Goodbye, America! (Part 1)

/6 Comments/in /by

Kevin MacDonald’s review of Wilhelm Marr’s pamphlet, Der Sieg des Judenthums über das Germanenthum, 1879, (“The Victory of Judaism over Germanism”), is a fascinating compendium of pessimistic quotations in which German political pundit Marr concludes gloomily that there was no hope left for Germany. It was finished — yes, as early as the 1870s. The Jews, he lamented, were simply too formidable a foe. Marr’s pamphlet ends with these chilling words:

Let us accept the inescapable, since we cannot change it. Its name is: FINIS GERMANIAE — the end of Germany!

I confess I had no idea the outlook was so bleak in Germany as early as 1879. (Marr’s pamphlet has recently been translated into English and is now available in pdf format).  I had been under the false impression that the notion of Jewish domination came much later — after the publication of the Protocols (1903) and the Russian Revolution (1917).

We have seen it all happen though. Germany was brought to its knees, exactly as Marr predicted. Its cadaver now lies rotting.

Exactly a year ago, the state of Israel demanded from Germany a further 1 billion Euros ($1.4 billion) in Holocaust reparations for its endlessly traumatized Jewish survivors. Sixty-five years after World War II, the grim extortion racket continues unabated.

The subject that interests me — and which should be of vital importance to Americans undergoing an almost identical trauma at the hands of organized Jewry today — is the question: to what extent was Germany in the days before Hitler’s rise to power a dress rehearsal for what we are witnessing in America right now? What are the parallels?  Is it time to write America’s obituary?

Is it time to say, FINIS AMERICAE — the end of America?

Here is a pertinent, relatively modern quotation which will serve as a useful coda to the doomladen citations from Marr. Read it carefully. It will not only hammer home the points made by Marr several decades earlier, it will also provide the reader with a sharp reminder of the parallel situation in which America finds itself today.

With one significant difference: America is in a far worse condition.

Wilhelm Marr (1819–1904) and his controversial pamphlet of 1879, predicting the end of Germany — sixty-six years before Germany’s catastrophic defeat in World War II in 1945.

Historian Sir Arthur Bryant summarizes Jewish power in pre-1933 Germany:

It was the Jews with their international affiliations and their hereditary flair for finance who were best able to seize such opportunities…They did so with such effect that, even in November 1938, after five years of anti-Semitic legislation and persecution, they still owned, according to the Times correspondent in Berlin, something like a third of the real property in the Reich [my emphasis]. Most of it came into their hands during the inflation… But to those who had lost their all, this bewildering transfer seemed a monstrous injustice. After prolonged sufferings they had now been deprived of their last possessions. They saw them pass into the hands of strangers, many of whom had not shared their sacrifices and who cared little or nothing for their national standards and traditions…

The Jews obtained a wonderful ascendancy in politics, business and the learned professions [in spite of constituting] less than one percent of the population [my emphasis]… The banks, including the Reichsbank and the big private banks, were practically controlled by them. So were the publishing trade, the cinema, the theatres and a large part of the press — all the normal means, in fact, by which public opinion in a civilized country is formed… The largest newspaper combine in the country with a daily circulation of four millions was a Jewish monopoly…

Every year it became harder and harder for a gentile to gain or keep a foothold in any privileged occupation [my emphasis]. … At this time it was not the ‘Aryans’ who exercised racial discrimination. It was a discrimination that operated without violence. It was exercised by a minority against a majority. There was no persecution, only elimination. … It was the contrast between the wealth enjoyed — and lavishly displayed — by aliens of cosmopolitan tastes, and the poverty and misery of native Germans, that has made anti-Semitism so dangerous and ugly a force in the new Europe. Beggars on horseback are seldom popular, least of all with those whom they have just thrown out of the saddle. Sir Arthur Bryant, Unfinished Victory (1940) (slightly edited for brevity)

Throughout history, Christianity, and especially the Catholic Church, has been a countervailing force against organized Jewry — against a “stiff-necked” people who, while claiming spotless innocence and invariably framing their detractors as irrational and pathological haters, have nevertheless been expelled from no fewer than 109 locations since the year AD250.

[adrotate group=”1″]

Why has contemporary Christianity failed so abysmally to stand up to the encroachments of organized Jewry and its influence?

This is a question I will attempt to answer now.

The Christian Zionists and organized Jewry: fools conned by knaves

Despite its history as the only Western institution that has been able at times to resist Jewish power, the Catholic Church, of which I am a hopelessly dysfunctional practising member, has proved to be an acute disappointment. It has been thoroughly subverted from within and without. It offers neither guidance nor leadership. So forget the Catholics—a spent force. 

One is also forced to conclude that there is little hope that American Protestants could come to the rescue. Their infatuated legions — particularly the 60 million Christian Zionists who constitute the most influential group among them — are in many ways as rabid as the fanatical Jews who seem to have infected them with their zealotry, egging them on to find solace in eschatological ecstasies and millenarian mumbojumbo.

Life is indeed so empty and sterile for these wretched lumpengoyim that the only thing that excites their sluggish sensitivities is the prospect of Armageddon and the thought of universal and catastrophic death — the quicker the better.

Whipped into a frenzy of religious fervor by the Grahams and the Robertsons, the Falwells and the Hagees, the Lindseys and the La Hayes, these Christian Zionists have become imitation Jews almost indistinguishable from Vladimir Jabotinski and Baruch Goldstein. They believe in a Greater Israel — entailing further conquests of Arab Land — and in the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. They have “adopted” illegal settlements and they directly finance the bulldozing of Palestinian homes, the uprooting of olive trees, and the daily oppression of the rightful owners of the Holy Land. They pray every Sunday in their vast soulless churches for the destruction of Iran. And if push came to shove, they would gladly give their blessings to genocide — and call it “the will of God.”

John Hagee, founder of Christians United for Israel: “Fifty million evangelical Christians unite with five million American Jews, standing together on behalf of Israel….The man or nation that lifts a voice or hand against Israel invites the wrath of God.”

There are now 80,000 fundamentalist pastors and clergy preaching their message of madness to these ill-educated Christian masses — in many ways as gullible and gormless as medieval peasants.  The pernicious views of their “pastors” are disseminated by 1000 local Christian radio stations as well as 100 Christian TV stations. See here.

Consider the unimaginable war crimes committed by the state of Israel just over a year ago in Gaza. The world saw it happen. Judge Goldstone saw it happen. His meticulously documented report makes it abundantly clear that Israel is a criminal nation and that its politicians and generals are steeped in criminality.

Yet here is Grace Halsell: “Every act taken by Israel is orchestrated by God, and should be condoned, supported, and even praised by the rest of us.”

When I first read this, I couldn’t believe my eyes. Was this woman crazy? Where had she been since 1948? Hadn’t she heard of the Goldstone Report? Did she have no inkling of Israeli war crimes: of Deir Yassin (1948), the Lavon affair (1954), the Sabra and Shatila war crimes (1982), Qana (17 villages wiped out 1996), the Jenin massacre (2002), the Lebanon and Egyptian terrorist attacks and the atrocities in Iraq from 1990 to the present time, the horrific Gaza invasion of 2009? Had she never heard of the King David Hotel bombing of the British? Had she never heard of the Hebron Mosque massacre by Baruch Goldstein? Had she never heard of the sneak attack on the USS Liberty? Had she never heard of American state secrets sold to the Soviets and Chinese?  Had she never heard of white phosphorus and cluster bombs and DIME weapons that slice babies’ bodies in half?

I need not have worried.

Halsell, I was relieved to learn, was being ironic. She opposed Zionism as much as I did — as any sane and reasonable person would.

Why Contemporary America is far worse off than pre-National Socialist Germany

I have been accused of needless defeatism by some of my anti-Zionist colleagues. America is far from dead, they assure me. It’s alive and kicking. It’s just a matter of time before good patriotic Americans rise from their slumber, reclaim lost ground, and take back their country.

I wish I could feel as sanguine about America’s prospects as these optimists do.

I should like to convince you that the problems facing Germany were far less formidable than the problems facing any potential American rescuer today.

One of the serious negative factors facing America today — a problem the Germans never had — is the existence of vast numbers of Christian Zionists in their midst.

Germany of course had to cope with organized Jewry, a group working from within to undermine the foundations of German society. But one scourge Germany did not have, and which America has, is this scourge of a non-Jewish enemy within: the 60 million Christian Zionists acting in cahoots with organized Jewry to oppose the interests of their own people.

America’s Christian Zionists, it would seem, are their own worst enemy — blithely planning their own demise without knowing it.

So here is Problem Number One for those of you who dream that America could once again become the self-conscious ethnic possession of people of European ancestry:  What are you going to do with these 60 million White American renegades who have joined forces with the Enemy? Who are as Jewish as Ariel Sharon or Abe Foxman. Who are hand in glove with AIPAC. Who think ADL means ‘Advanced Divine Leadership’.

How are you going to fit these thoroughly Judaized allies of organized Jewry into your White Homeland?

It cannot be done. So you have a big problem.

Israel and its Jewish-American Double Agents

Another big problem America needs to solve that Germany did not have to cope with is the state of Israel and its powerful lobby in America. Germany did not have Israel hanging round its neck like an albatross. The Germans were not induced to fight wars on behalf of a foreign country. They didn’t invade other countries in order to make the world safe for Israel.

“Since September 11, 2001, the Israeli state, Zionists inside the US government, and the entire leadership of the Major American Jewish Organizations, have been entirely devoted to pushing the US into Middle East wars on behalf of Israel.” — James Petras, see here.

“Today the Jews rule this world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them.” — Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia, in a speech to the Tenth Islamic Summit Conference at Putrajaya, Malaysia, October 16, 2003.

Almost 5,000 U.S. military personnel have now been sacrificed for Israel in Iraq. These are the “officially acknowledged” figures. The real figures have been put at between 50,000 and 70,000 and are now probably higher. (See here and here.) The number of seriously injured soldiers are perhaps ten times the number of the dead. Meanwhile, the number of Iraqis slaughtered amount to 1.3 million, with four times as many driven into neighboring countries as homeless refugees. The cost to the American taxpayer is (to date) $980 billion, with a total cost of $3 trillion projected if and when the mindless carnage is ever complete. See here.

I think that even the enemies of Zionism before 1948 failed to appreciate the extent to which organized Jewry would maximize its power once it had acquired its own headquarters and homeland — complete with its own military arsenal and espionage facilities. Archimedes provides a hint in his famous quote on the lever, often loosely translated as: “Give me a place to stand and I will move the world.” The Jews now have “a place to stand” — and they certainly are “moving the world.”

The Germans, in addition, did not have a powerful Jewish Lobby holding the entire German government to ransom. German politicians, unlike American ones, were not on Israel’s payroll via campaign contributions from AIPAC and its fabulously rich Jewish supporters. These political donations or “reward money” are bribes in all but name.

Apart from the carrot, there is of course the stick, wielded to good effect by organized Jewry against all American critics of Israel. “Their willing use of force, money and media slander,” James Petras points out, “intimidates any and all critics, including dissident politicians, media, journalists and professors.”

In pre-WW2 Germany, the Mossad did not exist. No Mossad was around to monitor the Internet activities of German politicians to see what financial or sexual shenanigans they were up to. Today, in America, it is reasonable to assume that there is constant surveillance of American politicians by Mossad — if not by AIPAC, the ADL, and their various affiliates. Indeed, the ADL famously settled a spy case that yielded documents with 10,000 names and 600 organizations thought to be insufficiently slavish toward Israel. Legal filings from the case showed that an ADL agent had a floor plan and a key for the office of Alex Odeh, a murdered Arab American leader.

It follows that the potential for blackmailing American politicians (by Israel’s agents) must today be enormous. Sibel Edmonds asks rhetorically, “Are American politicians being blackmailed? Is grass green?” Her answer:  “Of course the blackmail scenario is possible; in fact, highly possible.”

Seven crucial points need to be hammered home.  They show that America is now in a critical situation from which nothing can save it. Nothing except a military coup or violent revolution.

1. Germany did not have to cope with 60 million Christians Zionists collaborating with the goals of organized Jewry; America does.

2. Germany did not have the state of Israel to finance, nor did it have to fight Israel’s wars; America does.

3. Germany’s population of Jews was relatively small compared to America’s: less than 1% of 80 million (roughly 522,000 Jews in 1933) compared to contemporary America’s 2% + of 309 million (over 6 million Jews).

4. Since Israel had yet to be founded, Germany did not have the problem of dual citizens whose primary allegiance is to a foreign country.

5. Although there were Jewish activist organizations in Weimar Germany, they had not achieved the power and influence of the Jewish ethnic infrastructure in the US. Organizations like AIPAC, the ADL, the SPLC, the American Jewish Committee, and the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations (to name a few) are lavishly funded and influential in all areas of American life, including law enforcement, foreign policy, and all things multicultural.

6. Jews have also erected the Holocaust Industry as a powerful guilt machine for White Americans. Traditional American culture has been substantially replaced by the culture of the Holocaust and various other non-White victimhoods, endlessly played out in the movies, television shows, and in the schools, all the way from kindergarten through the university.

7.  Above all, Germany was never threatened with multiculturalism. Promoting multiculturalism has been the focus not only of various influential Jewish intellectual movements, it has also been the most important goal of the  organized Jewish community, especially since World War II. Multiculturalism is a deadly weapon against Western civilization — a WMD of truly devastating lethality that in the long run will destroy Christianity, traditional moral values, and traditional nationalist cultures in North America, Europe, and Australia. It will also result in the dispossession and disempowerment of the White race.

Conclusion: the situation facing America is a grim one. An epidemic of escalating severity threatens us all. In the course of time, this epidemic of evil is likely to infect Eurasia and spread to other parts of the world.

The future looks unimaginably bleak.

End of Part I. Go to Part II.

Kevin MacDonald: Emerging White Identity

/51 Comments/in , , , /by

Kevin MacDonald: Kalefa Sanneh’s New Yorker review of several books on “Whiteness” (“Beyond the Pale: Is white the new black?”) opens with a quote from an academic labor historian that shows how far we have to go to develop a proud sense of being White and having interests as Whites:

In 1994, the white labor historian David R. Roediger published an incendiary volume, “Towards the Abolition of Whiteness.” Paying special attention to unions and strikes, he traced the unsteady growth of American whiteness, a category that eventually included many previous identities that had once been considered marginal: Irish, Italian, Polish, Jewish. “It is not merely that whiteness is oppressive and false; it is that whiteness is nothing but oppressive and false,” he wrote. “Whiteness describes, from Little Big Horn to Simi Valley, not a culture but precisely the absence of culture. It is the empty and therefore terrifying attempt to build an identity based on what one isn’t and on whom one can hold back.”

That’s the kind of stuff that passes for academic wisdom these days — a combination of biological ignorance combined with self-hating moral outrage against Whites. The fact is that there is an undeniable biological reality to races as descent groups and as a vast storehouse of genetic interests. But that is not the whole story. There is also a strong cultural component: “To a large extent cultural influences result from conflicts of perceived interest and political infighting, and multiculturalists … [and anti-White fanatics like Roedinger] are experts at this game.  Indeed, the #1 way that culture influences our concept of race is the denial by the political left that there is any biological basis for race at all.”

Sanneh’s carries on this tradition that the White race is nothing but a social construction, agreeing that “whiteness was built over centuries on a foundation of deceit and confusion and disguised political imperatives.” Historically, it is doubtless the case that Whites have utilized the concept of Whiteness to their advantage in certain times and places — just as other groups have always done. But the main disguised political imperative in the contemporary world involving race is that the people who insist on the unreality of the White race typically have strong racial and ethnic identities of their own, and they use this ideology to advance their anti-White agenda.

But Sanneh’s view is more subtle. He proposes that this social construction of Whiteness is becoming a reality:

It’s getting easier to imagine an American whiteness that is less exceptional, less dominant, less imperial, and more conspicuous, an ethnicity more like the others. …  The history of human culture is the history of forgeries that become genuine, categories that people make and cannot simply unmake. So we should probably stop thinking of whiteness as an error, and start thinking of it, instead, as a work in progress. Historians have sometimes framed the treacherous history of whiteness as the slow death of an idea. Perhaps it’s time we start viewing it, instead, as the slow birth of a people.

In commenting on Sennah, Pat Buchanan stops short of seeing the emerging White consciousness in racial terms: “The coming conflict is not so much racial as it is cultural, political and tribal.”

But, unlike Sannah, Buchanan correctly sees that the birth of a White tribe will result in conflict. It’s not going to be pretty, especially given the deep historical grudges, economic envy, and desire for social dominance that characterize the emerging non-White minority coalition and apparent in some of the books Sannah reviews. Sanneh’s idea of the emerging White ethnicity as “less exceptional, less dominant, less imperial” implicitly envisions White people happily heading into the political sunset and accepting their lowered status in a utopian world of ethnic and racial harmony. As noted repeatedly on this website, this is wishful thinking with a vengeance. Whenever Whites have ceded power, they have been physically endangered.

But as we head into a new era of difficult times for White people as they are increasingly pushed aside while heading for minority status, we can take solace in Buchanan’s point that “Adversity and abuse increase the awareness of separate identity and accelerate the secession of peoples from each other.” Quite right.

The anger of the Tea Partiers is just the beginning.

Bookmark and Share

Bill Clinton hints at desire to see anti-government speech restricted

/26 Comments/in , , /by

Political elites, especially among the liberals, are beginning to be quite worried about the White rage they see all around them. A good indication of the hysteria is that Joe Klein of TIME wants Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin indicted for inciting sedition, and John Heilemann of New York magazine adds Rush Limbaugh to the list.

Bill Clinton is doing his part. In an interview with CNN pundit and former AIPAC lobbyist Wolf Blitzer, Clinton was not shy about expressing his dislike of the Tea Parties, and he hinted at his desire for tougher speech restrictions. Referring to the Oklahoma City bombing, Blitzer said “the hatred that Timothy McVeigh … had … , there are plenty of people like that right now” — to which Clinton replied “lot’s of them.” Blitzer said that there were many websites advocating “hate” and Clinton replied with silly platitudes about how the Internet can be used to learn how to make a bomb. The former president added that “websites are easily accessible and you can be highly selective and spend all of your time with people that are, you know, kind of out there with you” (emphasis mine).

Clinton noted that the Tea Party debate had to be kept “within the limits that the framers [of the Constitution] intended.” These kinds of mantras are designed to appeal to the attachment of Americans to the Constitution, even though the country has evolved in ways that would have been unthinkable to the framers. Needless to say, Clinton couldn’t care less about the original framers of the Constitution.

He added that “beyond the law there is no freedom, we can’t have violence or the advocacy of violence and we got to be careful when we get close to that, particularly if we’re in positions of influence.” Translation: The nightmare of the current regime is that respected, intelligent, influential people would begin questioning the legitimacy of the government.

Clinton tries to conflate the Tea Party movement with the Oklahoma City bombing:

By and large in the last fifty years, well at least since the early 70s, […] by and large these [problems] have been systematically coming out of the far right. Again I think that all those folks have a place in our political debate, we just have to know where to draw the line, and we have enough threats against the president, enough threats against the Congress that we should be sensitive to it. The 15th anniversary of Oklahoma City, I’m not trying to draw a total parallel, I’m just saying that we should be aware of this.  This is a vast echo chamber this internet, [in which] some are serious, some are delirious, some are connected, some are unhinged.

He then worried about “what certain words might do to people who are less stable.”

Of course, we know full well that politically-motivated violence is overwhelmingly committed by the Left. Exhibit A is the cancellation of the recent American Renaissance conference due to heavy harassment by leftist fanatics, which included death threats and led to cancellations by four different hotels. As Jared Taylor lamented, the story received no coverage from the mainstream American media, and law enforcement yawned. Leftist and minority activists are never prevented from meeting by conservatives.

In another interview with the New York Times, Clinton referred to Rep. Michele Bachmann who called the Obama administration “the gangster government” at a Tea Party rally. He said: “They are not gangsters, they were elected. They are not doing anything they were not elected to do.”

“There can be real consequences when what you say animates people who do things you would never do,” Mr. Clinton said in an interview, saying that Timothy McVeigh, who carried out the Oklahoma City bombing, and those who assisted him, “were profoundly alienated, disconnected people who bought into this militant antigovernment line.”

“Have at it,” he said. “You can attack the politics. Criticize their policies. Don’t demonize them, and don’t say things that will encourage violent opposition.”

Clinton and the rest of the liberal elites who control the media want business as usual:  polite political debate and wait for the next election. But for many of the tea partiers it’s beyond all that. They feel themselves abused and dispossessed. There is a desperation and intensity in the air.

This is an administration that crammed health care down the nation’s throat despite majority opposition. It is now poised to once again flout the majority by making citizens of the millions of non-White illegal immigrants and their relatives. In a situation like this, is it any wonder that people are questioning its legitimacy? Gangsters indeed!

Clinton is carefully and implicitly voicing his support for the banning of certain forms of speech that he sees as threatening the legitimacy of the ruling regime. Of course he feels personally threatened by the recent outbursts of rage coming from a large segment of the population. He knows he has contributed greatly to transforming the country and alienating them. He is a sought-after speaker — paid hundreds of thousands of dollars per speech and drawing thousands who buy their hundred-dollar tickets to see him deliver one platitude after another. The media paints him as a brilliant, warm-hearted guy who was a good and fair president. He obviously has a lot to lose in any movement that strongly criticizes a ruling regime that lavishes money and glory upon him. He is clever in dropping here and there a catch phrase like “you can attack the politics, criticize their policies [but] don’t demonize them, and don’t say things that will encourage violent opposition.”

The reason he carefully weighs his views is that he knows a majority of Americans are still deeply attached to the First Amendment and opposing it too directly and without nuances would be ill-perceived by many. Between the lines, he is advocating eventual hate speech legislation and considerable extension of government powers to muzzle people who challenge them.

William Davis (email him) is a freelance writer.

Bookmark and Share

A Tale of Two Rich Guys, Haim Saban and Charles T. Munger

/36 Comments/in , , , /by

A Sacramento Bee op-ed by Dan Morain points out that the motives for all the money going into a California ballot proposition on redistricting are hidden from the public. The two men couldn’t be more different. Haim Saban, the billionaire media tycoon, wants the politicians to redraw boundaries so that the Congressional seat of Howard Berman, a Jewish politician who is strongly pro-Israel  is protected from the ever expanding Latino population. As Morain notes, Saban’s only motivation in life is to advance the cause of the Jewish state, famously telling the New York Times “I’m a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel.”

It’s interesting that activist Jews are now worried that there will be fewer Jewish politicians with the rise of the same minorities that Jewish activist organizations have been so eager to populate the country with. Organizations like the ADL have expressed concerned that new ethnic blocs will not be appropriately sympathetic to Jewish causes such as Israel. Their solution is not to try to stem the tide of non-White immigration but to make political alliances with the new arrivals and, as indicated by Saban’s actions, skew the political process in a way where Jewish political assets (particularly money) will still be effective.

Charles T. Munger is a completely different story. Munger, a Stanford physicist,  is also very wealthy, his wealth stemming from his father’s partnership with Warren Buffet. Munger wants a citizen’s panel to draw the redistricting lines in the hopes that politics will be less partisan — a position that sounds like high-minded idealism. As a Republican, he may well want more  Republicans, but as Morain notes, he is almost certainly wrong about that. If he really wanted to have more Republicans elected, he should have invested his money in anti-immigration efforts. No matter how California is redistricted, Latinos and other minorities are going to continue to increase in political power while Whites are increasingly dispossessed.

So Munger is tilting at windmills while Saban is helping his people. There is a great deal of wealth controlled by people like Munger, but in general its wasted on things like this. As I noted in an earlier blog:

One of the biggest problems for European-Americans is that wealthy non-Jews seem far more interested in funding the opera or getting their name on a building at the local university than in helping their people. A good example is the Chandler family who formerly owned the L. A. Times. They had no interest in the media, and the company is now controlled by Sam Zell, who is Jewish. The family remains wealthy but in general seems to be involved in finding fun and interesting ways to spend their time (one of them flies around the world to attend the opera; another is into building outsize model trains) rather than influencing the world.

Munger is more politically involved than the Chandlers, but his efforts are absolutely useless in really achieving anything remotely beneficial to Republicans — or, more importantly, White Californians.

Bookmark and Share

Christopher Donovan: Military To Sniff Out 'White Supremacists', Potok Crows

/20 Comments/in , , /by

Christopher Donovan: It’s one thing to realize that universities, the media and the government are largely controlled by those hostile to Whites.  But it’s quite another to realize that even whites’ traditionally core institutions — like the military — have been infiltrated by the same people.  Now comes word that the military is ready to sniff out “white supremacists” — not by tattoo, group affiliation or vocal pronunciations around the barracks, but by nothing more than Internet advocacy.

As the angry comments note, it’s pretty obvious that the military isn’t interested in non-White “supremacist” activity, like the Five Percenters, Black gang members who put up their graffiti in Iraq or Afghanistan, or Islamic radicals who actually do cause big problems within the military.  “Supremacist”, you see, is a nasty-sounding word that only applies to Whites.

(What’s funny to me, as a side note, is how unavoidably “Aryan” the business of being a soldier is to begin with:  young, mostly White men standing ramrod straight, saluting, obeying authority and trained to kill brown people.  Right there, of course, you’ve got a big problem, and if these men weren’t advancing Israel’s cause, they’d be held in far lower esteem by the Jewish power structure — and during the Vietnam war, they were.  You’d think that if there were a clean-cut, hate-filled White man looking to kill non-Whites, the military would be the perfect place for him.  Seems a military made up of wishy-washy liberals wouldn’t be very effective — they’d throw down their weapons and surrender.)

What’s scary about this effort by the military is to read the comment of Mark Potok, the Southern Poverty Law Center’s white-hater in chief, who seems to take credit for the new policy.

He’s quoted:  “The hope is that this clarifies that even advocacy of these kinds of ideas is not consistent with being in the military.”

Wow.  Full-fledged thought control, right in front of us.  Who is this man, who exercises such incredible power — over the entire armed forces, no less?  What, exactly, qualifies him to police the thoughts of White servicemen and women?  He wasn’t elected.  He wasn’t appointed.  He didn’t even enlist.  And yet there he is.

Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist. Email him

Bookmark and Share

Kevin MacDonald: The Violent Anti-White Left Puts On a Show

/26 Comments/in , /by

Kevin MacDonald: You really have to wonder what’s going on when a bunch of White guys from Detroit decide to hold a protest on the lawn of the LA City Hall carrying Nazi banners. The LA Times article mentions  “a bare-chested middle-aged man with Nazi insignias tattooed on his chest and back.” The counter-protesters beat the hell out of him:

Surrounded, the man mockingly bobbed his head to the rhythm of demonstrators chanting “Nazi scum.” About a dozen protesters suddenly began pelting the man with punches and kicks. He fell and was struck on the back with the wooden handle of a protester’s sign, which snapped in two. Police eventually reached the man and pulled him from the melee, as blood poured from the back of his neck.

Another man was rushed by a mob on Spring Street. He was punched in the face and kicked for about 20 seconds before police made it to the scene. After that beating was broken up, the man began running south on Spring Street, only to be chased down by a protester and slugged in the face. He collapsed and his face slammed to the curb as protesters began pummeling him again.

The bloodied man was then escorted away by police. Both victims were treated and released, police said.

His sign, unclear in its intended meaning, read “Christianity=Paganism=Heathen$” with an arrow pointing at a swastika.

The protest was carried out by the  National Socialist Movement, a group that has been credibly said to be controlled by the FBI. (“Prefabricated Fascists: The FBI’s Assembly-Line Provocateurs” by William Norman Grigg). As Grigg notes, “the FBI has no problem staging white supremacist rallies and protest marches that help ‘local’ police departments rack up overtime.” If these guys are FBI agents, I assume they are getting combat pay — addition to travel costs from Detroit. It strikes me as incredible that 50 working class White guys have enough excess money to fly out to LA for the weekend to complain about immigration. But if the FBI  is funding it, it makes a lot of sense and is exactly what the country needs:  At last, a federal  jobs program for working class White males.

Actually, the NSM is “all show, no go” – it’s more of a federally controlled traveling roadshow, sort of a Third Reich tribute band. Its cadres exude all of the raw menace of the hapless Illinois Nazis from The Blues Brothers, and possess all of the street-fighting chops of the bumbling Black Widow biker gang from Clinton Eastwood’s Philo Beddoe films.

The real point is that the anti-White left feels no compunctions about perpetrating violence against such people. (The counter-protesters, who outnumbered the NSM folks by at least 10 to 1,  are described as “a wide assortment of African American, Jewish, Latino, immigrants-rights and anarchist groups.”) Not only were the NSM people beaten up, “dozens of [the counter-protesters]  hurled rocks and glass bottles at the neo-Nazis and their police escorts.” Despite all of this very public violence directed at the NSM, the police arrested no one — further lending credibility that the whole thing was a stage show.

Being anti-White means there are no consequences for your illegal actions — another example of Sam Francis’s concept of anarcho-tyranny. The LAPD spokesman said “”We allowed both sides to exercise their 1st Amendment rights.” Apparently violence perpetrated against people who are at least performing as racially conscious Whites is a free speech right. You can bet that violence directed against non-Whites would lead to long prison sentences.

But this stage show has real world consequences. This type of demonstration is exactly how the media wants to portray opposition to immigration. It will definitely produce big bucks in donations for the $PLC and similar organizations. LA TImes readers (who have been treated to harrowing articles and editorials on the Arizona anti-illegal immigration law every day since it passed) will be predictably outraged. And it energizes the very large anti-White community of LA in advance of the coming battle on immigration amnesty. Indeed, on May 1 the counter-protesters will have their day: A rally to promote immigration, both legal and especially illegal. You can bet there will be no violent counter-demonstrations.

Presumably, the NSM will take their traveling road show to other cities to inflame public opinion there as well.


Bookmark and Share

Edmund Connelly on Faux Conservatives

/27 Comments/in , /by

Edmund Connelly’s current TOO article explores the topic of faux conservatives. Particularly interesting is Michael Savage’s question “Who assaulted the White race? Who set out to destroy the White people?” This is a huge improvement on other MSM conservatives. I have never heard anything like that from the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, or your average neocon. Even if his analysis of why this happened is puerile (although it does finger some prominent Jewish names in the 1960s counterculture), just having his audience think in those terms is a breakthrough. Listeners inevitably get the message that the White race is under attack and likely to go extinct in the foreseeable future. He inserts a gloomy report on White birthrates in Europe that concludes that it would take decades for Whites to get back on track demographically.

Certainly White listeners are going to feel threatened and under attack — quite a different message from the harmonious future envisioned by the current media and intellectual elites and on the verge of being enforced by the impending multicultural police state. It necessarily implies that  White people identify as White and start looking for ways to reverse their decline — the nightmare of the current regime. And it doesn’t take much imagination to plug into a really powerful analysis of what went wrong in the 1960s and how the events of that decade continue to reverberate in our culture.

The other thing that struck me is the complex character of Andrew Breitbart, whose picture lounging in a bathtub graces the TOO front page. One can only imagine the mixed messages he must have had growing up as an ethnically Irish boy being raised with his Hispanic sister by a Jewish man and his formerly Protestant wife. Then he goes to Tulane for college — a bastion of White southern culture. The $64 question is, what did Breitbart mean when he said, “You’ve gone to Hebrew school, you’ve gone to Auschwitz, you go, Never again, Never again. Then you go to Tulane and you go, Maybe never again”? Suggestions appreciated.

Bookmark and Share