A student group that bills itself as “America’s right wing youth movement”focused on countering radical multiculturism, socialism and mass immigration is causing a stir on a growing number of college campuses across the country.
The conservative political group Youth for Western Civilization is currently organized on at least seven university campuses. According to its Web site, the group hopes to inspire Western youth on the “basis of pride in their American and Western heritage,” counter and ultimately defeat “leftism on campus” and create a social movement in which a right-wing subculture is an alternative to what it calls a “poisonous and bigoted”campus climate.
“A great part of college is definitely meeting people of different backgrounds, but a multicultural ideology teaches that we should appreciate things just because they’re different from our culture with no regards to the quality of the culture and that all cultures are inherently equal,” said Trevor Williams, president of YWC’s Vanderbilt chapter. “I absolutely disagree.” . . . More
(CNN) — There had been no confirmed deaths in the United States related to swine flu as of Tuesday afternoon. But another virus had killed thousands of people since January and is expected to keep killing hundreds of people every week for the rest of the year.
That one? The regular flu.
An outbreak of swine flu that is suspected in more than 150 deaths in Mexico and has sickened dozens of people in the United States and elsewhere has grabbed the attention of a nervous public and of medical officials worried the strain will continue to mutate and spread.
Experts are nervous that, as a new strain, the swine flu will be harder to stop because there aren’t any vaccines to fight it.
But even if there are swine-flu deaths outside Mexico — and medical experts say there very well may be — the virus would have a long way to go to match the roughly 36,000 deaths that seasonal influenza causes in the United States each year.
“That happens on an annual basis,” Dr. Brian Currie said Tuesday. Currie is vice president and medical director at Montefiore Medical Center in Bronx, New York.
Since January, more than 13,000 people have died of complications from seasonal flu, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s weekly report on the causes of death in the nation.
No fewer than 800 flu-related deaths were reported in any week between January 1 and April 18, the most recent week for which figures were available.
The report looks at deaths in the 122 largest cities in the United States.
Worldwide, the annual death toll from the flu is estimated to be between 250,000 and 500,000.
About 9 out of 10 of those deaths are among people older than 65, Currie said. Most times, they already have health problems that the flu makes worse, he said.
“Regular influenza can be taxing,” he said. “It causes their underlying disease to decompensate and then they don’t have the reserves to get through it.
“While it may not be the direct cause listed on the death certificate, it certainly contributed.”
One of the reasons medical experts are nervous about the swine flu outbreak is that many of the people who have died in Mexico have been young and otherwise healthy. The strains found in the United States have so far been weaker.
But even the regular flu is sometimes fatal for younger victims.
“It’s not unheard of. It happens, either directly from influenza or they get a bacterial superinfection” like staph, said Currie.
While researchers haven’t developed a vaccine to fight the new swine flu, it can be treated with antiviral drugs Tamiflu and Relenza, the same drugs used on the regular flu.
Many times, seasonal flu itself is tough to prevent because it has mutated to a form different than it was when the vaccine was made.
Seeking to put the swine flu outbreak in perspective Tuesday, Los Angeles County public health officer Dr. Jonathan Fielding echoed other public officials calling it “cause for concern, but not for alarm.”
“Given the size of L.A. County, given the traffic between here and Mexico, it would be very surprising if we didn’t have any cases,” Fielding said.
He said the county, where the CDC had confirmed 10 cases of swine flu by Tuesday, sees more than 1,000 flu-related deaths every year.
“So it would also not be surprising if there were deaths with swine flu — even if it had the pattern of seasonal flu,” he said. “Thus far, the pattern we see in the United States is very similar to that of seasonal flu — relatively mild to moderate cases.”
Tue., Apr. 28, at 10 PM Eastern U.S. time, Mishko talks with real estate appraiser Tom on the topic of home mortgages and the current economic situation — things that people need to know in order to make right decisions. Mishko and Tom also discuss what let up to the current environment, and how to make the most of it.
Tom has been an appraiser for over five years in southern California and has a great knowledge of the mortgage and banking industry.
Due to job-related circumstances starting this month, Adrean Arlott has informed us that for the next few weeks, it will not be possible to meet CDN show deadlines regularly. VoR will broadcast new shows if and when Adrean is able to create them; most weeks, however, VoR will be playing selected reruns from the archives. Adrean will return to a regular schedule as soon as he can. Look for an update sometime in July.
Everyone at VoR thanks Adrean for his hard work and a great program to date, and looks forward to his return!
World War II: Non-Conformist Views of the ‘Good War’
In a presentation packed with startling facts and provocative observations, Weber takes aim at the conventional view of World War II as conflict between Good and Evil. He reviews and quotes from two recent revisionist books: Human Smoke, by Nicholson Baker, and Churchill, Hitler and ‘The Unnecessary War’, by Patrick J. Buchanan. Weber tackles a range of widely accepted myths, including the “Big Lie” that Hitler was trying to “conquer the world,” and discredits the iconic image of Winston Churchill as a great statesman.
When Julius Evola, one of the leading twentieth-century critics of Judeo-liberal civilization, worked out his racial theory during the 1930s, the principal inspiration for anti-Semitic thought was The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Purportedly stolen from an occult Lodge, the Protocols were a report of twenty-four secret meetings held by the leaders of international Jewry, as they attempted to devise a plan for world domination.
Jewish organizations quite naturally went to considerable lengths to discredit the Protocols. Their most famous effort resulted in a judicial action taken by a Berne court in 1933 against a Swiss nationalist who had distributed the document.
The court’s decision that the Protocols were a libelous forgery, Evola thought, was besides the point. For in his eyes the issue of the Protocols’ authenticity was “secondary to the far more serious and essential problem of their veracity”—for even if not actually written by the “Elders” or based on an existing plan, the document in his view was of unparalleled significance in drawing attention, first, to the Jewish Question, and, more importantly, to the subversive forces at work in recent history.
In this spirit, he claimed the Protocols shed new light on the Jews’ campaign against Europe’s traditions, aristocracies, symbols, and transcendent values, especially as this campaign promoted ideologies subverting the white man’s sense of order—ideologies such as capitalism, cosmopolitanism, egalitarianism, materialism, feminism, etc.
Inspired by the subversive import of these ideologies, the Jews allegedly “stress the negative aspects, abuses, and injustices” of traditional Europe. To this end, they “spread the germs of a critical and rationalistic mentality meant to corrupt the innermost ethical cement” of organically established hierarchies; they endeavor to dominate the principal centers of official teaching, to control public opinion through their monopoly of the media, to undermine family life, to provoke both social and moral defeatism by “stirring up mistrust and discreditable rumors regarding the clergy” and other representatives of white society. And, not least, they reduce all interests to economic-financial ones, replacing former authorities with mathematical calculations and materialist imperatives.
The course of modern European history, Evola claimed, seemed “to meet the objectives set out in the Protocols.” For once the “Elders’” campaign succeeded in reducing whites to “a mush of beings without tradition and inner strength,” “the ancient promise of the regnum of the Chosen People” became realizable.
But if Jews for Evola were one of the principal forces for subversion in the modern world, he parted company with those “vulgar anti-Semites” who saw the Jews everywhere, a sort of deus ex machina, responsible for all the world’s ills. This type of reductionism, he thought, was self-discrediting. One can acknowledge “the pernicious role the Jew has played in the history of civilization,” he writes, but this “must not prejudice a deeper investigation which can make us become aware of forces for which Judaism may have been . . . only the instrument.”
Thus, while the European encounter with Judah goes back more than two millennia, it was, he stressed, only in recent times, with the advent of liberal-capitalist societies and particularly with the rise of America to world power, that Jews actually began to dominate the white homelands.
Though Evola affirmed both the legitimacy and necessity of anti-Semitism, at the same time he rejected its “parochialism,” its often arbitrary principles, and its lack of “a truly general standpoint.”
The vulgar anti-Semitism that makes the Jews responsible for every form of subversion was, from his perspective, a humiliating admission of inferiority. The Jews were stronger and more capable, he argued, only when the white man degenerated. That is, only he was no longer himself and thus weakened did he become vulnerable to them, for their power came from their exploitation of the degenerate forces already assaulting white life.
For this reason, Evola thought the subversive forces empowered by liberal capitalism and exploited by the Jews were “only the last links in a chain of causes which are unthinkable without antecedents such as, for instance, [Renaissance] humanism, the [Protestant] Reformation, and the French Revolution, all of which are phenomena that no one would seriously think of ascribing to a Jewish conspiracy.”
Jewish power, in a word, followed a larger historical process of “decomposition and involution,” which had de-Aryanized the white man and prepared the way for the Jews’ regnum.
Anti-Semitism, as a consequence, not only tends to make the Jews a scapegoat for the failings of modern civilization, it also conceals a more general struggle against its de-Aryanizing forces—against its “mechanizing rationalism, secular illuminism, and world-outlook based on numbers and quantity.”
Though emphasizing that the Jews were not the sole cause for modernity’s anti-white impetus, Evola nevertheless accepted that it was easier to fight personal forces (Jews) than abstractions (modernity) and that the figure of the omnipotent Jew was an effective symbol in mobilizing resistance to the anti-Aryanizing forces.
Because Evola believed it was the destruction of “our former imperial, aristocratic, and spiritual Europe” that made Jewish domination possible, it was only in returning to the principles of this Europe that he saw any prospect of effectively resisting the demonic order born of their domination.
The struggle against the de-Aryanizing forces entails, then, not merely a racial struggle against alien domination, but also a spiritual struggle to reclaim the white man’s original identity—a spiritual struggle having nothing to do with woolly abstractions or mystic escapes, but one engaged as a heroic action faithful to the white man’s Aryan essence.
What is this essence?
Virtually every historical stage in the white man’s encounter with Judah has unleashed the forces of anti-Semitism. For the Jew this is sign of the inherently pathological character of gentile society; for Evola it suggested that everything “connected with Semitism, and, above all, with Jews, appears as peculiarly repulsive to the peoples of the white race.” This is the case not simply because Jewish interests clash with white ones, but because they, as a people defined by Talmudic Law, offend the animating spirit of that “common primordial civilization” from which all the various historical and more recent white civilizations arose.
It was this primal spiritual opposition between Jew and Aryan, Evola argued, that was at the root of anti-Semitism.
Borrowing terms taken from J. J. Bachofen, Evola characterized the Aryan spirit as solar and virile, the Jewish spirit as lunar and feminine.
“Arya,” the root of “Aryan,” Evola noted, comes from a Sanskrit word designating “noblemen,” for “out of the mass of common and mediocre beings rise men ‘of race’ in the sense of higher, ‘noble’ beings.”
The highest expression of the Aryan’s aristocratic racial spirit took the form of the warrior’s “affirmative attitude to the divine”—spirit being that “which in better times was called ‘race’ by well-born persons: that is, straightforwardness, inner unity, character, dignity, manliness, immediate sensitivity for all values that are at the core of all human greatness and which, since they are situated far above fortuitous reality, govern this same reality.”
Behind the numerous mythological and symbolic references to the bright sky found in the various Indo-European cultures, all of which upheld value systems oriented to the transcendent heavens, there prevailed a sense of the “incorporeal virility of light.”
The solar is indeed light itself, unlike the lunar which brightens only when it reflects and absorbs light outside it.
Relatedly, the Europeans’ ancient pagan cults all believed in a race of divine heroes. In this spirit, they saw themselves as the “eminent bearers” of the universal forces associated with these heroes’ “solar glory”—as expressed in principles of freedom and personality, loyalty and honor.
Similarly, the Aryan spirit was realized not in the works of monks and rabbis—but in action, preeminently in the struggles the warrior waged against the enemies he had to fight, in himself and in his world.
From this, Evola claimed the Aryan’s “characteristic ideal was more royal than sacerdotal, more the ideal of a transfiguring affirmation than the priestly idea of religious abandon.”
Unlike the “devout and imploring servility” characteristic of the Abrahamic religions, the Aryan relation to the divine was active and affirmative.
“It was the heroes, more than the saints” that the Aryan saw as reaching “the highest and the most privileged places of immortality.” His quest for knowledge and understanding, it followed, was engaged as a virile, heroic conquest—not something “sinful” like the biblical Adam’s attempt to eat from the divine tree.
In contrast to Aryan solarity, Evola claimed the Jews’ lunar spirit negates the synthesis of spirituality and virility, emphasizing both that which is coarsely materialist and sensualist on the one side, and escapist and contemplative on the other. Mammonism and rationalism accordingly dominate their relationship to the world, just as the body for them is not an instrument of the spirit, but simply flesh and matter, something to be stimulated and pleased.
The dualistic conception of body and soul born of the Jewish spirit, whose abstract and fatalistic contemplativeness is “devoid of any interest in the heroic and supranatural affirmation of the personality,” cannot, as a result, but level the higher values associated with the Aryan’s Olympian spirituality.
In the cultural realm this leads the Jews “to falsify, make ridiculous, render illusory and unjust” that which is distinct to peoples of Aryan origin and which resists the “animal, low, or dirty aspects of things.” “To degrade, to soil, and to debase all that [which the white man considers] great and noble, and to unleash at the same time obscure, instinctive, sexual, pre-personal tendencies” that undermine his values are all, in fact, second nature to them.
The Jews’ critical assault on white values is also the key to their dominion, for through the opportunistic infiltrations that enable them to control the governing institutions, they seek (usually in the name of democracy, humanity, and science) to tear down all the historically established principles and orders obstructing their designs.
Wherever, then, “the virile, heroic, triumphant assumption of the Divine vanishes, to give way to the exaltation of the pathos of a slavish, depersonalizing, turbidly and Messianic attitude toward spirit,” there Jewry inevitably triumphs over Aryanity.
To fight the forces denaturing the white man, it is not enough, therefore, to take half-measures infused with the alien Semitic spirit of the modern world.
A great many anti-Semites, though, do just this, seeing Aryanity as an inverse Semitism and not a true anti-Semitism. To be fully anti-Semitic, Evola argued, cannot be compromised by the ideas and principles against which whites struggle. They need to fight as Aryans.
[They] need to be radical. Values must be evoked once again which can be seriously called Aryan, and not merely on the basis of vague and one-sided concepts suffused with biological materialism. Values of a solar Olympian spirituality, of a classicism of clarity and controlled force, of a new love for difference and free personality, and, at the same time, for hierarchy and universality that a stock newly possessed of a virile ability to rise from “life” to “more-than-life” can create as against a world torn to shreds, without true principles and peace.
* * *
Evola’s anti-Semitism was largely an offshoot of his “Traditionalist” opposition to liberal modernity and its assault on the Aryan spirit, just as his support for racial nationalism in the Thirties and Forties was based less on his belief in its various ideological manifestations than in its resistance to the materialist and Judaifying impulses of the Third Estate.
Yet not long after 1945, once the forces of the Third Estate had crushed the last remnants of Traditional Europe, the Jews ceased to be a target of Evola’s traditionalist critique. At the very point, then, when the lunar forces became triumphant, Evola seemed to abandon his anti-Semitism.
Part of the reason had to do with the impossibility of mounting an effective political resistance to the Judeo-liberal order of the postwar period. For once Europe fell under the yoke of the extra-European powers and every vestige of its historic past fell into ruin, all that could be done in this new dark age was to make certain that those few men left standing were able to keep the dimming embers of the Aryan spirit from being entirely extinguished.
As he wrote in 1948, “I see nothing but a world of ruins, where a kind of front line is possible only in the catacombs.” To sustain this underground resistance, it was henceforth necessary to adopt a stoic—an indifferent—attitude to the frenzied antics of what had become a totally Hebraicized world.
But there was another reason for his waning interest in the Jewish Question.
In his “spiritual autobiography,” The Road of Cinnabar (1972), Evola writes that following the Second World War he thought it “absurd” to continue stressing the white man’s superiority over the Jew “because the negative behavior [traditionally] attributed to Jews had now become that of the majority of ‘Aryans.’” That is, in an age where the Jewish spirit of liberal modernity prevailed and most whites had succumbed to it, it was futile to exalt Aryan values, for whites, the Aryans’ alleged heirs, now behaved no differently than Jews.
For this reason, I think his postwar stance was less an abandonment of his earlier anti-Semitic critique than a recognition that the subversive forces (of which the Jews were the most conspicuous embodiment) had become hegemonic and that those few white men who had not succumbed had no choice but to “ride the tiger” until it dropped of exhaustion—the tiger being the perverted powers that had come to rule the world.
Insofar as the twenty-first century announces a new order of battle, Evola’s apolitical stoicism can no longer be our position today.
But it is nevertheless one that points to what is at stake in the wars we’ll have to fight if whites are to have a future—for the white man’s blood will not survive if he defiles the spirit that makes him who he is.
Bibliographical Note: Ten of Evola’s twenty-five books have now been translated into English, though not his racialist and fascist ones (with the exception of the pamphlet “Three Aspects of the Jewish Problem”). The interested reader should probably begin not with his magnum opus, Revolt against the Modern World, which demands a good deal of familiarity with his thought, but rather with Men among the Ruins, beautifully edited by Michael Moynihan and introduced with a long biographical essay by the Austrian scholar H. T. Hanson. There are also several English-language websites devoted to him. The one with the best collection of his articles is Evola As He Is (http://thompkins_cariou.tripod.com). For those who read Italian, an excellent introduction is Adriano Romualdi, Julius Evola: L’uoma e l’opera (Rome: Volpe, 1968). For those who read French, see Christophe Boutin, Politique et tradition: Julius Evola dans le siècle (Paris: Kimé, 1992). On Evola’s “problematic” metaphysics, see my “The Primordial and the Perennial: Tradition in the Thought of Martin Heidegger and Julius Evola,” Tyr: Myth—Culture—Tradition 3 (2007).
Michael O’Meara, Ph.D., studied social theory at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales in Paris and modern European history at the University of California, Berkeley. He is the author of New Culture, New Right: Anti-Liberalism in Postmodern Europe (Bloomington, Ind.: 1stBooks, 2004).
I recently watched the BBC documentary series, Tribe (Going Tribal in the US), which originally aired between January 2005 and September 2007. In the series, former Royal Marine instructor Mr. Bruce Parry visits remote tribes in Africa, Asia, and Oceania, and spends a month living with each as a participant observer. The idea is to interact with the tribesmen, adopt their customs, and take part in their rituals in an effort to understand their lives.
In the series, we see Mr. Parry eat the unthinkable, don a penis gourd, undergo penile inversion, ingest powerful hallucinogenics, and subject himself to ornamental mutilation. It is an extreme form of ethnography, turned into mass entertainment.
The series was especially interesting to me for two reasons. First, in the episode Cannibals and Crampons, where Mr. Parry spends a month living with practicing cannibals, the Kombai in the forests of West Papua, the expedition party (consisting of Mr. Parry, Mr. Mark Anstice, and a local guide) makes first contact with a tribe never previously known or observed. We are given the opportunity here to witness, if vicariously, how humans who continue to live today as our ancestors lived tens of thousands of years ago react to an encounter with what are effectively highly-evolved descendants visiting from a distant future (more on this later).
Kombai tribesmen in New Guinea
Secondly, it was possible to observe obvious parallels between the behavioral patterns, emotional proclivities, and styles of communication, dress, and bodily adornment prevalent in the prehistorical communities featured in the series, and those of their near genetic relatives in modern, urban environments in the developed world. Against this backdrop, the subcultures of urban Blacks in America in particular, emerged not as idiosyncratic responses to slavery and racism, but simply as reformulated expressions of desires and sensibilities that have their roots in a tribal past.
That the parallels are resilient enough to hold across time and space and radically different environmental conditions will not come as a surprise to anthropologists who accept the influence of genes in human behavior. Indeed, these parallels are efficiently explained by J. Philippe Rushton’
s Race, Evolution, and Behavior (1995). In this sense, because of its illustrative power, Tribe is educational in a manner that no anthropological tract or table of statistical figures could hope to be.
Among the African tribes showcased in the series, we see a preoccupation for status display through prominent and extreme forms of bodily adornment, such as lip plates, jewelry, and scarification. We see a tendency to glorify violence and for neighboring tribes to remain locked in perpetual conflict, involving frequent raids and bloody retribution. We see a tendency towards very pronounced expressiveness in communication, and, outside combat mode, for masculine body language to involve, in contrast, an almost lethargic, lazy calm.
We see a tendency to engage in extreme performances and acts of body modification in order to be deemed desirable by members of the opposite sex—
matched by relatively loose emotional ties. We see, finally, a tendency for life to unfold at a generally slow pace: outside of the hunt for food (which is never conducted in a hurry), long stretches of diurnal inactivity are punctuated by ritualistic performances involving dance and music of a vocal / percussive nature (this slow pace of life contrasts sharply with the constant activity of the cold-dwelling Nenet, in Asia, also featured in the series).
These traits can still be found today among Blacks in Western urban environments, where lip plates, beads, and scars may have given way to gold toothcaps, diamond-studded gold chains, and tattoos; elaborate tribal gear to dandy zoots; Suri stick fights to Gangsta Rap music videos; cows to Bentleys; cattle raids to muggings and robberies; bows and arrows to pistols and Uzis; tribal warfare to gang warfare; cattle jumps to Rap concerts; polygamous hunters to promiscuous players; outlandish shamans to exuberant preachers; ritual dance and music in the village to ritual dance and music in the church.
Woman of the Suri Tribe of Ethiopia
A genetic explanation for the resilience of these parallels, despite centuries of geographical and cultural isolation in markedly different environments, might partly elucidate why access to the wealth, infrastructure, and technology of White societies has not erased or fundamentally altered existing behavioral, cognitive, and emotional traits among post-colonial Blacks in Africa. Rather it has amplified their expression.
Because of this amplification, sociocultural differences between Blacks and Whites have become more pronounced. It would be simplistic perhaps to characterize this process as a post-colonial process whereby Black populations have become more dysfunctional. Michael Levin, Richard Lynn, and J. Philippe Rushton, writing from different perspectives, have suggested that behavioral, cognitive, and emotional traits that are sometimes deemed dysfunctional in White societies are, in fact, normal for Black populations.
If these authors are correct, this would furnish a powerful argument against the effectiveness, and indeed the wisdom, of White-sponsored development programs in Sub-Saharan Africa and other developmentally “retarded” parts of the world. Indeed, decades after decolonization, and despite ever-growing mountains of aid money being thrown at the Dark Continent, violence, famine, disease, and economic failure — even in formerly prosperous colonies like Rhodesia and South Africa —
have flourished and remained endemic.
Theories of development uphold the belief that, given enough investment and education, sub-Saharan Africa can develop itself into something equivalent to the West, save minor anatomical differences. To my mind, those theories are profoundly dubious.
Firstly, they are elaborated on fallacious a prioris, such as the idea that the region needs to be developed, and that development necessarily means convergence with modern Western paradigms, such as capitalism, free markets, democracy, and progress.
Secondly, they rationalize their own failure by attributing it to an imperfect implementation of these Western paradigms, as opposed to the futility of introducing them in the first place. Development theories ignore that the peoples indigenous to the region have a suite of traits and abilities that in important ways are very different from those of European-descended peoples.
Development theories also ignore the fact that the abstract philosophical concepts, the legal relations, and the technology and infrastructure of European societies reflect the desires and sensibilities of European-descended peoples. This is because the traits of European-descended peoples that predispose them to these phenomena were adaptive responses to a unique set of environmental conditions — conditions that were very different from those of sub-Saharan Africa. Things like political parties, banks, post offices, civil servants, and integral equations with partial derivatives never existed — and had no reason to exist —
in the sub-Saharan bush until their introduction by European colonialism.
Left-leaning Science Fiction authors have critiqued colonialism via scenarios where aliens, typically with a unique biology and originating from a highly advanced civilization, arrive on Earth and set out to conquer the planet in order to despoil it of its natural resources. When one considers that the European settlers of the 19th century were incalculably more advanced than the bushmen they encountered in sub-Saharan Africa, and that these settlers possessed cognitive abilities, technologies, and a body of knowledge that was inconceivable, unassimilable, and incomprehensible to the peoples they conquered, it seems fair to draw an analogy with the alien conquest Sci-Fi scenarios.
In these scenarios, plotlines typically end with either the triumph or the defeat of the conquerors. However, imagine if an author were to write a novel in which highly advanced aliens conquered the Earth, stayed for a few centuries, and then, for reasons of their own, decided to leave, after having erected a society predicated on traits vastly different from — and, in some areas, biologically far superior to — our own. I suppose that the part of the novel dealing with how the aliens sought to alleviate their guilt by attempting to make us more like them would probably read like sub-Saharan Africa’
s postcolonial history.
Although Mr. Parry appears to possess irritatingly liberal sensibilities, he nevertheless seems to partly concur with my view that development programs in certain parts of the world are a White man’
s folly. In the series he frequently expresses the hope that the tribes he has encountered will be allowed to decide their own destiny, solve their own problems, and (if they choose to do so) evolve their societies in their own way and at their own pace.
In my view, there is no moral turpitude in allowing sub-Saharan societies to devolve until they stabilize at a lower ecological niche, if this means that indigenous peoples end up with societies that more accurately reflect their desires, sensibilities, and capabilities. Such societies might even be happier and more stable than societies whose correct functioning necessitates a suite of traits that is absent in the population and which could only be mimicked with great difficulty.
Put more simply, a society that whose correct functioning is predicated on, for example, people averaging IQ scores of 180 is unlikely to be stable or happy if the people living in it only average IQ scores of 90. This is Richard Lynn’s argument in Eugenics: A Reassessment(2001). The quality of the decisions will not be the same. The same applies to any society whose correct functioning is predicated on the presence in abundance of very rare or non-existent traits. Like Communism, such a society would be contra natura.
The problem with proponents of development, of course, is that, for all their righteous talk of tolerance and diversity, they are disturbed when they see populations with living conditions vastly different from their own. This is because they rely on evaluative dimensions designed to measure compliance with their preferred subset of Western values, rather than with the values of the population being evaluated.
One does not have to go to sub-Saharan Africa, however, to see examples of how what we may proudly consider an asset in our society is scornfully repudiated as dysfunctional in another: Look at the Muslim world vis a visfemale visibility and bacon sandwiches. A functional sub-Saharan Africa would necessitate Western liberals being prepared to accept lifestyles in the region that people in the West would likely regard with horrified fascination —
and at times find deeply disturbing and even repugnant. It would also necessitate a painful period of readjustment, which would involve a great deal of misery and end with a population implosion. This is just as inconceivable to modern Western minds as the idea that decolonization in many cases ought to have been accompanied by some level of deindustrialization.
Certainly, the naked cannibals first encountered by Mr. Parry and Mr. Anstice in the forests of West Papua looked terrified at the mere sight of European man. One can only speculate what the two expeditioners, fully decked up in high-tech trekking gear and digital equipment, must have looked like to the forestmen, who had never seen or conceived anything remotely similar. Being distant prehistorical relatives, it is certainly easier for us to comprehend them than for them to comprehend us. And given that the forestmen relied on foot travel and stone axes, Mr. Parry and Mr. Anstice might as well have come from a different planet. Mr. Parry and Mr. Anstice chose, correctly, to leave them alone and be on their way.
Notwithstanding the above reflections, my primary concern with this discussion is the effect that sub-Saharan development programs have on White societies. Firstly, because it is predicated on fantasy, development programs have exacerbated failure, and failure has, in turn, been a driver for Third World immigration into European societies. There is little doubt that many of the facilities we have the West, such as abundant food supplies, hot showers, insect repellents, analgesic tablets, and rapid transport, will be attractive to any human anywhere. Without an understanding of what the elaboration and maintenance of such facilities demand in terms of cognitive ability, temperament, and lifestyle, the West is seen by the “undeveloped” mind as an El Dorado to be despoiled of its riches —
a paradise of affluence, comfort, and leisure. This is extremely dangerous, given population and birthrate differentials.
Secondly, and for the reasons stated earlier, I find the guilt-mongering, anti-White subtext that runs through development and ‘anti-poverty’
campaigns dangerous and an insult to the intelligence of educated men. This is not only because the idea of development is fallacious, but because development is also used as a moral weapon to rally support for an ostensibly egalitarian political program that seeks to undermine European societies. Whether the political program is utopian or dreamt up by malicious conspirators, as some have argued, is immaterial. The end product is the same.
At this point in our history, a shrinking demographic presence and the dominance of legitimized anti-White ideologies in the West represents a material threat to the existence of European-descended peoples in a world where they already constitute a small minority. Either by accident or design, theories of development contribute to existing negative trends.
It is important, therefore, that these theories be subjected to radical critiques that fundamentally challenge their underlying assumptions. Because these assumptions are quintessentially Western in character, it should be possible to critique them using post-colonialist language and theoretical frameworks.
In other words, it should be possible to enlist the spawn of our opponents and marshal them to soldier against their progenitors. I would eventually like to see a tidal wave of criticism directed against proponents of Third World development, and not just a polemical compilation by an underground Black Metal label. We need to develop our own postcolonial theories and do our ownmarch through the institutions.
Tribe is only a television program, but I believe that, in the context of the ideas articulated here, it has educational value, provided it is viewed intelligently and with caution. Given the enormously favorable consensus we witnessed in response to Bob Geldof’
s Live8 events of 2005, it seems fair to assume that most Westerners support the idea of development in the Third World. Yet, only a small minority of Westerners has ever been to sub-Saharan Africa, and within that minority only those affiliated to Christian missions have ever met a bushman in the wild.
This lack of actual experience with Africans helps to perpetuate the comforting liberal myth among Westerners that the objects of their compassion can and must eventually become middle class consumers, just like them. In as much as seeing is the first step to understanding, Tribe may be a step in the right direction.
Confronted with clear evidence that she tried to obstruct justice in the case of Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman — two former top AIPAC officials slated to go on trial for espionage on June 2 — Rep. Jane Harman, a California Democrat, did what politicians usually do when forced to face unpleasant facts: she brazened it out. In a response to the Congressional Quarterlypiece by Jeff Stein that has proved such an entertaining embarrassment, she brayed:
“These claims are an outrageous and recycled canard, and have no basis in fact. I never engaged in any such activity. Those who are peddling these false accusations should be ashamed of themselves.”
Notice how she doesn’t deny saying that she would “engage in any such activity,” i.e. that she would intervene with the Bush White House and the Justice Department to get the charges in the Rosen-Weissman case reduced or dropped — instead, she says she never kept her promise to the “suspected Israeli agent,” as the CQ piece described her interlocutor. What? A politician who breaks a promise? I’m shocked! — shocked!
Seriously, though, from this one might infer that Harman is utterly shameless, but, then again, maybe not. On Wednesday night, she showed up at the Shakespeare Theatre Company’s glitzy “Welcome to Washington” event, although, as Roll Callreported, “she kept a low profile. [Heard on the Hill] spotted the Congresswoman entering the theater in darkness just after the curtain went up, and then saw her slip out while performers gave their final bows.”
As Shakespeare put it in Cymbelline:
“Though those that are betrayed
Do feel the treason sharply, yet the traitor
Stands in worse case of woe.”
Could it be that Harman does have a sense of shame — or was she just trying to avoid reporters?
In any case, Rep. Harman is not alone in her shamelessness, not as long as there are people like David Frum around. Frum, you ‘ll recall, is the author of the “axis of evil” trope, fired from his White House speechwriting job for grandstanding — or, rather, for his wife’s grandstanding — and now embarked on a crusade to save the GOP from “extremism” — this from a man who wrote a book calling for the invasion of nearly every country in the Middle East, and advocating total surveillance of the American people by government authorities. He also wrote a deranged piece for National Review that attacked antiwar conservatives as “traitors.” This last is a bit much to take given his latest: a piece portraying Harman — and Rosen and Weissman — as “heroes,” and smearing US prosecutors as anti-Semites and worse.
According to Frum, the thievery of vital US intelligence engaged in by Rosen and Weissman — stealing highly classified secrets related to Al Qaeda, providing documents revealing internal US government discussions, and various other sensitive items — never happened. These acts are described in the indictment, but Frum isn’t interested in the indictment, or in even knowing the details of the government’s case. All that he tells us is that “the story is almost insanely complicated” — when it actually isn’t at all complicated, unless one is trying willfully to misunderstand the charges and their basis in fact.
Rosen and Weissman systematically milked former Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin for top secret information to which he had access, and he handed over a veritable treasure trove of secrets: Franklin kept over 80 top secret documents, filched from Pentagon files, at his home, doubtless for reference in case his handlers (Rosen and Weissman) needed to answer an inquiry from their handler (Naor Gilon, chief of political affairs at the Israeli embassy). The spy nest met over a period of two years, always after taking elaborate security precautions: the indictment details one meeting during which the spies switched locations three times. These guys knew what they were doing was treasonous, and rightly feared they were being followed.
None of this makes it into Frum’s narrative, however. Instead, he narrowly focuses in on one detail of the case, and comes up with a truly lame ”explanation” for the arrest and alleged “persecution” of all involved:
“Elements within the FBI and other U.S. agencies have been convinced for years that Israeli spy agencies have penetrated the U.S. government. These anti-Israel elements responded with what spy types call a ‘mole hunt’ — a ferocious search for the suspected infiltrator. Again and again, the search has turned up empty. But from the point of view of a mole hunter, nothing is more damning than the absence of evidence: The inability to discover the mole only proves the mole’s vicious cunning!”
From the point of view of a committed Israel-Firster like Frum, there can never be such a creature as an Israeli mole, and so a “mole hunt” only proves the inherent wickedness (and ill-disguised anti-Semitism) of the hunters. And of course, these mole-hunters are “anti-Israel” — never mind that their job requires them to protect US national security, no matter what country is trying to penetrate our defenses. We all have a duty to look the other way! Frum cites a supposed “lack of evidence,” and yet refuses to even so much as mention the details of the government’s case — except in one instance, which he manages to get totally wrong. Frum writes:
“At last, in October 2005 the mole hunters found their man: a career Defense Department employee named Larry Franklin. Franklin’s offense? Brace yourself …
“Franklin had learned of U.S. intelligence reports that Iranian sabotage teams were operating inside Iraqi Kurdistan. These reports were being disregarded for a reason very familiar in the Bush years: They contained uncomfortable news that higher-ups did not wish to know.
“Franklin, however, thought the information important — maybe vitally important. He thought it needed to be pushed up the organization chart. Lacking the clout to move the information himself, he decided to do what frustrated officials often do: He leaked it.
“Specifically, he leaked the information to two employees — American citizens both — of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, in hope that they could galvanize a response from their contacts in the White House. The two, Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, shared Franklin’s information with journalists, colleagues, and the Israeli embassy. For this action, all three were charged with criminal offenses.”
In reality, the story about Iranian “sabotage teams” in Kurdistan was completely made up — by the “mole-hunters,” i.e. the FBI’s counterespionage unit, which had been watching Franklin (as well as his handlers) ever since he showed up at a luncheon attended by Rosen, Weissman, and Naor Gilon, volunteering to commit espionage on Israel’s behalf. They tracked his movements, and listened in on his phone conversations, as he responded to requests for specific information from Rosen and Weissman. After clearly establishing their target’s criminal intent, the G-men pounced, showing up at Franklin’s Kearneysville, West Virginia, home and confronting him with his treason. Franklin admitted his crimes, and agreed to help the feds nab his accomplices in exchange for leniency.
Toward that end, the FBI planted a story — the Kurdistan “sabotage team” story — and sent a “turned” Franklin to meet with his co-conspirators. Franklin told Rosen and Weissman that Israelis who had infiltrated Kurdistan and were engaged in “training” Kurdish militias were in mortal danger from Iranian “saboteurs,” and that furthermore this information was highly classified: he warned them not to use it. It didn’t take too long for them to leak it, bigtime, not only to the Israeli embassy and other AIPAC employees, but to the media as well.
The point of planting this story was to clearly establish the criminal intent of the two AIPAC spies and seal the legal case against them. It’s not clear whether Frum just doesn’t know what he’s talking about, or if he’s deliberately using this story to throw up a smokescreen so as to avoid mentioning the real crimes of Rosen and Weissman — in Frum’s case, I would tilt toward the latter. Whatever — the fact is that Frum is misinforming his readers on a story that is easily checked. Whether it’s sheer laziness, or the habit of deception, I leave to my readers (and Frum’s editors) to decide.
While Frum’s response to the Harman spy scandal is all too predictable, the response from Congress has been to call for an investigation — not of Harman, but of those who uncovered her corruption! If Rep. Harman was overheard telling an Israeli agent that she’d help him get the charges dropped or reduced, in return for political favors from AIPAC — then it’s the eavesdroppers who’re at fault and must be brought to justice. It doesn’t seem to matter that the FBI went before a judge and got approval before they started listening in — nor does the fact that they weren’t listening in on Harman, specifically, but on the “suspected Israeli agent.” All the Democratic-controlled Congress is concerned with is protecting one of its own.
I might add that the Republicans, who are usually quick to pounce on the merest hint of scandal in Democratic ranks, have said not one word about Harman’s embarrassing ties to a spy nest — not a peep. Which makes sense, because they’re just as firmly in the Lobby’s pocket as the Democrats in Congress. Not to mention that whiff of Bush era corruption wafting into the room once we take into account the quashing of the investigation into Harman by then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who saved her skin by averring “We need Jane.” Rep. Harman was the Bush administration’s biggest Democratic ally when it came to massively violating the civil liberties of Americans.
Both parties are in this up to their necks. That’s why Obama’s Justice Department is now openly leaking the information that they’re considering dropping the charges against the AIPAC spies — with nary a protest from either side of the aisle.
It looks like Harman, Frum, and the Lobby have won, after all — despite the mountains of evidence against Rosen and Weissman, and the protests of hardworking patriotic law enforcement officials who are dismayed and demoralized by the blank check our Justice Department is giving Israel to spy and steal our secrets with impunity. They leaked the dirt on Harman out of desperation, in the hope that popular outrage would prevent Israel’s American spies from beating the law and slithering back to their nests.
These decisions, of course, are never made in a vacuum: it’s all about politics, and the politic thing to do is to give in to the Lobby, and neo-Pollardites like Frum. Overseas, this will score the administration some brownie points in Israel, and perhaps soften the right-wing government’s increasingly intransigent stance against the new American president, while domestically it will placate and temporarily silence a vocal claque of critics.
After all, what else could we expect a self-proclaimed “pragmatist” to do?
In a better world, a member of Congress caught on tape agreeing to obstruct justice at the request of an agent of a foreign power would have stepped down as soon as the news hit the headlines. In our shameless era, however, that isn’t likely to happen. Instead, the spies will get off, Israel will continue to steal us blind, and a trial that would have shocked the American people and portrayed Israel in a far more realistic light than our news media dares will never take place.
How’s that for change we can believe in?
However, it doesn’t have to turn out that way. It could be that the patriotic, pro-national security counter-intelligence officials who have exposed the AIPAC spy nest and their enablers in government will have their hopes vindicated — their hope that the American people will protest once they understand how and why espionage is allowed to be practiced openly in our nation’s capital, protected and defended in the very halls of Congress.
The outlook of this shocking case doesn’t look too good at the moment, but that could change — if enough Americans are informed and angry enough to protest. The decision to drop the case, as of this writing, has yet to be made: it’s only that they’re considering dropping it. There’s just one way to lodge your protest, at this point, and that is to contact the US Attorney’s office in the Eastern District of Virginia, where the case is being tried.
Remember, there are no doubt people in that office fighting to keep this case alive — so be polite. Briefly express your disappointment upon reading news reports that the case might be dropped, and your hope that this is not the case.
After opening the door to a truth commission to investigate torture by the CIA of al-Qaida subjects, and leaving the door open to prosecution of higher-ups, President Obama walked the cat back.
He is now opposed to a truth commission. That means it is dead. He is no longer interested in prosecutions. That means no independent counsel — for now.
Sen. Harry Reid does not want any new “commissions, boards, tribunals, until we find out what the facts are.” Thus, there will be none. The place to find out the facts, says the majority leader, is the intelligence committee of Sen. Dianne Feinstein.
Though belated, White House recognition that high-profile public hearings on the “enhanced interrogation techniques” used by the CIA in the Bush-Cheney years could divide the nation and rip this city apart is politically wise.
For any such investigation must move up the food chain from CIA interrogators, to White House lawyers, to the Cabinet officers who sit on the National Security Council, to Dick Cheney, to The Decider himself.
And what is the need to re-air America’s dirty linen before a hostile world, when the facts are already known.
The CIA did use harsh treatment on al-Qaida. That treatment was sanctioned by White House and Justice Department lawyers. The NSC, Cheney and President Bush did sign off. And Obama has ordered all such practices discontinued.
This is not a question of “What did the president know and when did he know it?” It is a question of the legality and morality of what is already known. And on this, the country is rancorously split.
Many contend that torture is inherently evil, morally outrageous and legally impermissible under both existing U.S. law and the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war.
Moreover, they argue, torture does not work.
Its harvest is hatred, deceptions and lies. And because it is cowardly and cruel, torture degrades those who do it, as well as those to whom it is done. It instills a spirit of revenge in its victims.
When the knowledge of torture is made public, as invariably it is, it besmirches America’s good name and serves as a recruiting poster for our enemies and a justification to use the same degrading methods on our men and women.
And it makes us no better than the Chinese communist brain-washers of the Korean War, the Japanese war criminals who tortured U.S. POWs and the jailers at the Hanoi Hilton who tortured Sen. John McCain.
Moreover, even if done in a few monitored cases, where it seems to be the only way to get immediate intelligence to save hundreds or thousands from imminent terror attack, down the chain of command they know it is being done. Thus, we get sadistic copycat conduct at Abu Ghraib by enlisted personnel to amuse themselves at midnight.
While the legal and moral case against torture is compelling, there is another side.
Let us put aside briefly the explosive and toxic term.
Is it ever moral to kill? Of course. We give guns to police and soldiers, and honor them as heroes when they use their guns to save lives.
Is it ever moral to inflict excruciating pain? Of course. Civil War doctors who cut off arms and legs in battlefield hospitals saved many soldiers from death by gangrene.
The morality of killing or inflicting severe pain depends, then, not only on the nature of the act, but on the circumstances and motive.
The Beltway Snipers deserved death sentences. The Navy Seal snipers who killed those three Somali pirates and saved Captain Richard Phillips deserve medals.
Consider now Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind of 9-11, which sent 3,000 Americans to horrible deaths, and who was behind, if he did not do it himself, the beheading of Danny Pearl.
Even many opponents against torture will concede we have the same right to execute Khalid Mohammed as we did Timothy McVeigh. But if we have a right to kill him, do we have no moral right to waterboard him for 20 minutes to force him to reveal plans and al-Qaida accomplices to save thousands of American lives?
Americans are divided.
“Rendition,” a film based on a true story, where an innocent man suspected of belonging to a terrorist cell is sent to an Arab country and tortured, won rave reviews.
But more popular was “Taken,” a film in which Liam Neeson, an ex-spy, has a daughter kidnapped by white slavers in Paris, whom he tortures for information to rescue her and bring her home.
Certainly, Cheney and Bush, who make no apologies for what they authorized to keep America safe for seven and a half years, should be held to account. But so, too, should Barack Obama, if U.S. citizens die in a terror attack the CIA might have prevented, had its interrogators not been tied to an Army Field Manual written for dealing with soldiers, not al-Qaida killers who favor “soft targets” such as subways, airliners and office buildings.
As much as Wilmot Robertson did for the white survival movement – and his work was impressive and considerable – his one major mistake was insisting that “nothing could be done” by whites to take back their civilization until an unspecified period of “education” made conditions right for action. He launched a magazine, Instauration, in 1975 to help in that education effort.
Sad to say, by the middle 1970s most of our “leaders” had already decided to do nothing out of hopelessness, laziness, or sheer cowardice. Robertson was the first of which I am aware to posit a period of inactivity as a strategy toward eventual action of some kind.
Today, the “do nothing” attitude seems to have infected nearly all reasonable white activist organizations. With the best of our people sitting in self-imposed exile from the public arena, the media are free to paint the foolish and violent actions of the stupidest and most irresponsible among us as the “mainstream” of the “white supremacy” movement – scaring away any potential recruits whose hearts are in the right place, but do not want to be associated with lunatics and criminals. Our refusal to act publicly in a reasoned and nonviolent way must certainly keep many talented and sincere people from ever finding us and joining our virtually immobile “movement.”
The unchallenged straw man of violent “white supremacy” is also a godsend for the enemy’s fundraising efforts, and appears to justify the endless agitation for increased repression not just of white action, but of our history, our speech, and our very ideas. All of this, of course, makes it ever less likely that Robertson’s day of deliverance will someday arrive.
One can only laugh at the thought of Lenin and Mao, Hitler and Mussolini, Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela, and leaders of the more recent homosexual and handicapped revolutions urging their followers to sit around and twiddle their thumbs until some celestial alarm clock informs the official astrologers that the “time is right” for a revolt guaranteed to be both painless and unstoppable. Yet that is precisely where most of us sit, year after year, while our race’s plight becomes more and more desperate and our options fewer and more bleak.
In the same way, many responsible couples will postpone having children for a decade or more, until their careers are on track, their finances are in place, and the “time is right.” Yes, this is responsible behavior, but it forfeits their ability to have numerous offspring before age makes that a prohibitively dangerous or impossible prospect. Too often, such couples grow to enjoy their solitude, or the indulgences they can afford on their own, and they eventually decide not to be inconvenienced by children, or feel that they are too old to take on such a challenge.
Look at the other side, at the teeming masses of nonwhites spew ing forth progeny while they themselves are still children. Yes, it is irresponsible behavior – they cannot possibly feed, clothe, shelter, and nurture these children. But so what?
Which side is winning – the responsible or the irresponsible? Where does the future lie – with a relative handful of high-quality whites or with the overwhelming masses of low-quality nonwhites? Which side is supporting the other through confiscatory taxation? Which side is so weak that it cannot even effectively protest – much less stop – a massive alien invasion of its own homeland?
Ask yourself: what would possibly constitute a “right time” for action?
When Negroes began agitating for “equal rights” in the 1950s, the South was rigidly segregated and virtually all of its federal, state, and local politicians were fervently dedicated to upholding that policy. Through their legendary political longevity, Southern members of Congress controlled most key committees and wielded incredible power. Was that the “right time” to begin a fight for civil rights?
When homosexuals held their first demonstration for equal rights in 1965, same-sex sodomy was illegal in every state, and virtually every social, political, cultural, governmental, religious, and business institution considered them anathema. Could that possibly have been the “right time” to demand equality?
How could 1776, when the British Empire ruled not only the seas, but a huge proportion of the entire globe, have been the “right time” for a small band of upstart colonists to challenge the might of John Bull?
Face it: NOW is always the “right time” for assertion of our group and individual rights.
As Klansman Daniel Carver used to observe on the Howard Stern radio show: “If we’re gonna have a race war, we need to get on with it, while whites still have a chance to win.”
By sitting on our hands for the past four decades, we have only made our task infinitely harder. Instead of standing up on our hind legs then, like men, and stopping the anti-white juggernaut before it became supreme in every aspect of American life, we waited for the “right time” – that fantasy date when we would somehow be able to just ride up (most likely on a unicorn) and reclaim our lost rights without any resistance, without any cost, without any sacrifice or inconvenience at all.
Well, here’s a dirty little secret: That day is never, never, never going to come.
With literally every hour that passes our numbers are smaller, our prospects are dimmer, our rights are fewer, and our chances of survival – let alone a return to power – move closer to absolute zero.
Remember that tired old cliché about the Holocaust: “When they came for the Jews, I didn’t protest, because I wasn’t a Jew . . . .”
Well . . . when “they” raised our taxes to pay for legions of new black and brown parasites, we didn’t protest, because it would have been “selfish.”
When “they” made white males second-class citizens by giving special “protected” status to every other group, we didn’t protest because it would have been “intolerant.”
When “they” excluded our children from colleges and jobs for being white, we didn’t protest, because it would have been “racist.”
When “they” facilitated a massive Third World invasion of the United States, we didn’t protest because it would have been “xenophobic.”
When “they” criminalized words, attitudes, and even thoughts, we didn’t protest because, by then, we were just too damn scared.
The tragedy is that “they” are really “us” – white male politicians steered by our racial and ethnic enemies, politicians we could have cajoled and coerced into seeing things our way. When they started betraying us, we could have punished them, replaced them our own stalwarts, and gotten things back on track.
But we didn’t. We waited for someone else to do it – and nobody did. We waited for it to be easy – and only made it harder.
Once more: NOW is always the “right time” for assertion of our group and individual rights.
Only Jared Taylor, of all our number, seems to have realized this and taken it to heart. Rather than simply curse the darkies, Jared lit a candle and called itAmerican Renaissance. For years he been our lone public voice in the wilderness, writing and speaking responsibly but uncompromisingly for our side, representing us on television and radio talk shows, subjecting himself to potentially horrendous mental and physical abuse – but unfailingly offering a polite, calm, reasoned, nonviolent alternative to the primitive “rednecks,” sheeted nitwits, and hopeless “nigger”-shouters that the media have epitomized as the public face of white rights in America.
Taking a leaf from the early days of the black “civil rights” movement, Jared insists on proper decorum at all times, even to coats and ties at his conferences.He will speak to anyone, debate any opponent, virtually anywhere at any time. He never raises his voice, is never impolite, and never surrenders an inch of rhetorical territory.
If we had had 100 Jared Taylors fighting for us in 1964, it is inconceivable that our race could be in the situation it faces today. If we had 10,000 Jared Taylors fighting for us today, it would be too few – but a damned good start.
NOW is always the “right time” for assertion of our group and individual rights.
Douglas Olson’s work on racial topics has appeared in Wilmot Robertson’sInstaurationin the 1980s and 1990s, and, more recently, on The Last Ditchwebsite, www.thornwalker.com/ditch.
Fears of a global flu pandemic grew as new suspected cases of a dangerous new strain of swine flu appeared around the world. It has killed up to 81 people in Mexico and spread to the United States and Canada.
Here are some questions and answers about the outbreak:
How many people have died? How many are infected?
All the fatalities have been in Mexico, where the government is reporting at least 20 and up to 81 deaths from the flu virus. Most of the dead are between 25 and 45 — the age group past pandemics have tended to strike.
Mexican officials said, however, that most of the 1,300 suspected cases were found not to have swine flu.
In the United States, the flu has infected 20 people in California, Kansas, Texas, New York and Ohio. Canada has confirmed six cases. Possible infections have also been detected in Spain, France and New Zealand.
What kind of flu is it and how is it spreading?
The virus is an influenza A virus, carrying the designation H1N1 and is spreading from person to person. It contains DNA from avian, swine and human viruses, including elements from European and Asian swine viruses, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
It is passed on by sneezing, coughing or when people pick up the virus from their hands. It likely originated in pigs, but the Mexican government and the World Health Organization have ruled out any risk of infection from eating pork.
How serious is it?
The Geneva-based WHO has declared the flu a “public health emergency of international concern.” It poses the biggest risk of a large-scale pandemic since avian flu re-emerged in 2003, killing 257 out of 421 infected in 15 countries.
The Mexican government is stressing that it can be treated and it has one million doses of antiviral drugs.
How is this flu different from ordinary flu?
The swine flu is characterized by common flu symptoms — sudden fever, muscle aches, sore throat and dry cough — but may cause more severe vomiting and diarrhea.
Common seasonal flu kills between 250,000 and 500,000 people in an average year, often targeting the elderly. Most people die from pneumonia and flu can kill previously healthy people for reasons no one quite understands. It can also worsen bacterial infections.
New flu strains can spread fast because no one has natural immunity and a vaccine can take months to develop.
This new strain of swine flu is genetically different from the H1N1 virus that the seasonal flu vaccine protects against.
How bad could it get?
A 1968 a “Hong Kong” flu pandemic killed about one million people globally. In a 1918 “Spanish” flu pandemic between 40 million and 100 million people died. However, the WHO says the world is now better prepared to withstand a flu pandemic.
What measures is the Mexican government taking?
Mexico has closed all schools in the capital and two central states until May 6 and stopped hundreds of public events in Mexico City, including concerts.
Mexico City has shut 70 percent of its bars and nightclubs, closed churches and cinemas, and the army is handing out surgical face masks on the street.
The government is recommending people avoid crowded places and refrain from greetings like shaking hands, kissing or hugging. People have been told to wash their hands frequently and avoid sharing food or kitchenware.
It has also issued an emergency decree that gives it the power to isolate sick people, enter homes or workplaces and regulate air, sea and land transportation to try to stop further infection.
The government has even extended the deadline on filing tax returns by a month to the end of May.
What is the rest of the world doing to help?
The U.S. government is monitoring developments and the CDC and the WHO are working on a vaccine.
The WHO has activated a command and control center for acute public health events nicknamed the “war room.” It says it is ready to use rapid containment measures if needed, including antivirals.
The WHO has a stockpile of 5 million treatment courses of the antiviral Tamiflu, by Swiss drugmaker Roche Holding AG and Gilead Sciences Inc, and of Relenza, made by GlaxoSmithKline, which have both proven effective against the virus.
Countries and regions also have antiviral supplies and the United States has released 25 percent of its 50-million course stockpile of the two drugs.
Should tourists with trips planned to Mexico be worried?
The CDC and the WHO say there is no need to alter travel plans and Mexico has said it saw no need to close its borders.
Disloyalty is an age-old issue with Jews, and for a simple reason: Jews often have interests as Jews that stretch beyond national boundaries. Even before the existence of Israel, Diaspora Jews often could be said to have a “foreign policy” in the sense that there was a general consensus among Jews to favor some nations and disfavor others.
For example, the Spanish Inquisition targeted Jews who pretended to be Christians, with the result that Jews in other countries sought Spain’s downfall. From 1881 until the Bolshevik Revolution, Russia was seen as an enemy of Jews. As a result, the organized Jewish community in other countries often opposed Russian interests. Jacob Schiff, the preeminent Jewish activist of the period, financed the Japanese in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–1905, and he financed revolutionaries in Russia.
At times, Jewish foreign policy interests were in conflict with those of the wider society. In 1908 Schiff also led the successful effort to abrogate the Russian Trade Agreement which was opposed by the Taft Administration as not in the interests of the United States. Schiff’s motive for helping Jews in Russia conflicted with US national interests as understood by the US government.
Questions of disloyalty are by no means unique to Jews. Loyalty issues arecommon for minority groups living as a Diaspora, as with Overseas Chinese and Indian groups living as minorities abroad. In the US, issues of divided loyalties arose among pre-1965 immigrants who retained attachments to their countries of origin. During World War I, many German-Americans were reluctant to support the Allied cause against Germany because of their ties with their homeland.
The German-Americans eventually assimilated completely, at least partly because of their racial similarity to other White Americans. However, assimilation is unlikely for post-1965 immigrant minorities given their racial dissimilarities to the traditionally dominant people and culture of America. This is even more so because of the rise of multiculturalism as a paradigm for Western societies. As I noted in my review of Mearsheimer and Walt’s The Israel Lobby,
dual loyalty has become legitimate because of the rise of multiculturalism in America — a phenomenon that is due in no small part … to Jewish activism. … Beginning with Horace Kallen, Jewish intellectuals have been at the forefront in developing models of the United States as a culturally and ethnically pluralistic society. … Within the multicultural perspective, there is tolerance for different groups but the result is a tendency to deprecate the importance or even the existence of a common national identity. If there is no national identity, it’s hard to see how there can be a concept of national interest.
However, until the multicultural utopia legitimizes all loyalties in the name of world citizenship, divided loyalties will likely be a chronic issue. For example, ethnic Chinese who are American citizens have been convicted of spying for China. An April, 2008 Washington Post articlelisted 12 cases of ethnic Chinese spying on the United States.
We should not, therefore, be surprised that at least some American Jews may be more loyal to Israel than to the United States. Unlike the German-Americans who assimilated to America, Israel remains a powerful source of identity for the great majority of American Jews. Chi Mak, the Chinese spy who was sentenced to 24 years in prison for sending information on military technology to the Chinese, has as his counterparts Jonathan PollardandBen-Ami Kadish, convicted of spying on behalf of Israel.
Besides Pollard and Kadish, there is a bumper crop of neoconservatives who have been credibly accused of spying for Israel: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Stephen Bryen, Douglas Feith, and Michael Ledeen.
None of the neocons were convicted, and now we have the AIPAC espionage trial in which former AIPAC employees Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman have been accused of providing information to Israeli Embassy employees. Cong. Jane Harman has allegedly been caught agreeing to “waddle in” to help get the charges against Rosen and Weissman reduced.
As part of her defense in the media, Harman pointedly noted that “anyone I might have talked to was an American citizen, and these were conversations that took place in the United States.”
This is the multicultural defense par excellence. Harman was talking to an American about the business of AIPAC, an American organization that has not been required to register as an agent of a foreign government. What could possibly be wrong with that?
One problem with that is that the American citizen that Harman may well have been talking to was Haim Saban who is not only an American citizen but also a citizen of Israel. Saban’s commitment to Israel seems almost a caricature of a nut case Zionist — someone who makesAlan Dershowitz and Martin Peretz seem lukewarm by comparison.
Saban’s commitment to Israel really knows no bounds. This is from an interview with Haaretzin 2006; Saban’s comments are in quotes.
You said once that you are a one-note person, and that note is Israel. Why?
“You can’t explain love.”
It’s really love?
“More than love. Passion. A love that is passion.”
“When we approach Israel I always ask the pilots of my plane to let me sit in the chair between them. We don’t play ‘Heveinu Shalom Aleichem,’ but when I see the coast coming up my heart starts to go boom, boom, boom.”
Is Israel also part of your everyday life here, in Los Angeles?
“At 9 A.M. I start with London and Kirschenbaum [Channel 10's evening current events program]. After that, throughout the day, if I see something about Israel on one of the four channels that are always on in my office, on mute, I immediately turn on the sound. And I have Israeli music on my computer, classics and contemporary singers, too.
“Let me tell you a story. A few years ago I got some new albums and I put them on the computer. Suddenly ‘The Photos in the Album’ [sung by Haim Moshe] comes up. I’m standing there, shaving, listening to the lyrics. And the tears stream over the soap, without my even being able to explain why. Grandma, mom cooking, I promised you wouldn’t fight against anyone. A knife in the heart. That is the heart of the nation. And I love this nation. I love the Jewish people, even more the Israeli people. I feel a very deep bond which I can’t explain.”
Haim Saban is an American citizen, but can there really be any question where his loyalty lies? I suspect it’s the same with the neocons accused of spying, and with AIPAC’s Rosen and Weissman. A big part of my article on neocons was simply to document their intense commitment to Israel.
Nevertheless, I suppose that if we asked these people whether they are more loyal to Israel than the US, they would deny it and they may be utterly sincere in their denial.
But how could any reasonable person believe what they are saying? Psychological research shows quite clearly that people with strong ingroup loyalties are likely to suffer cognitive distortions that would bias their attitudes and their policy recommendations. They may well believe that their recommendations also benefit the United States, but they might not even be aware of how their commitment to Israel can bias their judgment.
The big picture here is that the Israel Lobby has managed to create a climate in which issues of the loyalty of American Jews are off limits at the highest reaches of government. However, this sensitivity to Jewish concerns (and susceptibility to Jewish pressure) has not filtered down into the intelligence and military establishment, especially at the lower echelons.
Commenting on the Harman case, “an official with an American Jewish organization,” stated that suspicion of the loyalties of American Jews is “rooted deep in the system and it comes from the bottom up.” An Israeli official is paraphrased as claiming that “suspicion toward Israel [is] prevalent in the military and intelligence establishments but [is] not common at the political and diplomatic levels.”
These lower-level people are less susceptible to public pressure because they represent an institutional consensus that has not yet embraced multiculturalism and the slavish American commitment to Israel. Instead, they seem committed to the quaint view that America is a nation state with interests that are different from other nations, including Israel.
This in turn suggests that the powers that be may eventually get the charges against Rosen and Weissman dropped. As a result of court rulings in favor of the defense, this certainly looks to be the case. Elite culture is far more influenced by Jewish sensibilities and far more on board with the multicultural zeitgeist than those responsible for initiating these investigations.
Rosen and Weissman may be exonerated, but the lower-level people still have quite a bit of power. The American intelligence community is doubtless the only reason Jonathan Pollard languishes in prison despite huge public relations campaigns proclaiming the injustice of his sentence. Both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were strongly pressured to pardon him so that he can return to a hero’s welcome in Israel. However, as an Israeli commentator has noted, “Each time, over the last 2 decades that there has been some sense that a commutation or a pardon might be in the offing, there have been official leaks to the media, creating such devastating press about Jonathan that it made it difficult for the president to proceed with commutation.”
The notorious Mark Rich received a pardon by throwing enough money at Bill Clinton. But there was no powerful constituency opposing Rich. It’s different with Pollard. No president dare release Pollard, even though Bill Clinton, at least, would have loved to do so. Clinton agreed to release Pollard but changed his mind when CIA Director George Tenet threatened to resign if Pollard was released.
It’s noteworthy that the Israeli official quoted above exempts the diplomatic service from the charge of being insufficiently sensitive to Israel. This was not always the case. The State Department was famously an anti-Israel bastion beginning with Secretary of State George Marshall in the Truman Administration. Jewish foreign policy activists — most notably the neocons — viewed the State Department, and particularly the Near East Desk, as dominated by Protestant Ivy Leaguers who were insensitive to Jewish concerns and particularly Israel.
But all of that is long gone — an early casualty of the demise of the East Coast Yankee Protestant elite and Jewish ascendancy in those same circles. But the intelligence and military establishments have still not capitulated entirely. As a result, we see little flare-ups of rebellion from time to time, like the current AIPAC case, the investigations of so many neocons, and the continued incarceration of Jonathan Pollard.
It is doubtless noteworthy that the Whites who remain influential in the intelligence and military establishments are relatively unlikely to be East Coast Ivy Leaguers. They are more likely to be Southerners or have other White identities. As the co-author of a recent academic report noted, “Politically and economically, the South remains the heart of our country’s military.” The FBI remains a whipping boy of liberals unhappy because it is insufficiently diverse.
The concern of the Israeli official that suspicions of Israel remain prevalent in the US military and intelligence establishments is particularly interesting. The attraction of White Southerners for the military is on a par with the attraction of White descendants of Puritans to moralistic aggression. The Southern military tradition is a legacy of the Scots-Irish Celtic culture so well described in David Hackett Fisher’s classic Albion’s Seed, Kevin Phillips’ The Cousin’s Wars,and James Webb’s Born Fighting.
As I have noted elsewhere, this is the only significant group of American White people with any cultural confidence. For this group of Whites — and only this group — there is “a racial pride that dares not speak its name, and that defines itself through cultural cues instead—a suspicion of intellectual elites and city dwellers, a preference for folksiness and plainness of speech (whether real or feigned), and the association of a working-class white minority with ‘the real America.’”
This is implicit whiteness — implicit because explicit assertions of white identity have been banned by the anti-white elites that dominate our politics and culture.
The current angst about the obvious examples of Jewish disloyalty is part of a larger cultural struggle. The old East Coast Protestant elite and its bastions, such as the State Department and the Ivy League universities, have fallen to the new multicultural zeitgeist in which Jewish disloyalty is more or less inconceivable. But there are still some holdouts. And therein lies the hope.
Kevin MacDonald is a professor of psychology at California State University–Long Beach.
Prague – The Czech police arrested David Duke, former leader of the Ku Klux Klan racist movement, in Prague today on suspicion of promotion of movements seeking suppression of human rights, Prague police spokesman told CTK.
Arriving in the Czech Republic at the invitation of local neo-Nazis, Duke was to give lectures in Prague and Brno.
Duke, a U.S. citizen, is suspected of denying or approving of the Nazi genocide and other Nazi crimes. This crime is punishable by up to three years in prison in the Czech Republic.
According to an Internet text signed by Filip Vavra, who is linked to the neo-Nazi National Resistance group, Duke has visited the Czech Republic in order to promote his book My Awakening.
Czech lawyer Klara Kalibova said some passages of the book can be interpreted as an effort at justifying or challenging the Holocaust.
Czech police are reportedly focusing on the book as well.
Duke was to give three lectures in the Czech Republic. The first was to take place at Prague’s Charles University, but the university has banned it.
The other two lectures were to be held in the centre of Prague on Saturday and in Brno, capital of Moravia, on Sunday, according to the website presenting Duke’s visit.
Some Czech politicians assessed Duke’s visit negatively earlier this week. Disapproving stand in this respect has been expressed by Interior Minister Ivan Langer and Human Rights and Minorities Minister Michael Kocab.
We start to wonder about our identity at the moment when we are about to lose it. Our grandparents never asked questions about the meaning of identity; they never worried about who they were. They took for granted their affiliation to their religion, to their tribe, and to their race. It is with the rising tide of multiculturalism, followed by the waning of the traditional nation-state that identity becomes a problem.
The term “identity” has become fashionable because it can mean everything and nothing at the same time. It is no accident that it is much in vogue today because, as noted in a recent publication of the Institut für Staatspolitik, “it has a resonance more scientific than ‘national consciousness’ or ‘national soul.’”
After the tragic experience Europeans had with their brands of nationalisms during World War II and its minor extension during the recent Yugoslav war, the European political class prefers to use neutral terms such as ” national identity.” The old expression “national consciousness,” which in the German language has a particularly strong resonance (i.e., Volksbewusstsein) or in the French language conscience nationale, smacks of fascist vocabulary and must be prudently avoided.
By contrast, the expression “national identity” sounds neutral. It can be used by all — even by those who reject their national identity or who discard the notion of racial pride. Even the icons of the left often give lip service to national pride by posing with patriotic symbols.
Barack Obama, American Patriot
It is true that when a White European or White American speaks of the “national conscience” of his ingroup, the mainstream media will automatically point to the rising spectre of racism. In the postmodern world, the barren term “identity” provides a certificate for decent civic consciousness, excluding any suspicion of xenophobia or the rejection of the Other.
Most White Europeans and White Americans resort to “functional” identities with no ties to their racial or cultural identity. Psychological research shows that Whites have fairly strong identities as Whites at the unconscious level — what Kevin MacDonald terms “implicit Whiteness.” But at the explicit, conscious level they identify themselves as Americans, or Christians, or classical music fans.
Indeed, for many Whites in the postmodern world, identity is expressed by the choice of different life styles and adherence to exotic mores. These new postmodern trendy identities replace the old identities derived from our racialand cultural heritage.
For example, an ever growing number of Whites, while gleefully expressing their French, American, English or German roots, extol bizarre supranational and transnational identities. They gladly embrace exotic Afro or Asian escapism, or the rap music of urban America. They detect their new identity not in the primeval White vicinity of their own village, but places as far away from their actual lives as possible.
Alain De Benoist observes that in postmodern society, individuals often seek alternative identities by identifying with trade marks, logos, or exotic imagery. If a new fashion dictates that new identity must be sought in Jewish Kabbalaor in the mimicry of the life style of a Negro tribe from Timbuktu, it will be gladly embraced.
Madonna proudly sporting her identity as a Kabbalist
Quite possibly modern European Americans or Europeans at large cannot become racially conscious without first facing serious physical threat by someone else’swell defined identity. Witness the break-up of Yugoslavia, when many Croats discovered an intense form of national identity thanks to the onslaught of Yugoslav communist tanks.
Victimology: A negative identity
In a multiethnic and multicultural society, the identity of different ethnic groups is incompatible with liberal individualism. On the one hand liberalism preachesthe free market with happy consumers as the ultimate identity for all; yet on the other, the very dynamics of liberalism cannot dispense with the conflicting racial and ethnic identities in its own multicultural body politic.
In fact, as ironic as this may sound. multiculturalism (which is the fraudulent euphemism for multiracialism), presents the biggest threat to the liberal system This is because it provokes the sentiments of victimology among its different ethnic and racial constituents. Modern multicultural society, as the former Yugoslavia has shown and as modern US is showing daily, is a fragile system prone to racial and ethnic tension. Pierre André Taguieff a French left-leaning writer and politically correct dissident, notes, that “particularly interethnic rivalry can be radicalized by the slightest spark (a minor event ) and merge into a conflict resembling a civil war.”
Since the end of the Cold War, the political class claims its identity by constant resurrection of the fascist straw man and the forever looming anti-Semite. Even if that anti-Semite bogeyman is not around, he must be reinvented in order to provide credibility to the liberal system. Over and over again.
At the beginning of the third millennium, one can hear on all wavelengths endless horror stories about the evil Hitler — a man who is surely destined to live forever in infamy. It appears that liberal democracy cannot function at all without using the negative Other.
The Jewish Holocaust has become a critical component of identity for the Western world in need of new quasi-religious symbolism — the culture of the Holocaust. In 2005, the President of the Federal Republic of Germany, Horst Köhler, tearfully declared in the Israeli Knesset that the responsibility for Shoah is part of German identity.” (“Die Verantwortung für die Schoa ist Teil der deutschen Identität.) Similarly, the former Chancellor of Germany Gerhard Schröder declared that “the remembrance of the Shoah belongs to our identity.”
Think about that. If taken literally, it would mean that one could not think of oneself as a German without also thinking about the role of Germans in the Holocaust. To be a German is to have the mark of Cain branded on one’s forehead.
This culture of the Holocaust is staunchly maintained by the judicial system in Europe. The perception of either real or surreal anti-Semitic identity triggers judicial wrath. Any academic who questions the modern Jewish narrative can easily land into the claws of the Criminal Code — the dreaded German StGB, Section 130, or the French “Loi Fabius- Gayssot.”
There is an obvious double standard here. It is widely permissible to exercise one’s own identity by cracking jokes against “fat Krauts” or “stinking Frogs.” or “hypocrite Wasps.” One can go even go so far as to utter a mild joke against proverbial “camel riders.” But a minor joke about Jewry is unthinkable in the media and political circles of America and Europe. One can criticize the Other by invoking free speech, provided that the Other is not a Jew.
In their desperate search of a non-racial identity, White Europeans resort to ersatz identities. For instance, they espouse the Palestinian or Tibetan identity or the identity of some distant Third World tribe as if it was their own identity. They will spot some lost Indian tribe in the Amazon forest and then, with all vicarious passion, strive to protect and preserve it.
But when it comes to defining and preserving their own racial identity — let alone preserve their race, they remain silent. To say aloud “I am proud of being a White European” smacks of racism.
Such substitute or foreign-inspired ersatz identity is particularly strong when it is couched in the narrative of victimology. Europeans are keen at erecting monuments to exotic tribes that they never heard of until the day beforeyesterday — especially ones that may have been victimized by Europeans.Days of atonement keep accumulating on the calendar. Every White European or American politician is obliged to pay moral and financial tributes to peoples whose identity has nothing in common with his own.
While Western media and opinion makers assure us that history is creeping toward an end, we are witnessing a staggering demand for the revival of non-European micro-identities, often couched in self-centred victimhoods. And each of those non-European victimhoods requires an expanding number of its domestic dead and foreign culprits. Culprits are always White Europeans, who are forced to practice the ritual of remorse.
The old sense of the tragic, which until recently was the fundamental pillar of the old Greco-Roman historical memory in Europe, cedes its place to Levantine- inspired jeremiads for victimhoods of Asian and African tribes. Slowly but surely, the European sense of the tragic is supplemented by a fixation on non-European identities.
What a scandal if a White European or American statesman fails to display remorse for the past suffering of some non-European people! What counts is the endless enumeration of non-European victims of the European past.
In this postmodern “battle of memories,” victimhoods cannot be equal. Some must take precedence over others, and it’s quite obvious that the Jewish Holocaust is the apex of victimhood in the postmodern West.
But there is a grave danger for all. Given the victimological atmosphere thatprevails today in the multiracial West, each non-European tribe, race, or community is led to believe that its own victimology is unique. This is a dangerous phenomenon because each victimology competes with other victimologies for pride of place.
The story of the 20th century is that the greatest mass murders in history — the mass murders of communism — were made possible by the Marxist ideology of victimization and they were rationalized in the name of tolerance and so-called human rights. The communist ideology of victimization resulted in the dehumanization of dissident intellectuals and political opponents, and evenwhole groups of people — with monstrous consequences.
The spirit of victimhood must search for its negative identity by negating and abolishing the Other, who is henceforth no longer perceived as human, but depicted as a monster. The spirit of victimology does not serve to prevent the conflict. It renders the conflict inevitable.
The diverse identities in the multicultural West are a severe problem. On the one hand, modern liberal Western societies require that each non-European ethnic group receives an appropriate identity and its right to historical grievance; yet on the other, liberal societies are unable to function well in an environment beset by ethnic Balkanization.
In particular, the contest of diverse victimologies makes the functioning of the liberal system extremely precarious. In essence, each victimological spirit in multiracial society is confrontational and discriminatory. It creates a climate that promotes divisiveness in the society. The only way such societies can function is with high levels of social control. This prospect is doubtlessly viewed quite positively by postmodern intellectuals. But it will lead to alienation and disengagement for the great majority — especially for Whites who cannot claim victimhood and who are forced to witness the disintegration of their once homogeneous communities.
American and European societies are facing a schizoid situation. On the onehand, they are being overwhelmed by the rhetoric of negative identities derived from guilt feelings — the various anti-colonial victimologies and the endless palaver about past European fascist crimes. Yet on the other hand, one can barely hear a word about gigantic crimes committed by Communists and their liberal allies during and after WWII — crimes committed to avenge the Marxist victimology of the class struggle.
Whites in Europeand America have to overcome the sense of territorial rootedness and intra-ethnic infighting. European racial and cultural identity stretches from Argentina to Sweden and to Russia and to many other places on the globe.
Even more importantly, White people must explicitly accept a White identity. This explicit White identity does not imply that Whites are superior to other peoples or that other peoples are not also unique and have a right to maintain their uniqueness. It merely states that we are a unique people with a unique culture and that both our people and our culture are worth preserving.
White identity can best be preserved in the transcendental sphere of its own uniqueness. But White uniqueness need not and should not come at the price of denying the uniqueness of other peoples and other races.
All we have to do is position ourselves politically to be prepared for the final American imperial flowering and collapse into single-ethnicity nation-states, and to defend our own as history unfolds.
Author anonymous by request
Much of contemporary white-on-white debate about history and culture is centered on contested versions of appropriate categories of discourse, those ideas like freedom, a unitary America, Republicanism, constitutionalism, conservatism, right versus left, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, equality, pluralism, loss of vigor in our demographic, and the propaganda spheres we spend our lives in. There are many more Big Ideas which lead to insights and consequences, but I want to argue here that the most important idea that has done more damage to America and to European Americans than any other is century-old pluralism of the racial, continental origin, religious, and national origin variety which is an idea, an ideology, and a meme.
The term “meme” still awaits scientific validation, but it perfectly describes fundamental belief structures akin to the role of genetics in the physical sense. Here is what Wikipedia says about memes:
“A meme is a postulated unit or element of cultural ideas, symbols, or practices that gets transmitted from one mind to another through speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomena. The etymology of the term relates to the Greek word mimema for “something imitated.” Supporters of the concept of memes believe that they (memes) act as cultural analogues to genes, in that they self-replicate and respond to selective pressures.”
Even if memes cannot be proven to exist, the term offers up another, and better, way to refer to categories of discourse. And of course memes are what are drilled into our heads by the corporate entertainment culture, the monopoly educational culture, and the dominant media culture. So if we may assume, arguendo, that pluralism is a big enough idea or meme to unify our European American discourse and planning, let us take a look at what that might mean.
EARLY AMERICAN PLURALISM
Pluralism was known at the time of the American founding but then it meant a variety of social, economic, and regional interests having access to the levers of power to avoid causing internal constitutional crises, but had no racial connotation. Between 1880 and 1900, pluralism came to mean a variety of races, national origins, religions, and continental origins each standing on a legally institutionalized footing like European American religions, cultures, and origins. (This is not necessarily a matter of equality because disorganized European Americans are not equal to better organized demographics.) President Theodore Roosevelt was the first president to be tremendously opposed to this kind of pluralism, which he should have been, because the racial, continental origin, religious, and national origin pluralism meme had been sneaked into the American pantheon of ideas about 20 years before his presidency. This will be the meaning of the term pluralism to which we refer in the remainder of this essay.
Self-described neo-cons, conservatives, liberals, and many others have swallowed this meme whole, and treat its contemporary meaning as part of the constitutional framework of the American government and social order. But what does pluralism set into motion? An unstoppable chain of events that unfolds into new structures, new values, and new ideas that will dominate our children’s and grandchildren’s lives. There is no component in pluralism that draws a bright line saying, this far and no farther. It has no brakes, and simply continues to unfold. (It’s like liberalism in that regard, having no clear end to its acidic attack on all our values, goals, and structures.)
In some ways an argument of inevitability is a comforting notion because then we just have to figure out our roles within the unfolding nation, and enact them. There’s no reason for blame, praise, triumph, despair, crimes, justice, fairness, morality, or how to stop the unfolding. In other words, if pluralism has kicked off a process we can’t stop, then our job is to get ahead of the curve intellectually, be prepared for the coming changes, and help our brothers and sisters prepare. There’s not even a need to seek some kind of calamity to change history because calamities are guaranteed as a result of changing circumstances, and will simply unfold and swallow those who are foolish enough to remain in the way. It’ll be bloody and cruel, but only because these changes are written in blood, not because we want it so.
Arguments from inevitability have a bad odor, notably because of the collapse of the bogus communist credo and its predicted stages of economic development, but some things really are inevitable.
The first thing to understand is the fundamental value called pluralism as described above. It is a culture-cracking and nation-wrecking meme or category of discourse, but it is like a social addiction because short-sighted people grasp its promises of wealth, power, and notoriety. There is no record of any society in the world which, having once embraced this kind of pluralism has ever been able to turn back (with the sole exception of Switzerland which has successfully drawn the line at multi-culturalism).
The initial outcome of a national embrace of pluralism is the legal institutionalization of multi-culturalism which means identification usually by race, but occasionally by other demographic features like religion, national origin, and continental origin. Multi-culturalism, properly understood as a feature of America, is nothing but the imposition of an entirely new layer of quasi-government located between the constitutional levels that are legally part of the social contract. By the way, don’t underestimate PC, because it is the public voice of this new layer of quasi-government.
We’ve seen the pattern in so many societies, e.g., the Roman empire, the Byzantine empire, the Russian empire, the short-lived USSR empire, the Ottoman empire (by far the most interesting and little-known example of this kind), the British empire, the short-lived Indian empire, the Holy Roman Empire, the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, the short-lived second German empire, and the short-lived Yugoslavian empire. These entities were officially the collection of & embrace of multiple races, nations, and territories as well as the common feature so frequently noted, one-person rule.
Multi-culuralism soon morphs into multi-racialism (along with some variants of religion) and, at this time (2009), America is both well-established as a social order rapidly embracing multi-racialism. An example of this is the practice of print media to analyze all social data according to one feature, namely race, which becomes the replacement for the now old ideas of multi-culturalism, and becomes legally institutionalized and located between layers of our legal governmental structure. This is an inevitable step.
Multi-racialism rapidly morphs into multi-nationalism, and woe betide the demographic that has failed to seize its opportunity for a seat at the table when the social goods are divided up. It is at this point, which is approaching, when Euro-Americans (or some remnant of them) will grasp what is going on and self-organize into competitive groups on this level. I suppose this will make the White Nationalists happy, but this will be a real toughie for most members of the diverse white American peoples to grasp. They’ll cling to their false consciousness of a unitary America until militarized squads knock down their door. (There’s a reason, after all, that “white profiling” European Americans as hate-mongers and anti-government radicals has been officially promoted in Missouri, and most recently by the Department of Homeland Security on April 7, 2009. These publications are not accidents, they are just breaking the ground for more white-profiling governmental actions.)
On one level, it will be interesting to see how and when the instinct for self-preservation kicks in among a significant number of European Americans — it hasn’t happened yet. Most of us are wallowing around in sub-issues continuing to think our elected governments are still open to us. To give that idea the lie is easy — just ask yourself this question: name just three instances of any elected white officeholder (forget the rest) to speak out (A) when a presidential candidate uses expressions like “typical white person” (no respect for our variety), (B) when a US Senator uses expressions like “white ni–er,” or (C) when other elements of official bigotry occur like the conversion (for federal statistical purposes) of Latinos into whites and blacks. Yes, Latino perps of hate crimes and other felonies & misdemeanors, when reported for statistical purposes to Washington, are made to disappear into two groups with about 10% assigned to the black segment and 90% assigned to the white segment. This latter phenomenon is so unjust that it is very difficult to understand why white politicians are afraid to operate legislatively to change it. In any case, unrebutted vilification by elected officials as well as uncorrected toxic official statistics are so prevalent in American life today, that we must assume that our white elected leaders will never reach out to help us.
Multi-nationalism is always an aspect of empire-building for a variety of reasons which are not always clear, but each of the empires listed above found a wonderful marriage between multi-nationalism and empire-building. In fact, that is the nature of empires, they are made up of many nations. Clearly empire-building is either caused by, or is enhanced by, multi-nationalism. The best example of this is the Ottoman empire although not differently in kind from other empires. The Ottoman empire needs to be studied carefully because it will teach us a lot about the folks who brought pluralism to us in the first place, and I don’t mean Turks. Pluralism, multi-culturalism, multi-racialism, and multi-nationalism also sooner or later go hand-in-hand with one person rule and, as ideologies, are vigorously and officially promoted throughout the empire.
COLLAPSE INTO SINGLE-ETHNICITY NATION-STATES
The final step in this inevitable unfolding is for empires to collapse back into single-ethnicity nation-states. This was and is true of every empire discussed above except the American empire, but there is no reason to suspect it will avoid a similar collapse. These collapses are a particularly bloody and cruel time, and the best historical example is, once again, the Ottoman empire. It peaked in power and influence 150 years after its founding, but it took 300 years of war and bloodshed to collapse into single-ethnicity nation-states.
The recent collapse of the Yugoslavian empire into its constituent nation-states was a product of the Ottoman collapse, ditto for the splitting away of Bulgaria, Romania, and many Asian nation-states. This process was not completed until President Clinton’s administration, and there is still the little matter of the forced Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian nation to settle out.
Remember that when the Turkish people opted to create a single ethnicity nation-state for themselves in Asia Minor, and decided to change their empire into a republic and shrink it to Asia Minor and a little part of Europe, the Greeks were roughly expelled from western Asia Minor and turned into refugees in Greece, and at least a million Armenians were genocided in eastern Asia Minor. Yes, we have physical expulsions and killings to look forward to, all because pluralism wasn’t stopped in 1900 when there was a chance to do it by law.
We saw something like this in Ruanda (Rwanda) in 1994 when the Hutus genocided 800,000 Tutsis to get a litle tribal purity going.
We saw a peaceful version of this in 1993 when the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic split up but, even though it was peaceful, it came after a remarkably bloody period when the short-lived second German empire disintegrated at the close of WWII, and Germanic peoples were converted into targets for killing over-night, and into refugees from the Slovakian and Czech territories the next day. The collapse into single ethnicity nation-states can take weeks, decades, or centuries.
HISTORY ON AUTO-PILOT
It is strange to contemplate that history might be on such an auto-pilot, only barely subject to human leadership efforts, but it appears to be true in every society that embraced pluralism and allowed multi-culturalism to morph into multi-racialism. The only real exception is the nation of Switzerland which embraces four different ethnic elements (French, German, Italian, and Roma), but stays away from multi-racialism and multi-nationalism.
There is a political benefit to all this, an accidental side product, which allows Euro-Americans to take needful action without praise, without blame, without attacking any other demographic, and without embracing supremacy, hate, self-doubt, or uncertainty. We don’t have to engage in verbal contests of much weight (just replies to verbal drive-bys), and all we have to do is position ourselves politically to be prepared for the final American imperial flowering and collapse into single-ethnicity nation-states, and to defend our own as history unfolds. That is, we really need to plan to be the Turks when the American empire collapses, not the Greeks or Armenians.
In the meantime, we can borrow the best verbal and propaganda techniques suitable for each escalation to teach the ants among us (pity the grasshoppers) how to react and live through the onslaught to follow.