want to be called “heartless.” But the Sweden Democrats never do this; they never back down. They just smack down all arguments based on “stigmatization,” and they do it well — very well!

The Scandinavian countries (Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland) now all have culturally conservative and nationalist parties in their parliaments. In Denmark the Danish People Party is cooperating with the government and immigration is dropping every year. In Denmark, half of the government with the support of the  Danish Peoples Party, are now talking about abolishing all “hate-speech laws.” A couple of weeks ago, they began to discuss how they can stop all immigration from the Third World. This discussion is actually taking place in the media, and it’s a seriously open debate.

In Norway, the paleo-libertarian Progress Party is the second largest party in parliament and they are now moving to reduce immigration from the Third World. The debate in Norway is much more open and now they discuss even “Race and IQ” in the open. This discussion follows the release of statistics showing that 100 percent of all gang-rapes in Oslo were committed by Muslims and other Third World immigrants.

In Finland, where just 3 percent of the population consists of immigrants, five members of the True Finns were  elected to Parliament in 2007, and politicians of all parties are partly in support of reducing immigration.

Of all European countries Sweden is the worst off, because here the elite is very aggressive and they do not back down, even if they lose votes, power and funding. This is why I think the Swedish Democrats will have 10 percent by the next election in 2014 and 20 percent by the election 2018. Sadly the clock is ticking very fast here.

Our political elite has opened the door for more then 100 000 immigrants per year (mostly from the Third World), and we only have a population of 9 million. Today, 20 percent of the population is immigrants or children of immigrants. Those children of immigrants are now having children, so we have a third generation of immigrants. They have many, many children. There is some natural assimilation among Christian and east-Asian immigrants. But in general, all kinds of “mixed-marriage” are unusual here.

This is partly because immigration is not dispersed over the entire country. It affects the largest cities, Stockholm, Malmo, Gothenburg and Uppsala, and most of our Third World immigrants live in ghetto-suburbs. They are not ghettos in the sense that they look like ghettos, rather the opposite. The state put in billions of kronor to build nice schools, soccer fields, libraries, swimming halls — the good life.

My parents live in an upper-middle-class area 10 km from one of those immigrant ghettos. Children there have nothing like the facilities that you find in the immigrant ghettos. But people here do buy alarms, have double locks, put up gates and surveillance cameras, and they have now a security company that protects their community. This is true in the four largest cities in Sweden. The middle class and young families—those who cannot pay almost one million dollars for a house—move an hour or two outside the cities. In Stockholm they move to the archipelagoes and buy old cabins that they make into a permanent home. This is the only way to escape the cities that now consist of Islands of “the Rich” and Islands of the “poor.”

This social democratic vision is long gone. People vote for more classical liberal policies because they refuse to pay for more social welfare and state-funded genital mutilations for Muslims and Black Africans. White people here keep to their own. The old European immigrants from Italy, Greece, Eastern Block and Spain also see our nation collapsing because of this growing Black-Muslim-Arab population. They (the European immigrants) are now joining the ranks of the Sweden Democrats.

Swedish society is breaking in the middle. The elite celebrated last week with a 4000-person demonstration against “racism,” mostly joined by radical Muslims, Third World immigrants and socialists after the election was over. The demonstration was partly funded by the largest newspapers.

Moving Video: "I am an Englishman"

/88 Comments/in /by

Kevin MacDonald: There are a lot of good videos coming out. Just lately someone sent me a https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJQMz-fZzC0 (now blocked on copyrighted content grounds) video with clips from Enoch Powell and one on how Muslims are taking over the streets of Paris with tacit collusion of the French government. (Relatedly, the LATimes has an op-ed on the looming threat that Muslims pose to free speech in America.)

But the video that really got to me was a dramatic video (has been removed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9_ZWzC9N98&feature=youtu.be) titled “I am an Englishman.”

This is the statement of an English patriot who is angry that the England he loves is being taken away from him–“we who have inhabited this island fortress for an unbroken thousand years.” He asks the question about the immigrants put by his patron, Enoch Powell: “What can they know of England?” A good question given that immigrants, most notably Muslim immigrants, are bent on retaining their own culture and view traditional English culture with scorn.

If this does not move you, you are incapable of being moved. And of course the same points may be made about all Western countries, including the US.

This is the kind of media that strikes a chord with everyone. If the mainstream media broadcast this sort of thing widely and sympathetically, it would ignite a revolution.