Traditionalists of all countries, unite!

/20 Comments/in /by

Dugin is absolutely right. This is why so many on the dissident right support Russia in the current war:

Of course, each civilisation has its own traditional values. But today, all of them are under attack from one aggressive, intolerant, deceitful, and perverse civilisation, which wages a ruthless war against any tradition — against tradition as such. In such a situation, Putin’s Russia can openly declare itself the bearer of the opposite mission — to become the defender of tradition and normality, continuity and identity. …

We should not be shy, ashamed, or conceal this. The more confidently we embark on this path, the faster and more reliably our influence in the world will grow. Having chosen an orientation towards multipolarity, we must be consistent in this.

Traditionalists of all countries, unite!

by Alexander Dugin

Alexander Dugin asserts that President Putin’s inauguration marks a new stage, emphasising traditional values and multipolarity while rallying allies like China and India against Western hegemony.

The inauguration of President Putin marks a new stage in Russia’s history. Some lines from previous periods will surely continue. Some will reach a critical threshold. Some will be curtailed. But something new must also emerge.

I would like to draw attention to the ideological aspect, which could become a fundamental vector for Russia’s further development in the international context.

In our fierce confrontation with the West, teetering on the brink of nuclear conflict and a third world war, the problem of values is becoming increasingly apparent. The war in Ukraine is not merely a conflict of states with their quite rational national interests but a clash of civilisations, with all of them fiercely defending their value systems.

Today, it is already clear that Russia has decisively committed to defending traditional values and sees them as integral to the fundamental processes of strengthening its civilisational identity and geopolitical sovereignty. This is not just about the various interests of individual subjects within the same — Western — civilisation, as the escalating conflict between Russia and the collective West could have been interpreted until recently. It is now obvious that two value systems are clashing.

The modern collective West staunchly defends:

  • Absolute individualism;
  • LGBT and gender politics;
  • Cosmopolitanism;
  • Cancel culture;
  • Posthumanism;
  • Unrestricted migration;
  • Destruction of all forms of identity;
  • Critical race theory (according to which previously oppressed peoples have every right to oppress their former oppressors in turn);
  • Relativist and nihilistic postmodern philosophy.

The West ruthlessly censors its own history, bans books and artworks, and the US Congress is preparing to remove entire passages from the Holy Scriptures, allegedly offensive to certain groups of people based on ethnicity and religion. Moreover, the development of digital technologies and neural networks has raised the issue of transferring global governance from humanity to artificial intelligence — and several Western authors already hail this as an incredible success and the long-awaited arrival of the singularity.

In contrast to all this, Putin’s Russia offers an entirely different set of values, many of which are legally enshrined in Decree No. 809 of 9 November 2022. Russia firmly defends:

  • Collective identity against individualism;
  • Patriotism against cosmopolitanism;
  • Healthy family against the legalisation of perversions;
  • Religion against nihilism, materialism, and relativism;
  • Humanity against posthumanist experiments;
  • Organic identity against its dilution;
  • Historical truth against cancel culture.

There are two opposing orientations, moreover — two antagonistic ideologies and worldviews. Russia chooses tradition — the West, on the contrary, everything non-traditional and even anti-traditional.

This makes the conflict in Ukraine, where these two civilisations have clashed in a fierce decisive battle, much more than an ordinary conflict of interests. There is indeed a conflict of interests, but it is not the main point. The main point is that two models of humanity’s further development have entered into confrontation — the liberal, globalist, anti-traditional path of the modern West or the alternative, multipolar, polycentric path preserving tradition and traditional values, for which Russia is fighting.

It is time to note that a multipolar world, to which Russia declared its loyalty during the previous stage of Putin’s rule, only makes sense if we recognise each pole. Each civilisation (as represented in BRICS today) has the right to its identity, its tradition, and its value system. Multipolarity becomes meaningful and justified if we proceed from the plurality of existing cultures and recognise their right to preserve their identities and develop based on internal principles. This means that the poles of the multipolar world, unlike the globalist unipolar model, where Western values dominate as universal by default, follow Russia’s path to some extent but utilising their own — each of them different — traditional values.

We see this clearly in modern China. Not only does it reject globalism, liberalism, and global capitalism as dogma, retaining many features of the socialist system, but it increasingly turns to the eternal values of Chinese culture, reviving the political and social ethics of Confucius, which have inspired and organised society for thousands of years. It is no coincidence that one of the leading theories of international relations in modern China is the ancient idea of Tianxia, where China is thought of as the centre of the world system, with all other nations surrounding the Middle Kingdom on the periphery. China is its own absolute centre, open to the world, but strictly guarding its sovereignty, uniqueness, and originality.

Modern India (Bharat) is moving in the same direction, especially under Narendra Modi’s rule. Again, here the deep identity, Hindutva, dominates, reviving the foundations of the ancient Vedic culture, religion, philosophy, and social structure.

The Islamic world even more categorically rejects the value system of the collective West, which is in no way compatible with Islamic laws, rules, and regulations. In this case, the emphasis is on tradition.

African nations are also moving in this direction, entering a new round of decolonisation — this time of consciousness, culture, and mindset. More and more African thinkers, politicians, and public figures are turning to the origins of their indigenous cultures.

Latin America, too, is gradually discovering these new horizons of traditionalism, religion, and cultural roots, increasingly coming into direct conflict with US and collective Western policies. The peculiarity of Latin America is that the anti-colonial struggle was long carried out mainly under leftist slogans. The situation is now changing: the left is discovering the traditional and conservative roots of their struggle (for example, in liberation theology, where the Catholic factor dominates), and the conservative anti-colonial front is growing (for example, the theology of the people).

But so far, none of the civilisations oriented towards multipolarity and preferring tradition has entered into direct armed conflict with the West, except for Russia. Many are hesitating, waiting for the outcome of this dramatic confrontation. Although most of humanity potentially rejects the hegemony of the West and its value systems, no one besides us is ready to enter into direct confrontation with it yet.

This gives Russia a unique opportunity to lead the global conservative turn. The time has come to openly declare that Russia is fighting against Western civilisation’s claim to the universality of its values and stands entirely and wholly for tradition, both its own (Russian and Orthodox) and all others. For they too face inevitable destruction if globalism triumphs and Western hegemony persists.

All civilisations of the world are conservative; this constitutes their identity. And they are becoming increasingly aware of this. Only the postmodern West has decided to radically break with its classical Christian roots and has begun to build a culture of degeneration, perversion, pathology, and the technical replacement of humans with post-human organisms (from AI to cyborgs, chimaeras, and genetically engineered products). Even within the West, a significant part of society rejects this path and increasingly and vehemently opposes the course of the ruling postmodern liberal elites towards the final abolition of the cultural-historical identity of Western societies themselves.

In Putin’s new presidential term, it would be quite logical to proclaim the protection of tradition — in Russia and worldwide, including the West — as his main ideological mission. Vladimir Putin is already seen by humanity as a great leader playing this role, heroically resisting Western hegemony. Now is the time to declare Russia’s global mission, consisting of protecting civilisations and their traditional values. Enough of playing along with the West and using its strategies, terms, protocols, and criteria. Civilisational sovereignty consists of each nation having the full right to accept and reject any external directives and to develop in its own unique way, regardless of someone else’s dissatisfaction.

Recently, on 7 May, the British newspaper The Mirror declared ten words from President Putin’s inauguration speech a ‘chilling threat to the West’. These words were: ‘The destiny of Russia will be determined by ourselves only.’ Any hint of sovereignty is perceived by the West as a declaration of war. Russia has embraced this and is ready to support all those who will stand as decisively for their sovereignty as it does.

Of course, each civilisation has its own traditional values. But today, all of them are under attack from one aggressive, intolerant, deceitful, and perverse civilisation, which wages a ruthless war against any tradition — against tradition as such. In such a situation, Putin’s Russia can openly declare itself the bearer of the opposite mission — to become the defender of tradition and normality, continuity and identity.

In the 20th century, Russia’s influence in the world was primarily based on the leftist movement. But today, it has gradually faded away — either absorbed by liberalism or exhausted itself (with rare exceptions, often allied with anti-colonial conservative trends). Now it is time to bet on conservatives and supporters of civilisational identities. And so, a new slogan is born: Traditionalists of all countries, unite!

We should not be shy, ashamed, or conceal this. The more confidently we embark on this path, the faster and more reliably our influence in the world will grow. Having chosen an orientation towards multipolarity, we must be consistent in this.

Everyone already considers Putin a key figure in the conservative revival. It is time to proclaim this openly. Criticism from the West is inevitable in any case, but now the decisive factors in relations with it are entirely different. And our allies — actual and potential — will support Russia with new vigour. They will clearly understand our far-reaching goals and objectives. They will trust us and, without any doubt or hesitation, begin to build a fair and balanced world together with us in the interests of greater humanity.

(translated by Constantin von Hoffmeister)

Author’s Commentary on “Destination Unknown: Can You Feel the Resistance?”

/in , /by

“Destination Unknown: Can You Feel the Resistance?” carries both maritime and musical motifs. This short article explains some of the euphemisms, metaphors, symbolism and messaging of the fictional story’s details. While much if it may seem confusing, twisted or odd, that is the author’s intent in stressing the chaotic world we currently live in. Much of our culture today is entirely nonsensical. And so many with a keen eye for reality these days wonder why so few can see what is happening, what is going down (as the ship is similarly going down).

The Vikings dominated the European continent and high seas prior to Christianity taking firm hold of its people’s religious and spiritual direction. “The West” is the larger ship that represents the greater civilization of the European peoples and their colonial nations around the world since the demise of the Vikings, roughly the last thousand years as described by Oswald Spengler’s four seasons—spring, summer, fall and Winter—of our European culture. Perhaps this story will spur the great seafarers (metaphorically) of our time to begin building new ships and boats so as to regain command of our own Destiny as opposed to having our vessels and people commanded by forces hostile to our interests, those of Orange Star and Clown World who are clearly sinking our fleet. In this regard, the West obviously contained many flaws that were consistently exploitable. Hopefully this euphemistic storyline will inspire any future Heroes (Yockey liked this term) to begin engineering our more seaworthy boats and ships that could result in a stronger and more efficient fleet, much like we have seen new materials and technology vastly improve upon today’s transportation vehicles.

Music has been credited to initiating peaceful revolutions in some countries like the Baltics’ resistance against the Soviet Union/communism and advocating for nationalism. Apparently their choirs sang themselves into freedom! Music culture has also been philosophically critiqued, again by Spengler, as a measure of a culture’s season and artful spirit. The different types of music referenced in the author’s story, the musicians themselves, and the lyrics symbolically tell a story on its own. Reading history of the 1930s shows how fearful many Europeans were of the new “Jazz” from America that was penetrating the old continent. So should there be concern for us today on where music is now going and how little control our own musical talent has in steering it? The music motif, after the reader listens to the samples linked in the storyline, also expresses a critique on the modern technological world, compares it to the serene song at the story’s end, and hopes that the new maritime fleet will include musical composers that will entertain our people with aural sensations akin to the Ride of the Valkyries, or as soothing as Edward Grieg’s Norwegian folk classic, Morning. Can music bring us salvation? Now for some symbolism on the bands and songs:

The band King Crimson of the time frame featured (1982) consisted of Robert Fripp, Bill Bruford, Adrian Belew, and Tony Levin (two Brits and two Americans, with one of the Americans being a highly liked and respected Jewish musician and the non-Jewish American from Kentucky — the South — where the South has always been over-represented in our military: Thank you Southerners!) This band is comprised of immensely talented individuals, but the “progressive rock” (also known as “art rock”) usually only appealed to the fans of esoteric instrumental music. These are the same fans that might appreciate Wagner’s symphonic music today, but are culturally chained to the product of the modern music industry. Just as the fans of King Crimson music are considered to be on the fringes of popular music, it is men like Erik who appreciate historical research and esoteric (or non-mainstream) writings that find themselves on the fringes of society for the educated viewpoints they hold. This doesn’t make them crazy (or lunatics, as the story would later reveal), but places them statistically in the one percent of the far-right bell curve, whether analyzing musical tastes or political opinions.

The allies of the West during WWII mainly consisted of the British and the Americans, with considerable warm-nudging influence by the Jewish community of America (as suggested in a famous 1939 Des Moines speech by Lindbergh, who is mentioned in the story). These three elements are found in the composition of King Crimson. In the story we find a link to a video clip where King Crimson is playing Munich (1982), the city that launched the resistance to Jewish internationalist influence in the West. The first song of this videotaped concert is “Waiting Man,” and two interpretations found on the internet as to its meaning are (1) The song is from the point of view of a person going to a funeral and then coming home. Home is forever changed by the loss, but retains its integrity. What is he waiting for? What we all wait for after losing a loved one; their return. Something irrational and impossible, yet what we wait for all the same as we grieve; OR (2) It seems pretty obvious to what this song’s about. I think it’s about a guy who falls in love with a girl, the girl goes off to a new (possibly better looking, richer, but not nicer) guy, and the waiting man knows that their relationship will end, so he just sits and waits for her to come back to him. Really a deep and touching song. The story’s author leans towards the first interpretation regarding Western Man returning home. But strangely enough, the opening of Waiting Man sounds like drum beats and melodies more attune to an African vibe, symbolizing the musical and even cultural trends of our last seven decades or more in the West. Is he returning to his home in the West from his modern Africanized cultural enrichment? Did King Crimson re-conquer Germany and the West with its Americanized modern music and all it entails?

The second featured song from King Crimson is Elephant Talk, which alphabetically presents the myriad types of talk we receive in our daily lives. While effective communication are important in our lives, we are unnecessarily inundated with “too much talk” (as the song emphasizes), and at this point in our civilization the bicker bicker bicker, the commentary, controversy, criticisms, and double talk are simply unhealthy for us all. Or so this author suggests. We are overwhelmed with it, and King Crimson’s song suggests the absurdity of what we have grown to tolerate! The guitar solos of the band might sound incredible to the one percent of listeners, but to the majority — especially those women who largely look at music for its danceable aspects — the unique electric guitar effects from Adrien Belew represent noise to ears of the masses, noise that might as well be coming from an elephant, and if an elephant were in the room nobody would recognize it today because the masses only absorb what the system emphasizes. And they don’t want you to notice the big elephant, and you are not allowed in polite society to notice or analyze patterns. And patterns are a great part of King Crimson’s songs, especially the tape-looping and complex Frippertronics of guitar player Robert Fripp. The average music listener in the West could never appreciate Fripp’s guitar work, but the protagonist Erik’s mind is wired with more critical and insightful senses, and watching a King Crimson concert from the front row could equal the fascination he might find in discovering the patterns contained in the books of the web page www.Samisdat.in as found linked in the story. Finally regarding King Crimson music, the author finds it extremely technically advanced and modern for its time period of the 1980s, and we are heading towards technical complexities that will inevitably cause us all profound problems, as great as those constructed by Orange Star/Clown World, and maybe together with them, just as King Crimson was probably under the sway of record-company management.

Red Rider’s Lunatic Fringe signals the messaging mastery of the music and entertainment industry, in that Erik never paid much attention to the lyrics of the song, but loved it his entire life for the rock-styled instrumental elements, just as he probably would enjoy King Crimson purely for the instrumental works while caring little at all for the lyrics. Not only does he hear the introductory slide guitar sounds three times, but the wolf-howling is repeated three times for reasons unknown. There is an inner-wolf residing in all of us of the West, but for now Westerners are droning in repetitive manner to the tunes of their media masters, socially engineered by Orange Star and media controlled by Clown World. Even Erik, with his razor-sharp mind and experience, falls prey to the collective drum beat found in the song.

Lunatic Fringe was written as political commentary (and the word “commentary” being found in the song “Elephant Talk”) that chooses a side that most likely supports those who are destroying the lives of university anti-genocide protestors these days (in 2024), because Orange Star can do no wrong and America is the land of the free. The 2021 interview of the songwriter linked in the article clearly indicates his influences, those being his readings of a Swedish historian, and a particular girlfriend. The author of the story ponders if the songwriter might have had different feelings if he knew of another Swede, Count Folke Bernadotte and the terrorists that assassinated him during his negotiating efforts for Middle East peace after having saved thousands of prisoners from WWII prisoner camps? Did the songwriter’s girlfriend even know about the Count —  few Americans or Canadians ever heard of him because our history is consolidated into a neat little package of approved content suitable for a sixth grader.

Lunatic Fringe is a song that incites hatred against the well-learned, history-revisionists or history aficionados, and hatred for the reader with the critical eye and mind that can score a perfect 1600 on an SAT like Ron Unz did as a high school junior. The lyrics are intended to instill fear in anyone considering to think outside the Orange Star/Clown World box, because they’re on to them now and “can hear you coming.” The lyrics “this is open season, but you won’t get too far” seem to at least tacitly condone the vigilante violence and terrorism so prevalent with the anarchists of today and witnessed a few years ago across our nation. While the songwriter uses the phrase “your final solution” as an obvious reference to WWII villainy understood by all the masses in their Western imperial education, the author of the story suggests that if left unchecked, the final genocide will be of the masses in the West themselves, and what we really need is a “final resistance” (or “waking up”) as a defensive and peaceful measure to this slow-going and insidious attack (as many these days compare to boiling frogs very slowly in a pot).

The name of the lifeboat, “The Savior,” and its listing to the left while it is sinking is an overt reference to how Christianity has morphed sharply in favor of leftist politics, while the right-wing flavor of evangelical Christians favors an end-times eschatological narrative to bring back their savior once and for all. Both of these religious paths are, in the author’s view, detrimental to nationalism and the future of “The West,” and probably are contributing to its sinking. But if it all needs to sink in order to start fresh, that nightmare is becoming more plausible for each new generation.

The passengers on the lifeboat are all like NPCs — non-player characters (such as in a video game) — of the famous internet meme and image included with the story, in that it is tremendously difficult to express views outside what is approved by Orange Star and propagandized by Clown World. To do so would incur ostracism or worse, and maybe even hostility from loved ones who find the repetitive pattern recognitions as representing a rather pessimistic attitude towards the comfortable lives we live today (compared to that of our past). And honestly, most people invest too much of their time working to- make-ends-meet to begin a truth-seeking journey that exposes uncomfortable facts. The sum total of our masses reflects the repetitive picture of the NPCs, since the depths of critical investigation fall statistically to the one percenters of society with exceptionally critical and curious minds.

Erik’s noticing the same behavior in the other lifeboats is comparable to the decline of all Western nations simultaneously while “The West,” the ship representing the greater civilization of European ancestry, is almost sunk as a larger collective. The passengers having their backs to “The West” foreshadows the paragraph that exposes the true attack on America’s Navy ship USS Liberty in 1967, where even lifeboats were strafed by Israeli fighter jets, 34 servicemen were killed and 174 wounded — and hardly anybody knows! This is well concealed from the general public, even Navy personnel, by Orange Star and Clown World and off limits for discussion. The ultimate betrayal capping this off is the downplaying of the Medal of Honor ceremony for its skipper, Captain William McGonagle, and by patriotic museums like the National Medal of Honor Heritage Center (Chattanooga, TN) ignoring requests to honor today’s Liberty survivors. The masses represented in the lifeboat also are betraying the West by reinforcing the unwritten ban on having pride in their European heritage and people, the only people and interests one is not permitted to advocate for today — thanks to Orange Star. Just ask former congressman Steve King and look into his inability to speak positively about Western Civilization without becoming snared in a media trap or reprimanded by his congressional peers (and ultimately removed from his job). This furthers the point made in the author’s storyline that these NPC passengers have their back facing to “The West.”

The mojitos reference points to our addiction and abuse of alcohol, and how it tends to motivate our regular activities and behaviors, to the point that we can’t function in society without it. Henry Ford had a great deal to say about control of the liquor trade in America. But that’s unauthorized reading. The fact that the mojito is a Caribbean drink emphasizes our drift into the culture of the islands like Jamaica. Consider the impact of reggae on Western culture. Has the laid back, pot-promoting music scene been all positive on Western man? Don’t we all see a slow drift into a drug culture that has the entire population entranced and dysfunctional?

The story ends with Erik waking up to the Nordic folk song with natural orchestral instrumentation — one that everyone associates with “the Morning” as the song title indicates. The “Morning Song” by Grieg signals that it is a new day, and perhaps it signals a return to his roots after the noise of the post-modern-civilization Decline of The West (as Oswald Spengler might suggest): The great beginnings of a new culture, but with our same people just as it was the same Vikings who became Christians. Can we (once again) become who we are?

As the ending dedication states, we are all in the same boat that is largely under the command of the Orange Star and Clown World international corporations (representing social engineering and entertainment/mass media respectively), and so the maritime euphemism encompasses this point that these entities have global control. And for today’s political circumstances it further asserts that we are all Gazans. Today’s political news misrepresent “the resistance” just as the song Lunatic Fringe does in its lyrics. Few realize how long ago this all began, but this author’s article on 1922 gives some clues. Will the real, authentic “resistance” please stand up!

How Economic and Ethnic Nationalism by White and East Asian Nations Raises World Living Standards, and How Open Borders and Multiculturalism Lowers Them

/1 Comment/in , /by

[Note: The somewhat odd tone and form of this essay are due to its having been one of two speech ideas sent to VDARE.com editor Peter Brimelow for consideration for possible presentation at their April 2024 conference. Ultimately, the other speech (which I might submit for publication later) was chosen, though due to their regular lineup having been full already it was given at a breakout session on the conference’s final day. Though I will be breaking this speech up into individual parts for VDARE.com, both to elaborate on the parts and to keep the length of each within their webzine’s normal format, I thought it would be of interest to TOO readers to have it produced in its original form here.]

In this essay I’m going to lay out the evidence for something perhaps surprising even to The Occidental Observer readers, but pleasantly so. We of the Dissident Right are usually loath to fight according to the rules of engagement the left dictates for their enemies—and then disregards for themselves; we have a visceral (and quite healthy) disgust for the tactic of trying to punch while keeping your head firmly kowtowed to the ground, a la Democrats are the real racists and other such nonsense. But in this case I do suggest that we fight the Left while giving only scorn to their antinationalist premises—and completely rout them—on the terrain of their choice.

For when it comes to trade and immigration, it is actually the case that protectionism and extreme immigration restriction by the White and East Asian nations actually raises the standard of living not just of those countries but of the entire world.

Seems counterintuitive, I know. But it’s completely, logically, and empirically true. How do I know? Well, let me walk you through it. To start with, we need to ask, what determines a nation’s standard of living and what makes it increase?

Part of it is natural resources, though that’s obviously not the whole story: if it were, the resource-laden nations of Africa would have much higher standards of living than Hong Kong, which is basically a desolate rock, but the polar opposite is true. And before the arrival of the colonists, America’s living standard was stubbornly stuck in the stone age, despite its having every desirable resource since time immemorial. What did the colonists bring with them that allowed the nation to make the jump from prehistoric lifestyles to ones rivaling those of the wealthiest nations (at the time) on earth in a little over two centuries? Basically, physical and intellectual capital and the desire and ability to use the latter to increase the former per capita. In other words, the more we can increase the number of machines, tools, and devices relative to our numbers—plus a little genius here and there to improve our technological techniques and achieve a multiplier effect on that accumulation—the more our standards of living are going to rise. And the opposite is true as well, i.e., increasing the population relative to the amount of capital will see a decline in those standards.

What in turn is required for capital accumulation? Well, having a good number of STEM types relative to the population and a robust savings rate; or to put it another way, you need a people with high average IQ and low time preference. And as I said, a few geniuses, whose intelligence is not always as measurable as IQ, provide a good accelerant, but even without that x factor, a high IQ/low time preference population alone would be able to increase living standards, just not as quickly.

And what’s true on the national scale is no less true on the world scale. The more high IQ/low time preference humans as a percentage of the world’s population, the higher the standard of living will be for everyone, other things being equal. As I’ll show in a moment, this will happen regardless of the intentions of the White or East Asian countries.

While slight variation is seen from country to country, the average IQ of the White nations is 100, the average of the East Asian ones is 105, and both have relatively high saving rates when compared to other peoples (I’m excluding Ashkenazi Jews from the discussion despite the 112 average IQ and high savings rate because of how infinitesimally small their numbers are compared to the world population). So if the world population’s proportion of Whites and East Asians were to increase, you’d have more STEM types and geniuses—Whites actually lead in that regard, as they have greater numbers both above and below their average intelligence level relative to East Asians—as a percent of the total, meaning a greater potential for increasing the amount of capital per capita.

When looking toward the future, consider the above in light of this graphic I put together showing IQ vs fertility rate: read it and weep—or at least, reach for a stiff drink. (To see just how screwed the world is unless something changes, just eyeball the lines connecting a country’s ranking on the first list (fertility ranking, high to low) versus the second (IQ ranking, high to low): if the world were to be getting smarter on average or at least staying the same, most of those lines would be horizontal. The more vertical the lines, the dumber the world will be getting on average relative to now.)

As you can see, the STEM powerhouses are either declining or stagnating while the STEM deserts are exploding relative to the total.

The graph might be labeled the confluence of globalization and biology. Long story short, as the US, Europe and its former colonies, and to a lesser extent Japan began outsourcing manufacturing to the lower income countries, the real incomes of the working and middle classes either declined or slowed relative to their potential, while the real incomes of the nations outsourced to went through the roof—as did their population numbers in most cases. As the graph makes clear, the once-poor high-IQ nations South Korea and China put their newfound wealth into increased capital and let their birthrates decline, while the low IQ nations put theirs into funding a population boom, as seen in this graph of the world’s most populous countries.

Once below the population of Germany (with an average IQ of 100), both Indonesia (average IQ of 80) and Nigeria (average IQ of 68) have left Deutschland in the demographic dust using the wealth born of the West’s capital export (and in Africa’s case, with Western aid and charity as well).

Let me quickly show you the mechanics of the betrayal of the Western working and middle classes by the globalists and how the damage done not only to them but to the country and indeed world, is even worse than it first appears. To sum up the way the initial and most obvious damage, that is, to the First World’s middle and working classes, plays out, we simply use what you might term the globalization of Say’s Law: just as Say’s Law says that the production of product A creates a demand for product B (so, a cobbler’s shoes produced and sold create the demand for the various goods he buys with his income), my version states that companies will offshore production until the decline of real incomes from diminished production in the once-wealthier nations meets with the rise of real incomes from increasing production in the once-poorer nations, ending any profits to be had from offshoring further. Let’s look at it from the standpoint of an individual company, with this graphic showing its total costs and total sales which—subtracting the former from the latter—determine profit: the left part represents the plan to produce it in America, the right the plan to do so via offshoring—and as you can see, the right has a greatly enlarged profit margin, hence, why companies initially rush to offshore.

Of course, for that differential to work, the company needs its US buyers to have the same real income. The reason the company loves those third worlders as workers is the same reason it hates them as customers: unless we’re talking about food and maybe something like a cell phone, there’s no way the man who puts in an entire day to earn what an American worker would make in an hour is going to buy the company’s product for the same price. But as offshoring continues apace and throws more and more American workers out of their manufacturing jobs and into wage competition with other US workers, both real and nominal incomes decline and those workers’ inability to buy the offshoring companies’ products reduces its sales and hence their profit margins from above at the same time that rising real wages of the third world workers begin to reduce those profits from below. This will keep going until it seems as if the two economies fuse and all things interchangeable, including labor and incomes, are mixed and evened out, to the great detriment of the West’s middle and working classes.

For a quick look at the macro effects of this, consider this brief tale of two economies.

List of characteristics:

Country A:

Total population: 120,000 (100,000 working; 20,000 nonworking)

Total incomes: 100,000,000.00

Workers:

20,000 STEM-types (they earn collectively, 30,000,000.00)

30,000 semiskilled-types (they earn collectively 30,000,000.00)

50,000 unskilled (they earn collectively 40,000,000.00)

Country B:

Total population: 120, 000 (100,000 working; 20,000 nonworking)

Total incomes: 10,000,000.00

Workers:

100,000 unskilled (they earn collectively 10,000,000.00)

Country A-B fused economy:

Total population: 240,000 (200,000 working; 40,000 nonworking)

Total incomes: 110,000,000.00

Workers:

20,000 STEM-types (they earn collectively, 30,000,000.00)

30,000 semiskilled-types (they earn collectively 30,000,000.00)

150,000 unskilled (they earn collectively 50,000,000.00)

Prefusion per capita earnings:

Country A:

STEM-type: $1,500.00

Semiskilled: $1,500.00

Unskilled: $800.00

Postfusion per capita earnings:

Country A:

STEM-type: $1,500.00

Semiskilled: $1,500.00

Unskilled: $333.33

As you can see, Country A is something like a Western nation, with a good percentage of the workforce made up of capital-creating-and-maintaining STEM-types, along with many semiskilled workers and unskilled workers earning pretty decent wages—largely as a result of the capital accumulation and maintenance that the STEM-type and semiskilled workers allow. Country B, on the other hand, is something like an impoverished African nation with virtually no capital and no STEM-types or even semiskilled workers (think something along the lines of The Democratic Republic of the Congo’s natural resources grown and harvested via primitive techniques by a population resembling Sierra Leone’s with its average IQ of 52). Abundant natural resources alone allow Country B to earn one-tenth the national income of Country A, and when they “fuse,” only the interchangeable unskilled workers of both nations are affected income-wise, with Country A’s STEM-type and semiskilled workers doing just as well, as there are no Country B workers who can compete with them for wages. What happens is essentially that manufacturing facilities in Country A shut down and ship out along with their STEM-type and semiskilled workforces (who will be getting a bit more in pay to compensate for the relocation, etc., but I’m painting with a broad brush here, and the pay of all of Country A STEM-type and semiskilled workers would not go up by that much from this) to Country B to utilize its unskilled dirt-cheap workforce; and in the process all those Country A unskilled workers laid off in manufacturing move into whatever job niches they can find, lowering the wages of unskilled workers in Country A overall.

Though the details would be far more complex in real life, this is, broadly speaking, what happens in globalization and free trade (and unchecked immigration produces a similar effect with the additional burdens of rising crime, diminishing social capital, etc., within the wealthier higher-IQ countries). So in the case of its fusion with a country such as India with its low average IQ overall (77) but its vast reserves of high-IQ Brahmin types thanks to its overall massive population, even Western STEM-types would begin to feel the pressure, with the only overall winners at least from the perspective of Country A being the globalist oligarchs financing the whole thing. So basically, while offshoring seems like a sweet deal to those who take advantage of its initial effects, in the end, the only possible true winners are those of the poorer, lower-IQ nations—and even for them it’s a Pyrrhic victory in the long run.

To see why even the third world’s victory is somewhat Pyrrhic, we need to analyze why globalism’s damage is even more pernicious than you’d think, for two reasons. First, for what you might call the overqualified worker effect. Let me illustrate it with a graph[1] and a personal story. First, the graph, which is from Robert M. Hauser of The University of Wisconsin-Madison’s Center for Demography and Ecology:

As it shows, there’s a pretty wide IQ range within the various fields, with some of the high-end workers in stereotypically middling- and even low-IQ professions having a number higher than the low end of the high-IQ professions—yeah, it even shocked me to see some in the janitorial line of work come out ahead of the dimmer STEM-types, but I guess that’s life, as my personal story illustrates (in a slightly less extreme way). In the early 1900s, my mother’s grandfather emigrated from Germany to the US and settled in Nebraska as a farmer. He had eight kids and took on seasonal help from other German immigrants. When the dust bowl came, he left Nebraska for Ohio where he worked in a factory doing what was de facto engineering work: constructing dies, repairing and calibrating equipment, often doing the math required mentally or just with paper and pencil. Some of his German hired help was that smart as well. So for various reasons, including circumstances, temperament, etc., there are many with STEM-level IQs (119 on average according to a 2009 article by Jonathan Wai et al.[2]) who remain in fields for which they are overqualified. While they might not directly contribute to the pool of STEM workers, their earning enough to raise large families—a thing made impossible when mass immigration pits them against low-IQ, low-wage workers who are just barely qualified for their jobs—helps ensure enough at least potential STEM types in the next generation.

Also, consider this. Per conventional genetics, when you have a population of the same type of organism in which a trait is highly prevalent but not necessarily present in each individual, it’s far more likely for members of that group that don’t themselves show the trait to produce offspring that do than would be the case with the don’t-show-the-trait members of a population in which the trait occurs but is very rare. To put it in human terms, if White or East Asian working-class couples with 90 IQs are earning real incomes that allow them to have four kids each, its far more likely that they’ll produce at least one of STEM-level IQ (which is about 119 on average) than a Hispanic or Black couple with IQs of 90. And as the middle and working classes tend to have more kids than the high-average-IQ upper classes, this provides an extra support for keeping STEM numbers up.

For both of those reasons, those who wish to maintain a modern economy and the standard of living it allows MUST stop forcing the lower and middle classes of heritage Americans into cutthroat wage competition with workers from low-IQ nations who meet just the minimum qualifications for their positions.

How do we stop this process of globalist-induced world immiserization? By having the West embrace true economic nationalism: put an immediate cap on all third-world immigration, including all H-1 types (a true nationalist ought to wish them to stay and help grow the wealth of their own nations); close the border and actually deport the illegals; stop making our smartest and most productive citizens pay for the dimmest and least productive to breed; and end the tax incentives that reward offshoring and replace them with what I like to call veraprotectionism (or true protectionism) consisting of equalizing tariffs tied to the difference in costs of labor and environmental regulations between the US and other nations.

That last part’s especially important. We need true economic nationalism, not crony capitalism: let the pols set the individual rates by industry or some such scheme and you’ll turn the whole thing into a vast, seething caldron of corruption and waste; set it for all countries based on the different average costs of labor etc., and then sit back and let consumers decide which products are best for their costs—without having to worry that choosing the foreign-made will impoverish unseen workers in some part of the nation.

This while you do help the workers of other nations—but only after you’ve helped your own, in the same way that your main duty is to your family: this being the essence of genuine nationalism, which sees true nations as families, united by blood, culture, and law, writ large. See, because all that capital requires complimentary factors in order to use it, including labor, at some point the high-capital-production country reaches a saturation level where it can’t utilize its capital in domestic production, the tariffs having no way and no intention of stopping this. At that point two things happen: 1) there develops a very strong incentive to push for more extensive automation and better capital that can do more with the same amount of labor, and 2) you get a spillover effect whereby capital begins to flow to the third-world nations whose own standards of living then rise even faster. I say even faster because the increasing efficiency of White/East Asian capital and consumer goods enriches the rest of the world as well: either by the obsolete-to-us-but-not-to-them equipment they get or by the increasingly advanced and low-cost goods that we make (how many rural Africans had a phone in the land-line era vs now when there are inexpensive cell phones that use satellites?). And as I’ve said, all that capital accumulation and technological advancement depend entirely on keeping the number of high IQ/low time preference and genius individuals high relative to the overall population, be it on the national or world scale, a condition the Great Replacement is uniquely designed to undo.

Hence, ironically, in battle between true nationalists and globalists it is we, we who merely seek to defend our peoples and nation, who are unintentionally fighting to increase the wealth of all nations while those opposing us, nominally in the name of humanity as a whole, are fighting for its impoverishment. Although we ought never to apologize for looking out for our own peoples and nations first, I hope that after today we can feel confident that, even if we lack the smug arrogance to do so, we would be wholly justified in demanding that those claim to oppose us out of love for the world’s teaming masses thank us for our efforts.

Thank you.

[1] Jonathan Wai, David Lubinski, and Camilla P. Benbow, “(Pdf) Spatial Ability for STEM Domains: Aligning over 50 Years …,” ResearchGate, November 2009, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228627975_Spatial_Ability_for_STEM_Domains_Aligning_Over_50_Years_of_Cumulative_Psychological_Knowledge_Solidifies_Its_Importance.

 

[1] Rodrigo de la Jara, “Modern IQ Ranges for Various Occupations,” IQ Comparison Site, accessed March 22, 2024, https://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/Occupations.aspx. This graph was adapted from Figure 12 of Hauser, Robert M. 2002. “Meritocracy, cognitive ability, and the sources of occupational success.” CDE Working Paper 98-07 (rev). Center for Demography and Ecology, The University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin. The figure is labelled “Wisconsin Men’s Henmon-Nelson IQ Distributions for 1992-94 Occupation Groups with 30 Cases or More” and is found at http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/cde/cdewp/98-07.pdf.

[2] Jonathan Wai, David Lubinski, and Camilla P. Benbow, “(Pdf) Spatial Ability for STEM Domains: Aligning over 50 Years …,” ResearchGate, November 2009, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228627975_Spatial_Ability_for_STEM_Domains_Aligning_Over_50_Years_of_Cumulative_Psychological_Knowledge_Solidifies_Its_Importance.

Will Post-Modernity Be Post-Darwinian? A Review of “The Post-Darwinian Zoo”

/6 Comments/in , , , , /by

The Post-Darwinian Zoo
Tibur Zorodin
Createspace, December, 2023

Perhaps all of Western socio-political history can divided into three eras: Pre-Darwinian, Darwinian, and post-Darwinian. The first period consisted of the millennia before the publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origins of Species (1859) when men intuitively understood the importance of blood and breed, monarchy and aristocracy being the dominant ideologies. Then in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, Darwinian evolution, combined with Mendelian genetics, began to inform public policy. President Theodore Roosevelt’s espousal of eugenics was uncontroversial, in fact eugenics was once supported across the political spectrum. Since the end of World War II public debate on, much less implementation of, “social Darwinist policies” is prohibited. The irony is that we now understand far more about human evolution and genetics than during the Progressive Era. The author is concerned that Red China might be the state where such findings find application.

We know little about the author. Tibur Zorodin is presumably a nom de plume. He is described online as a sociobiologist who “has been writing chiefly on political matters for more than a decade.”  In its broad scope and literary style The Post-Darwinian Zoo might remind the reader of The Dispossessed Majority,[1] though DM is a more tightly structured work. Zorodin’s over 900 footnotes make reference to academic journals, mainstream media, and popular culture from North America, Europe, and Australasia.

The book begins by describing how current demographic trends have become dysgenic and why it matters. Intelligence, criminality, conscientiousness, and other traits are highly heritable. The system is still able to function because “[t]he West’s upper cognitive echelon of entrepreneurs and scientists remain in place for now,” even as social pathology increases. The remedy for dysgenics is eugenics. Eugenics is not pseudoscience but applied science widely practiced in breeding plants and animals. The author makes a distinction between social Darwinism that “is more concerned with group advancement, identity, and distinctiveness,” and eugenics that “tends toward universalism and IQ absolutism.”

Eugenics need not be coercive or mandatory to be effective if a society has healthy values. Pre-natal screenings can detect congenital defects, yet in some US states it is illegal to abort a Down syndrome pregnancy. Zorodin makes the obvious point that choosing to abort a healthy pregnancy is far different than terminating an abnormal one. Furthermore, there are over 50,000 rape pregnancies annually in the US. Only half of these pregnancies are aborted. “Evolutionarily rewarding the act of rape is damaging for society both in the short term and the long term.” Yet there are states where abortion in the case of rape is not allowed. The dissident Right is, in large measure, defined by its opposition to conventional conservatism. Eugenic abortion is one of the wedge issues that divides the conservative and dissident Right. Zorodin will have some more choice words for conservatives later in the book.

The author next turns his attention to the issue of miscegenation. He provides some disturbing statistics: “92% of biracial children with a Black father are born out of wedlock and 82% end up on government assistance.” In addition, it has been reported that mixed-race children are more likely to experience anxiety and depression, abuse drugs and be truant compared to monoracial children. The “instability in biracial households and conflict in identity formation” might explain these outcomes.

Zorodin then moves from traditional eugenic measures to genetic engineering, and at times the discussion takes on a sci-fi feeling. Yet there is logic to it. Setting aside the cautionary tale of Dr. Frankenstein’s monster, the author makes the case that we can produce a freer, healthier more egalitarian society. One of the more interesting topics in this section are the five or so pages devoted to human beauty. This segment runs parallel to the “Esthetic Prop” theory in the aforementioned Dispossessed Majority. The author believes there is “an innate preference” for light coloration, height, and symmetry. Despite claims by Left activists that short, dark, and dumpy is just as attractive as tall, fair, and svelte “[t]he notion of esthetic egalitarianism is fundamentally incompatible with human psychology.”

The advantages of ethnic homogeneity, such as those expressed by John Jay in Federalist Papers 2, have been known for centuries. Zorodin reports on some lesser-known benefits of such societies. For example, “a multiracial society could be responsible for increasing the rate of gender dysphoria and sexual divergence.” Also, military personnel who served in homogeneous units are “more functional and cohesive,” and these veterans are less likely to suffer PTSD than those from heterogeneous units.

Decades ago, the famous research psychologist Raymond Cattell proposed a social experiment where small nations—mini ethno-states—would compete socially and economically by nonviolent means.[2]  Zorodin suggests something similar: “Various statelets and autonomous regions around the world harbor the potential for eugenic-minded communities to be formalized and legitimized; [thereby] offering . . .  life under a system of consensual social Darwinism.”

The author’s criticism of the contemporary Right extends to economics. He takes exception to the produce-and-consume economic model that features  ”gross expansion” over improved productivity via efficiency. The West’s “growth fetishism has discarded all caution of long-term cultural compatibility in pursuit of short-term economic stimulus” brought about through immigrant labor and consumption. The GDP will increase as the quality of life decreases.

Colorblind—perhaps completely blind—conservatives come under more criticism “King’s Manifesto from 1963 [‘I Have a Dream’] would in contemporary politics equate to a platform in the Republican Party.” Establishment conservatives’ maxim: “If you can’t beat them, join them in their tradition of chasing second place on the right side of history.”

Zorodin’s literary style makes the book both a pleasure and a challenge to read. Regarding Angela Merkel’s decision to open Germany’s border to mass migration: “It is hardly a top-down revolution, since the supporting convoy of Zeitgeist peers has no shortage of ethnomasochistic gluttons breaking the backs of their high-horses.” Find out which two countries are most “oikophobic.”

In fact, Zorodin devotes a section to language. He defends, as I do, the use of the term ‘Cultural Marxism’ because it is “consistent with the radical pedigree and an analogous group-conflict theoretical model” of orthodox Marxism. “The plasticity of language in the information age has never before been so amenable to socially-engineered neologisms with political agendas.” So illegal aliens become undocumented migrants, and the sexually confused are gender nonconforming. In addition, these “euphemisms appear to have an expiry date.” There is a “euphemism treadmill,” so the feeble-minded become the mentally retarded become the developmentally impaired.

The author uses the example of the near-seamless large-scale assimilation of Germans into American society to segue to the Jewish Question. That question is: What has been and should be the role of Jews in Western civilization? The last 35 pages or so of the book is a survey course on Jews. First, in contrast to German-Americans, Jewish-Americans have not, by in large, identified with traditional American culture. Their wealth and organizational acumen have led to an “undue influence on the institutions of public life, at the expense of heritage America.” The well-known Jewish financial crimes, the kosher certification racket, and the Sackler family pill mill Purdue Pharma are covered. All this is mediated by the “guilt prescription” of the Holocaust. The book has a quote from former Israeli foreign minister Abba Ebon: “There’s no business like Shoah business.”

Probably the most interesting aspect of this topic is Judeo-Christian Zionism. Zorodin has hammered the establishment Right for its social and economic policies, now it is time to consider its perverse foreign policy. Possibly the most perverted feature of cuckservativism is its slavish devotion to Israel. The author describes it as “surrogate nationalism.” In a warped way it serves as a “politically correct outlet” for the ethnonationalism establishment conservatives deny their own people. Border security for the US is a good political talking point, but border security for Israel is a cause for urgent action. Speaker of the US House of Representatives Mike Johnson intones: “It’s a Biblical admonition to stand with Israel.” Whether the current conflict in the Levant will change present political calculations remains to be seen.

The book ends rather abruptly. There is no summary or concluding chapter to bring together all the many issues and ideas presented. The reader does not get to see what compound the combined elements might produce. So here is my takeaway from the Post Darwinian Zoo:

The title implies we are now living in zoo world—society as a menagerie—filled with strange and diverse creatures. It is widely believed that the modern era is coming to an end. The question becomes: Is the present cultural disintegration a beginning or the end? Is what we see today just a foretaste of a chaotic post-modern age?  Or, will post-modernity usher in a Western instauration, a new renaissance? At one point, Zorodin appears pessimistic. For we are “in the twilight of late modernity and at the terminal stage of human cultural evolution.” But he holds out hope if we are able to think outside the box. Conservatism is safe and respectable, but it is an ineffective and at times counterproductive strategy for opposing the forces that seek to destroy Western culture and peoples.

The book deals with many interesting topics not mentioned in this short review. There is some high protein food for thought here, and even the best informed and knowledgeable reader should find some new insights on human biology, culture, and the social sciences. I give this book a very solid recommendation. That said, a stronger thematic organization would make the information more assimilable.

[1] Wilmot Robertson, The Dispossessed Majority (1972).

[2] Raymond Cattell, A New Morality from Science: Beyondism (1973); Raymond Cattell Beyondism: A Religion from Science (1987).

Soros’s Top Money-Man Stood With Antifa at Charlottesville; Blocked Access to Lee Park

/5 Comments/in /by

In 2017, Jewish lesbian lawyer Roberta Kaplan launched a multi-million-dollar lawsuit against the leading participants and organizations of Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville. She thought she would find something big. But after 4 years of lawyering and thousands and thousands of pages of discovery, she found nothing. Because there was nothing.

She wanted a smoking gun. Instead, all she got were stacks of spergy route-plans and a recording of Richard Spencer randomly screaming.

She must have been mad.

UTR was something that the Jews could never pull off: an organic mass-demonstration of people willing to risk their lives and reputations. Its organization was grass-roots. It did not require $100Ks of Manhattan cash to pull it off. It took a few dozen guys with pick-up trucks and some barely functional walkie-talkies.

If Kaplan wanted to find a conspiracy, she should have looked at Antifa, the University of Virginia Law School and the prosecutor’s office.

For that link, we have abundant evidence.

The key person is former congressman Tom Perriello. Perriello has had a long and varied career serving the Jewish system. He has been the soulless State-Department mouthpiece calling for more wars in Africa and the Middle East. He has been the corporate goon shoveling cash-stacks into your local prosecutor’s race.

And he has been the Antifa street-fighter standing in a mob blocking people from entering a permitted, court-sanctioned rally in a public park.

He’s a war-mongerer, a Soros money-man and an Antifa thug all in one.

Some background: after a career at State and a stint in congress, he ran for Governor of Virginia in 2017.

While campaigning, Perriello latched onto the Charlottesville issue. The city had been debating removing the statues of Robert E. Lee and “Stonewall” Jackson. When the Alt-Right held a demonstration to defend the statues in May of that year, he saw an opening. He lashed out on Twitter with laughably irrelevant slogans like “Get your white supremacist hate out of my town” and “You lost, in 1865.”

The May Alt-Right demonstration was a surprise. It was supposed to be. The planners did not want to be attacked by Antifa.

In the meantime, Perriello had lost the primary and was looking for new political opportunities. It would not be enough to pick cat-fights with Nazis on Twitter. If he wanted to salvage his political career, he would need to go all-in. “Unite the Right” was his chance.

On the morning of the demonstration, Perriello was in the street with Antifa groups like “Standing Up for Racial Justice” and “Congregate Cville.” They took up positions at the entrance to Lee Park. Their plan was to block their political enemies from conducting their long-announced political meeting on public property, for which they had a permit backed up by a federal injunction.

When that plan failed and the demonstrators got into the park anyway, Perriello and his fellow Antifa conspirators launched their campaign of illegal doxing and manipulation of the courts.

These are typical Antifa tactics. Find out where someone you don’t like is going to meet and talk. Block their routes. Attack them on site. Play the victim if they fight back. Or sue. Or whine to your prosecutor for criminal charges. Or all of the above.

Perriello has also served as a high-level apparatchik in the American oligarchy’s NGO-word-salad complex. Before Charlottesville, he was CEO of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, a $40-million-a-year paper-generating money-sucking scheme charity founded by John Podesta and chaired by Tom Daschle.

This, along with his new Antifa street-cred, made him the perfect pick to run George Soros’ Open Society Foundation as Executive Director of American Programs. In this role, Perriello did the day-to-day work of deciding how Soros’ money got spent.

Now here’s where things get interesting.

In the aftermath of the Unite the Right rally, the wannabe feds and faux-intellectuals of the University of Virginia were feeling angry and humiliated. The Alt-Right tiki-torch vigil on their sacred “Grounds” had violated their serene self-assurance and their metaphysical certainties that truth and history were on their side. For the first time in their lives, they were confronted with a clear proof of the common People’s thoroughly justified frustrations.

UVA was ass-mad.

So UVA Law launched a years-long conspiracy to stack the prosecutor’s office with their agents in order to bring fake criminal charges against anyone who carried a tiki-torch on “Grounds”. The lynchpin of the whole scheme was electing soulless Jew-puppet good-ol’-bwoi Jim Hingeley to the office of Commonwealth’s attorney (Virginia’s annoying technical term for “prosecutor”).

Hingeley’s 2019 campaign received $8,000 from Justice and Public Safety PAC, which is controlled by George Soros. Given that Perriello was Soros’ slush-fund manager, it’s safe to say he had a role in picking Hingeley for “Commonwealth’s Attorney”.

Perriello has two other interesting connections.

1) His brother “Bo” and sister-in-law Maureen were attending the Antifa-planning session (disguised as a religious service) at St. Paul’s Memorial Church across the street from the Jefferson statue where the alt-right tiki-procession was planned to end. “Bo” and Maureen later said that that experience convinced them to join the Antifa attempt to thwart the alt-right rally the next day.

2) Perriello is friends with Charlottesville’s billionaire power-couple Sonjia Smith and Michael Bills. Their son even interned for Perriello.

Smith and Bills are the main funders of prosecutor Hingeley, having provided $114,000 to his 2019 campaign.

Moreover, Bills’ and Smith’s daughter, Kendall Bills, is an Antifa militant. She was arrested on July 8, 2017 for trying to block the entrance to another Charlottesville public park. Charges were of course dropped.

She also attended the August 12, 2017 blocking-action-cum-riot, where Antifa threw bottles of urine and potentially blinding bleach-bombs at the rally-goers.

So … would it be a stretch to hypothesize that Smith and Bills funded Hingeley’s campaign for the express purpose of getting revenge, and that Tom Perriello was their point-man?

Remember this fact when the media accuses us of being the “privileged” side. We had no billionaires in our ranks.

The masked goon threatening you in the street and the suited douche-bag throwing you in prison on fake charges are the same person. Antifa and systemic Jewish power are the same thing.

When you’re in charge, you bear the responsibility.

James Edwards Interviews Anke Van dermeersch

/5 Comments/in /by
What follows is a Q and A conducted by James Edwards with Anke Van dermeersch, a former Miss Belgium, Miss Universe finalist, and current Senator of Belgium.
James Edwards: You first made a name for yourself as a model who was crowned Miss Belgium and who went on to become a top finalist in the Miss Universe pageant. What do you remember about those days?

Anke Van dermeersch: It was fantastic to be Miss Belgium as an 18-year-old girl and to travel around the world to the various international Miss competitions. I enjoyed it immensely and learned a lot. The university of life is incredibly interesting. You learn a lot that you don’t get told at the real universities.

I would participate in the Miss Belgium pageant again, but would never become Miss Belgium again. Because to become Miss Belgium nowadays you have to bring a politically correct opinion, have a color, or be transgender. Everything else doesn’t matter anymore.

I sometimes say: if a Miss Belgium becomes a Flemish nationalist, then there must be something seriously wrong with Belgium!

Edwards: Not many people make the career transition from modeling to politics, but you were able to do both on the very biggest of stages. How did that happen?

Van dermeersch: After my career as a Miss, I graduated as a lawyer. I wanted to become a lawyer to help people and did so for 10 years, but soon felt that I didn’t get any satisfaction from it. That’s why I became a member of the Vlaams Blok and later the Vlaams Belang. Through politics, I can help many more people at the same time by making adjustments to the legislation in our country. In the first few years, I was mainly militant in Antwerp, where I was born and raised. As a former Miss Belgium, I was the first well-known Fleming and lawyer to go against the cordon mediatique and sanitaire around the Vlaams Blok. In 2003 I took part in the elections for the Belgian Senate for the first time and I immediately received a huge number of preferential votes. A Miss Belgium in politics, that was unprecedented! I have also been re-elected ever since.

Edwards: What issues did you run on when you were first elected as a Senator of Belgium?

Van dermeersch: Among other things, I am ‘the mother’ of the European burqa ban. I wrote the first legislation for a burqa ban in 2003 and it has ever since been the basis of burqa bans throughout Europe.

As a citizen of Antwerp, I also closely follow all dossiers that concern the province of Antwerp and its city in terms of mobility, public works, education, housing, work and the economy.

As a senator since 2003, I have taken many initiatives to bring about the orderly division of the Belgian Union and to put Flanders on the road to independence. I know better than anyone the specific powers of the Senate, which are mainly focused on the Constitution and legislation on the organization and functioning of the federal state.

As a former tax lawyer, and lawyer-tax specialist, I naturally feel like a fish in water when it comes to financial and tax laws/policies. That is why I am also an elected member of the Flemish Parliament, putting the Flemish government to the test with regard to the Flemish public finances.

Edwards: You have held high office in your country since 2003. How do you continue to make your message attractive to voters?

Van dermeersch: As a former Miss, I have a lot of credit with the Belgian public. When I proclaim hard positions, they come across as less harsh and people start to think about my points of view instead of immediately classifying it as extreme. After all, our positions are not extreme, but radical. This is based on the Latin word ‘radix’, which means root. We want to get to the root of the problems.

Of course, my way of speaking is not what the media wants. They want to portray my party as dangerous and extreme, but a look at me and people realize that I am not the image that fits. That’s why I’m almost not allowed to be featured in the traditional media, because that’s not the image they want.

I want people to think for themselves and not let opinions be imposed on them by the mainstream media. That works out pretty well because I have been a Senator, Flemish Member of Parliament, and Antwerp City Councilmember for more than 20 consecutive years now. I defend my constituents at all political levels wholeheartedly.

Edwards: Your colleague in the Belgian Parliament, Dries Van Langenhove, was recently sentenced to prison in one of the most contemptible and unjust court decisions I have ever seen. What was your reaction to this?

Van dermeersch: Dries Van Langenhove received the heaviest possible punishment. He was convicted by the court of, among other things, racism and negationism. For this, he received an effective prison sentence of 1 year and a fine of 16,000 euros. He was also stripped of his civil rights for 10 years, preventing him from exercising political office.

In a healthy democracy, ideas are fought with ideas. The writing is therefore on the wall that the public prosecutor’s office took legal action and severely punished an opinion offense. For a democratic state governed by the rule of law, punishing those who mobilize politically around political ideas is a death blow.

Moreover, it was also about estimating memes as an opinion rather than humor. Inevitably, persecution of humor turns into a process of intention. This is a shame, because as the saying goes, “What can no longer be said with laughter is not the truth.”

Edwards: It seems almost paradoxical that such a verdict would be rendered in Belgium, where your party, Vlaams Belang, one of the most powerful nationalist parties in the world, has become the country’s most popular. How do you reconcile this?

Van dermeersch: The elite wants to fight the Vlaams Belang by all means and it is not the first time that they have done this through the courts. In 2004, the Vlaams Blok, the party before the current Vlaams Belang, was condemned for racism, but a few months later the voters responded to the elite with a maximum of votes.

Because of the conviction, we were pushed even more into the role of victim and the ideas of the people and the plans of our party remained what they were. Also, this time, the day after the upcoming elections on Sunday, June 9, 2024, the other parties will wake up with a hangover like in 2004. History repeats itself and the Vlaams Belang is getting stronger and stronger.

There is no way out for the elite, the people will take back power, and the people are us.

Edwards: Thankfully, there has been a very vocal outcry to what has happened. Elon Musk recently raised awareness about Van Langenhove’s situation on X and has personally engaged with him. Has such solidarity been encouraging for you to see?

Van dermeersch: I’m not a big fan of Elon Musk.

He has indeed raised awareness about Van Langenhove’s situation and I think that’s a good thing, of course, but also on X there is no free speech possible to this day.

For example, I have been shadow-banned for years now. Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter and its transformation to X didn’t help that either.

Not everything Elon Musk does should be accepted and followed, especially when it comes to new technologies and AI in particular.

Edwards: Speaking of Vlaams Belang, how has it been able to enjoy such sustained success while many other nationalist parties in Europe burn quickly and fizzle out?

Van dermeersch: The Vlaams Belang is a party with a very long history dating back to the First World War.

The Vlaams Belang was founded in 2004 as the successor to the Vlaams Blok, which first emerged in elections in 1978, but the undercurrent of Flemish nationalism on which the parties are built arose during the First World War, when Flemish soldiers received orders in French while they only understood Dutch. The contempt of the French-speaking elite towards the Flemish population is the basis of the struggle for change that we are waging to this day.

There have also been other parties that have emerged on this basis, such as the Volksunie and the current N-VA, but in the end they have always put themselves at the service of the elite out of opportunism. We don’t!

Edwards: The Islamization of Europe is something that you have been very outspoken about. Do you believe that the Great Replacement can be reversed?

Van dermeersch: The vast majority of the European population is in favor of restricting and even completely stopping any form of non-European immigration to Europe.

The assumption that we need migrant workers to keep our economy afloat; the idea that we need young foreigners to sustain our population and combat the ageing of the population, and the idea that we have to solve crisis after crisis – anywhere in the world – by bringing in a new wave of economic and war refugees is as destructive as it is dangerous.

The population is already aware of this. So yes, with the support of the people, it is possible to turn the tide.

Edwards: Do you believe that an independent Flemish Republic could ever be established?

Van dermeersch: Yes, there is a tendency to create a Europe of peoples to replace the current undemocratic EU in Europe. The Vlaams Belang is a Flemish nationalist party and we are therefore striving to split up Belgium and establish a Flemish (and Walloon) state.

For an independent Flanders, the Vlaams Belang sees a special relationship with the Netherlands. This is based on a Dutch cultural community in Europe.

For our party, Flemish independence is the most important point on the program. For the Vlaams Belang it is a matter of principle, based on the right of self-determination of peoples. The most fundamental argument in favor of Flemish independence is the annual financial transfers from Flanders to Wallonia and the disagreement between Flemish and Walloon politicians that make a coherent federal policy impossible. An independent Flemish state would be able to use the tax money of the Flemish people to pursue a much more efficient policy to solve the problems of the population in terms of healthcare, education, infrastructure, etc.

Edwards: What other issues and projects are you currently working on?

Van dermeersch: At the moment I’m in campaign mode, because there are national and local elections this year. On both, 9 June and 13 October, I will be re-elected to all my mandates. After that, I will help to put together a new government to meet all the needs of our constituents in the best possible way. That’s a huge amount of work and many grueling working days, but I do it with love and passion.

This article was originally published by American Free Press.

The Rule of Lawyers: The Labour Party is Eager to Resume Its War on the White Working-Class

/6 Comments/in /by

“A lawyer is the larval stage of a politician.” It’s a good line, but whose is it? I’ve seen it attributed to Ambrose Bierce, but I can’t confirm that. Whoever came up with it, he wouldn’t have won the approval of the late, great Jewish writer Larry Auster. We shouldn’t liken human beings to animals and other lower life-forms. That’s what Auster thought.

Charles Dickens foretells Joe Biden

I can see his point, but do lawyers and politicians count as human beings? Well, yes, of course they do. But they don’t count as normal human beings. Psychopathy and narcissism are more common among lawyers, for example. This is what that acute and astute observer Charles Dickens says of the lawyer Mr Kenge in his novel Bleak House (1853): “He appeared to enjoy beyond everything the sound of his own voice.” What Dickens observed in the nineteenth century is still true well over a hundred years later. Here’s an anecdote by the Jewish journalist John Podhoretz about the lawyer-politician Joe Biden, currently the senile pseudo-president of the United States:

A quarter-century ago [i.e., circa 1985], Sen. Joseph R. Biden of Delaware, then in his third term, came in for a lunch with a few editors and reporters at the newspaper where I worked. Its editor welcomed Biden and asked him a question about whatever story was at the top of the news agenda that day.

Biden started talking. And talking. And talking. He spoke and he gesticulated. He wandered off into secondary subjects, and secondary subjects of the secondary subjects. He conjured up a memory of his childhood, and then told a tale from his first campaign.

After 20 minutes without so much as a breath, it was clear to me and others around the table that there was something wrong — that our guest simply did not know how to conclude his peroration.

We shifted in our chairs. Someone coughed. Someone else sighed. The door loomed behind us, tormenting us with the blessings of an escape we simply could not make.

It was not until 45 minutes after he had begun that Joseph I. Biden simply ran out of gas. He came to no conclusion, no closing thought. He just stopped talking, looked down, and at last took a bite of food and drank some water.

I had never been through anything like it. Biden had displayed a literally clinical display of logorrhea, a term Google defines for me as “pathologically incoherent, repetitive speech.” (“The incredible lightness of Biden,” New York Post, 19th August 2012)

Like Dickens’ Mr Kenge, Biden “enjoys beyond everything the sound of his own voice.” Biden also follows Kenge in casting a blight over those he’s supposed to serve and protect. Bleak House is aptly named and Dickens rightly identifies lawyers as highly corruptible and hugely malignant.

As lawyers, so politicians: what allows someone to succeed in law translates perfectly to success in politics. Or in Western politics, at least. Ron Unz has contrasted the engineer-politicians of China with the lawyer-politicians of the West. The contrast is entirely in favor of China. Engineering and law inculcate quite different habits of mind in those who practise them. Engineers succeed or fail by manipulating matter; lawyers succeed or fail by manipulating words. Engineers rely on mathematics; lawyers rely on Machiavellianism. To see the contrast at its starkest, just compare the highly intelligent and capable Chinese engineer-president Xi Jinping (born 1953) with the devious and disaster-sowing Western lawyer-politicians Barack Obama and Tony Blair.

Gentile law-pol Tony Blair performs the goy-grovel overseen by Jewish law-pol Greville Janner, an alleged child-rapist (image © PA Wire/Press Association Images)

But there’s another factor at work. Chinese politicians aren’t selected for their hostility to the native Chinese majority and to Chinese civilization. That’s because Chinese politics isn’t funded and controlled by an alien group of inveterate Sinophobes. That is, there is no equivalent of the Jews in China and no equivalent of AIPAC or Conservative Friends of Israel working behind the scenes. In the corrupt Western sense, China isn’t a democracy; in another sense, it is much more of a democracy than any of its critics in the West. That’s because the leaders of China are drawn from the demos of China, the native Han Chinese, and work in the best interests of the Han Chinese. They’re not only engineers: they’re autoethnophiles. They love their own people and would never open the borders of China to mass migration by non-Chinese.

Labour hates White workers

The West is entirely different. Jewish money and Jewish priorities control politics everywhere from Britain and France to America and Australia. The lawyer-politicians of the West are selected for their hostility to the rapidly dwindling White majority and to Christian civilization. And despite all their high-flown lawyers’ rhetoric about “democracy” and the “will of the people,” those law-pols refuse to allow the people any say whatsoever about mass migration. The great White engineer and manufacturer Henry Ford joked that his cars could be of “Any color the customer wants, as long as it’s black.” Western politicians think that White voters can have any kind of immigration policy they like, so long as it involves open borders for the corrupt, criminally inclined and exotic-disease-bearing tax-eaters of the Third World.

Traitorous Labour lawyer-politician Sir Keir Starmer and his Jewish wife (image from The Daily Telegraph)

That’s because Western politicians follow a Jewish agenda. And all of that — the evils of rule by lawyers and of Jewish control — brings me neatly to the man who seems highly likely to be Britain’s next prime minister. Sir Keir Starmer, leader of the Labour party, is a slippery lawyer with a Jewish wife. As you can tell from its name, Labour was founded in the nineteenth century to champion the working-class. In those days, it went without saying that the working-class was White. But Labour long ago betrayed its founding principles and became the dedicated enemy of the White working-class. The traitorous Roy Hattersley, former deputy leader of the Labour party, has openly boasted of how he betrayed his White working-class constituents:

How are politicians to behave when, having listened, they find themselves in fundamental disagreement with what they have heard? Should I, in 1964, have called for what a clear majority of my constituents, and most of the country, undoubtedly wanted — the repatriation of all Commonwealth [i.e., non-White] immigrants? [His answer: “Not in a million years.”] (Politics should be guided by principles, not populism, The Guardian, 5th May 2013) … For most of my 33 years in Westminster, I was able to resist Sparkbrook’s demands about the great issues of national policy — otherwise, my first decade would have been spent opposing all Commonwealth immigration and my last calling for withdrawal from the European Union. (Ideology’s our life, Esther, The Guardian, 31st July 2013)

Like Keir Starmer, Hattersley has a Jewish wife, the literary agent Maggie Pearlstine. She is responsible for Hattersley’s great wealth just as other Jews are responsible for Hattersley’s anti-White, pro-migrant ideology. Keir Starmer will enjoy the same great wealth thanks to his embrace of the same ideology. After the abominable aberrations of Jeremy Corbyn, who wasn’t interested in money and refused to allow himself to be controlled by Jews, Starmer has returned Labour to the paths of righteousness. Jewish money once again dictates Labour’s policies and Labour’s priorities. Corbyn was no friend of the White working-class, of course, but he wasn’t a friend of Israel either. He would have opposed rather than supported the vicious Israeli war on Gaza. The so-called Labour leader Starmer supports that war as slavishly as the so-called Conservative leader Rishi Sunak does.

The Third-Worlding of Britain

The geeky Indian Sunak and his party look set to be heavily punished at the next election for their own betrayal of their founding principles. Just as Labour hate the White working-class, the Conservatives hate tradition and don’t conserve anything. Tory prime minister David Cameron, who is partly Jewish and was wholly controlled by Jews, has boasted that his one of his proudest achievement whilst in office was the introduction of “same-sex marriage.” Cameron wasn’t able to achieve something else, however. He promised to reduce migration and instead oversaw a massive increase. Each of his successors has done the same: promised to reduce immigration and instead overseen a massive increase. The Tories have betrayed White voters, so some of those voters will switch to Labour at the next election. It will be a very stupid thing to do, because Labour will perform the remarkable feat of being even more treacherous on migration than the Tories. Under Starmer, the Third-Worlding of Britain will accelerate even more.

Geeky trans-Western Rishi Sunak performs the goy-grovel at Conservative Friends of Israel

That won’t just apply to a further increase in the already disastrously high rates of immigration. Labour will pass more laws to privilege non-Whites and to punish any White resistance to the invasion of their homeland. In other words, Labour will resume the war on the White working-class that was interrupted when Gordon Brown, the last Labour prime minister, was defeated by the not-at-all Conservatives in 2010. Sir Keir Starmer, the slippery lawyer with a Jewish wife, will be a perfect figurehead for Labour’s continued and enthusiastic betrayal of its founding principles. Like Blair and Obama before him, Starmer embodies the evils of rule by lawyers and of Jewish control. And always remember that the rule of lawyers is not at all the same thing as the rule of law. In some ways it’s the complete opposite. In America, the legalized crucifixion of VDare and the legalized persecution of Donald Trump are proof of that. Proud Black female lawyers are wielding arbitrary and unaccountable legal power without any regard for genuine law. If a lawyer is the larval stage of a politician, then the rule of lawyers is plainly the prelude to leftist tyranny.