Posts Tagged ‘genocide’

Leftism No Longer Wishes To Merely Replace Whites, But To Destroy Them

Friday, June 23rd, 2017

Leftists hate normalcy, health, joy, and existence itself. This is why their latest accidental admission of their agenda surprises almost no one:

“It is past time for the racially oppressed to do what people who believe themselves to be ‘white’ will not do,” said Williams on Facebook Sunday, according to Campus Reform, “put end to the vectors of their destructive mythology of whiteness and their white supremacy system #LetThemFuckingDie.”

“I’m fed the fuck up with self identified ‘white’s’ [sic] daily violence directed at immigrants, Muslim, and sexual [sic] and racially oppressed people,” he said in a subsequent post. “The time is now to confront these inhuman assholes and end this now.”

In white countries, white supremacy is as normal as being expected to be Mexican if you are in Mexico. Every group designs its society for itself, and no group is happy unless it lives in a civilization that it created for its own purposes. This is an existential need higher than what any material convenience can provide.

This is why, ultimately, non-European ethnic groups will be happier in their home nations, and white people are happiest when separated by regional European identity like Southern, Eastern and Western Europeans.

But in a diverse system, all of the groups are thrown in together, and whoever is perceived to be “in charge” is tasked with providing for everyone else and blamed if they find themselves to be unhappy. Remove diversity, and all of these concerns about white supremacy and inter-ethnic violence go away.

The violence directed at non-whites is caused by white people maintaining their social order. From a white perspective, we created a great nation and anyone who can live like we do is welcome to be here. That is not how diversity turns out, and people have slowly figured that out. It is nobody’s fault, but it still must be fixed.

It turns out that diversity did not work because diversity never works. Like most human wishful thinking, it is a personal and social impulse which when made policy wrecks societies. What is acceptable behavior in Leftistan is not accepted by healthy and normal people, so they punish it. The Left notices only who is being punished and claims racism in order to stop social order from occurring.

As always, the Leftist cries out as he strikes you.

Anti-Diversity Goes Mainstream In The Wall Street Journal

Monday, June 19th, 2017

In the pages of The Wall Street Journal, we find a welcome summary of the argument against diversity. Couched in analysis of the European immigration disaster, the article examines some of the points and issues I have been writing about since the early 1990s:

It is as though some great hole lies at the heart of the culture of Dante, Bach and Wren.

When people point out the downsides of this approach—not least that more immigration from Muslim countries produces many problems, including terrorism—we get the final explanation. It doesn’t matter, we are told: Because of globalization this is inevitable and we can’t stop it anyway.

All these instincts, when put together, are the stuff of suicide. They spell out the self-annihilation of a culture as well as a continent. Conversations with European policy makers and politicians have made this abundantly clear to me. They tell me with fury that it “must” work. I suggest that with population change of this kind, at this speed, it may not work at all.

Diversity is a way of engineering a permanent Leftist majority because the new group will always vote for more benefits, which are the province of the Left (and when conservatives embrace entitlements culture, they rapidly shift Leftward). It eventually means ethnic replacement of the population first through trace admixture, where your son or daughter marries someone who is 1/8 or 1/4 something else, and eventually everyone is a little bit newcomer, and the original racial group is erased. Genocided. Gone forever.

Diversity never works because each ethnic group wants to be in control so that it can set standards, values, customs, practices, procedures, aesthetics and cultural memes. This means that in a nation-state with multiple ethnic groups, they are subtly at war with one another as they compete for dominance. Even when one wins, the others struggle, at least until everyone is mixed into a grey cultureless nu-race.

The intellectually difficult point here is that we do not have an enemy. Our problem is not Muslims, but diversity itself; even “nice” other groups will invade us and genetically replace us. A Germany that is genetically 1/4 Japanese is no longer Germany, for example. They do not mean to do this, but it is the way of tribes that want to prevail, that they assert themselves and dominate others.

Diversity itself is a bad policy because it is paradoxical in this way, promising peace and freedom but delivering constant ethnic conflict. It cannot work because it is illogical given the innate needs of different populations. Every individual and every group acts in self-interest, and diversity makes those interests clash.

In America, people are fleeing diversity because it destroys social trust in their communities, causing them to distrust even people of their own ethnic group. Minority communities suffer because of diversity as well because it deprecates their own prospects and makes them subject to the same social distrust. The nation-state itself becomes corrupt with the introduction of diversity.

Healthy nations recognize homogeneity not as a fanatical goal, but a prerequisite for health and so are abandoning diversity just like the people in the West who are fleeing it. Energy is growing behind the idea of ending diversity without acrimony.

The WSJ article goes on to point out the core reason for diversity:

The reasons lie partly in our history, not least in the overwhelming German guilt, which has spread across the Continent and affected even our cultural cousins in America and Australia. Egged on by those who wish us ill, we have fallen for the idea that we are uniquely guilty, uniquely to be punished, and uniquely in need of having our societies changed as a result.

There is also, for Europe, the sense of what I call tiredness—the feeling that the story might have run out: that we have tried religion, all imaginable forms of politics, and that each has, one after another, led us to disaster. When we taint every idea we touch, perhaps a change is as good as a rest.

Modernity — equality, consumerism, individualism, democracy, social mobility, pluralism, class warfare — is the monkey on our back. No matter what we change, we bring our fundamental egalitarian assumptions with us, and so like an inverse King Midas we destroy everything we touch.

This “tiredness” was first chronicled by the generation of writers after World War One, who noted that “the war to end all wars” had convinced no one, and that people had become fatalistic because it was clear that society was heading down a path to doom and yet our pretense of equality prevented us from stepping off that path. Drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die, and life has no point.

This leads to a condition like the present day:

The migration policies of the political and other elites of Europe suggest that they are suicidal.

The West has to decide whether it wants to keep committing suicide for the pretense that every person is good, and that we all have equal potential and abilities and moral character, or whether it wants to admit that we need an external order above the human individual. Around here, I suggest the eternal social order that made Golden Ages in the past and can do so in the future, even as we prepare to take to space for the next phase of our great human adventure.

Enemies And Friends

Monday, June 12th, 2017

Most of our human thinking is defensive, or based on avoiding or subverting those who we perceive will wrong us. That type of thinking does not extend well to politics or the underlying question, which is how to create a civilization that both prospers on its own and encourages good people under it to prosper.

Instead of assuming that other ethnic groups are enemies, let us place them in a middle category: like other people in our own society, other groups are motivated by self-interest. Since for any group to survive, it must assert itself, that includes domination of any other groups within their reach. This is subconscious and not “intended,” but instinctual.

Nature has made no better creature than the dog, but if you put two dog packs in the same valley, soon you will have only one dog pack. The usual pattern is for one to kill off the males in the other, take its females, and then grow larger and more powerful. Of course, the strongest of dog species simply kill all of the other, since they want to remain as they are, and not as a hybrid, which would be defeat as surely as being conquered.

What this means is that other ethnic groups are not bad people, but people in the wrong place. Yes, they have their habits and tendencies which — by our lights — might also be unwanted, but they are not objectively bad. They just are what they are. Thinking like a nihilist, we then recognize that this group and its behaviors are appropriate to its needs in its homeland.

Some groups may be further along in different ways than other groups. We cannot say that any way is definitively better until we see how it turns out, and we want them to be able to develop on their own as is appropriate for them. Or not: they may choose to stay at a lower level of development because it works for them. There are sparrows, hawks, nightingales and hummingbirds.

This lets us see that this is a war against ideas. Sure, groups like Muslims, Africans and Jews may have their highly visible negative effects, but these are issues on top of the basic issue that any foreign group will cause instability, reduce our ability to have social standards, increase distrust and eventually, genetically replace us.

For too long, our dialogue on race has taken the form of a description of victims and victimizers. The white victimizer preys on non-white victims, or we reverse that, and talk about non-white crime and subterfuge harming whites. In reality, ethnic identity is not binary, although it seems that way because each country has a national group and everyone else is Other.

But looking past national boundaries, we see that instead there is a universe of different groups, each attempting to preserve itself:

Blogger Dani Ishai Behan took to the Times of Israel with an incisive defense of the uniqueness, historically and ethnically, of Jewish identity. Characterizing Jews as white, Behan argued, erases Jewish experience across every pogrom, torture table, oven and ghetto that has decorated our painful past. The people who persecuted Jews never thought of Jews as either white or European — and Jews never thought of themselves that way, either. Categorizing Ashkenazi Jews as white, Behan argues, deprives Jews of the legitimate protection that all indigenous, oppressed ethnicities deserve, and engages in dangerous historical revisionism.

Instead of continuing the victim narrative, where one tribe must be wrong for defending itself against others or trying to dominate a multicultural society, we should face the truth: for us to remain friends, each ethnic group needs its own place where it can engage in its historical behaviors. Otherwise we make enemies of each other and oppress everyone in our quest to avoid oppression.

Consequences Of Trace Admixture In “Reality Leigh Winner”

Tuesday, June 6th, 2017

At this site, we warn frequently of trace admixture, or mixing between white groups. While Western Europeans have low admixture, most people in Eastern and Southern/Irish Europe have some Asian and Mediterranean admixture.

Although these foreign influences are in “traces,” or amounts of one quarter or less, they are still there, and these groups have since that admixture evolved for different climates and social structures. Mixing them produces people who lose the original European traits and end up as round-faced people of no particular talents.

As mentioned around here before, genetics takes the form of clusters of genes producing traits and clusters of traits producing abilities more than single genes we can swap out and produce supermen. People are refined as profiles comprised of related genes, and mixing groups — whether races, ethnicities or ethnicities within a race — erases these delicate profiles.

Wherever white people mix across Western, Southern and Eastern European lines, we see the same result: round faces, low moral character, slightly above average intelligence without wisdom, and no particular cultural leaning, therefore, natural Leftists who are fanatical about it in lieu of having healthy normal lives.

Reality Leigh Winner, the most recent NSA contractor to leak information, was caught because a newspaper refused to protect its source. While one wonders who the heck is doing the vetting at the NSA these days, the bigger point is that this toxic employee was perfectly fine with her job under Obama, but freaked out when Trump was elected.

This means she is a committed Leftist, which makes sense when you look at her. There is the round face, the chunk nose and absence of any particular form or beauty. A century ago, she would have looked odd to the inhabitants of any Western European nation, and they would have identified her as foreign. She is foreign, but only through trace admixture.

When the white race is exterminated, it will not be through blatant race-mixing but through a replacement of the original groups with “whitish” people who have none of the traits of the original group, the Western Europeans, who founded Europe and then expanded into South and East where they mixed with local populations after the failure of their empires there.

Most people can accept that mixing races is destructive, but awareness is now rising that mixing within the white group will also exterminate the white genetic strain, and at that point, further outbreeding is inevitable.

How Anti-Semitism Wagged The Dog For Adolf Hitler

Monday, May 15th, 2017

Contemporary sources — who are bound to lies because in an egalitarian time, everything is a lie — seem baffled by the Holocaust. Was it mere racism, ideology or pathological cruelty? Perhaps some of the above, and also, “philosophy.”

It was clear to me early on that Adolf Hitler attempted to fight back against the root ideology of socialism, which is a tricky animal because it is both collectivist and individualist. Individualism — “me first” before nature, society or others — is its goal, but collectivism is its method. Already this concept is too complex for any but a few in modern society.

He also recognized, as did Schopenhauer and Plato, that a thriving civilization acts by choosing the idea it strives for first and method later, where dying civilizations choose a method and then rationalize the results as being the idea for which it was striving.

As Plato wrote, during the Golden Age of humanity, materiality was viewed as a means to an end. Good men had wealth so that they could do good things; bad men were deprived of wealth because with it, they would do bad things. Hitler wanted to refute materialism.

He — like many others — may have misinterpreted the crucifixion of Jesus in the Bible, or just given in to prevailing superstitions and analysis, which assigned to the Jews a role as materialists and to Christians, that of idealists. This is not entirely wrong but it is misinterpreted.

Jewish materialism is in my view a Buddhist-like attempt at rejecting dualism, or the idea of a perfect world with the true actual rules of reality in it, as opposed to this world which is just symbolic or otherwise irrelevant. Buddhists recognize dualism as early onset schizophrenia.

In addition, the point of the crucifixion scene in the Bible was not that Pontius Pilate was Roman and the crowd were Jews, but that a crowd demanded the death of Jesus, and they did so through democracy. A vote was taken and the herd opted to kill the prophet instead of an actual criminal.

History fans notice that this mirrors what happened to Socrates, the story from which the crucifixion story is almost certainly derived. (Fundamentalism regard the Bible, which is a metaphorical story compiling spiritual knowledge from a half-dozen traditions, will also make you schizoid).

But Hitler wanted a unifying concept, one that could motivate his people toward the right idea and away from what he hated, which was the shallow materialism that defines the modern time. Unlike Nietzsche, who associated this with Christianity, Hitler took another direction.

We have no records of Hitler reading Nietzsche, although he was certainly conversant with the ideas of that philosopher. We do know that he was fond of carrying a volume of Schopenhauer around, and that this philosopher argued that Christianity, like Hinduism, was an attempt for a heroic idealism, where Judaism had a materialistic basis:

While all other religions endeavor to explain to the people by symbols the metaphysical significance of life, the religion of the Jews is entirely immanent and furnishes nothing but a mere war-cry in the struggle with other nations. – “Fragments for the history of philosophy”, Parerga and Paralipomena, Volume I.

This may have been the source of the metaphor that Hitler used. He wanted the Germans to rise above mere individualism, and so he gave them a metaphor for individualism through Judaism. However, this proved too popular, and quickly caught on and the base anger overwhelmed the finer details of the idea.

At the point where he was most popular, Hitler could no more have backed down on his anti-Semitism than a fundamental campaign process. Germans knew something had gone wrong in their society, and they blamed the foreigners. How much of this was true is a question for another time, but clearly the method became wrong, but because scapegoats are always more popular than nuanced truths, this should have been expected.

However, Hitler was an artist, not a politician, and so he was swallowed up by the idea. At this point, his constituents expected him to act on it, and according to Albert Speer, he did so by first attempting to scare away Jews, then imprisoning them, and finally turning to more extreme methods.

This reflected an apocalyptic view of Judaism in the Nazi imagination:

According to Confino’s historical-cultural analysis, the Holocaust cannot be explained as just another one of the events of the horrible war, or as an outcome of its circumstances. The Nazi urgency to murder all the Jews but not the members of other persecuted groups, Confino writes, is explained by the Jews’ consistent apocalyptic role in the Nazi imagination. In other words, and Prof. Confino says it brilliantly numerous times, the annihilation of the entire Jewish people was the Nazis’ supreme goal in World War II. They came to save the world from the Jews and from Judaism, regardless of the price of this “salvation.” It was their mission in this world.

Providence, as Adolf Hitler told the Reichstag in December 1941, when he declared war on the United States, consigned to the German people the leadership of the battle which would shape the world’s image in the following 1,000 years—the uncompromising battle against the Jews and Judaism. This perception was not limited to the members of the Nazi party: Many Germans participated in the persecution of Jews, Confino states, while many others—basically, the entire German society—did not oppose the Nazi regime’s anti-Jewish initiatives. Not a single group in the German society rejected the Nazi offensive on the Jews and on Judaism—for the information of Israelis and Jews in Berlin.

Hitler may have thought this treatment was relatively uncontroversial. The world has barely blinked during the Boer and Armenian genocides, and laughed off mass killings in the New World and India. To his mind, this may have been a standard method within the norm, not an aberration.

Imagine an American candidate running on the idea of eliminating “materialism” among us, and identifying a group of “materialists.” You cannot touch materialism, but you can wring the neck of a materialist, and so that is what the crowd will demand.

In a sad repetition of the acts of the French Revolution, the crowd swept Hitler up in a wave of popularity he could not control and demanded the return of the guillotine. This unfolded in events that to our great sadness were modern, all too modern.

If we are to survive into the future, our path lies elsewhere from modernity. We do not need more crowds chanting for the crucifixion of Jesus, beheading of nobles or gassing of Jews. We need a calm process of sorting out who should stay from those who must leave, and to do so as gently as possible, if nothing else for the conservation of beauty and clarity in our own souls.

Avoiding Future Holocausts

Friday, May 5th, 2017

Although this view is not shared by all on the Alt Right and by increasing many on the Left, a sane look at history sees the Holocaust as tragedy; worse, it was an avoidable tragedy.

It is tragic on many levels. First, it contradicts the nationalist ideal of relocating people to their countries of origin where they are the founding group. Second, it commits “un-Aryan” acts such as working people under bad conditions, which also led to low-quality labor.

Finally, it simply shows a misunderstanding of how the world works. Each group acts in its own interest, and so it is foolish and illogical to expect foreign groups to behave as the national group does.

None of these were mysteries to Theodor Herzl, who had witnessed the Dreyfuss Affair and realized that anti-Semitism was a product of diversity. He converted to nationalism as a result, and advocated a return to Israel in order to avoid future pogroms:

Herzl concluded that anti-Semitism was a stable and immutable factor in human society, which assimilation did not solve. He mulled over the idea of Jewish sovereignty, and, despite ridicule from Jewish leaders, published Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State, 1896). Herzl argued that the essence of the Jewish problem was not individual but national. He declared that the Jews could gain acceptance in the world only if they ceased being a national anomaly. The Jews are one people, he said, and their plight could be transformed into a positive force by the establishment of a Jewish state with the consent of the great powers. He saw the Jewish question as an international political question to be dealt with in the arena of international politics.

Viewed in the context of history, the Holocaust was just another pogrom, but conducted with more efficiency thanks to state support as opposed to local authority or state unofficial approval of what were essentially lynch mobs.

The core of Herzl’s argument is that diversity pits groups against one another. National groups have a need to defend their values, genetics and culture. When another group is present, that group becomes a threat, and is scapegoated in times of instability.

To this we can add the symptoms of this problem, including that different cultures are naturally incompatible, which leads to alien groups participating in destructive activities without being fully aware of the negative backlash to come:

While in 1934 38.5% of the top officials in the NKVD were Jews, this number was decreased to 31.9% in July 1937, 3.9% in September 1938 and 3.5% in January 1940.

The NKVD was a Soviet secret police organization that removed ideological non-conformists and purged the Soviet Union of many of its best and brightest. For a group that comprised a small fraction of the Soviet population, 38.5% participation was huge, and resulted — in a gentler form of what happened in Nazi Germany — in a purge of Jewish participants in the system.

Jews were heavily active in far-Left organizations in general, leading to an association of these groups with Jewishness:

Jews were proportionately overrepresented in the RSDWP from the start. Apart from being active in the party’s Jewish faction, the Bund, which sought to mobilize the “Jewish street” by conducting propaganda activity in Yiddish, Jews comprised a significant proportion of the party’s “Russian” contingent. These acculturated Jews generally inclined toward the Mensheviks rather than the Bolsheviks, but even among the latter, there were not a few Jews. In early 1917, their numbers reached just under 1,000 out of a total of 23,600. Most important, they were highly overrepresented in the Bolshevik leadership. Significant figures included Iurii Kamenev, Maksim Litvinov, Karl Radek, Iakov Sverdlov, Leon Trotsky, and Grigorii Zinov’ev. This was so blatant that anti-Bolsheviks frequently associated the party with Jews in order to contaminate the party’s public image.

…Jews remained overrepresented in the party rank and file. Representing just 1.8 percent of the total population in the 1926 census, Jews comprised 5.2 percent of party members in 1922 and 4.3 percent in 1927; in Belorussia, they accounted for 24 percent of the party membership. The proportional decline did not signify an absolute decrease, as total membership rose in this period from slightly more than 400,000 to almost 800,000. Of the Jewish party members in Ukraine, 67.5 percent were classified as workers and 28.8 percent as white-collar employees; in Russia, 47.8 percent were workers and 48 percent were white collar. The size of the party continued to grow until 1933, when there were more than 2.2 million full members; it then fell, topping the 2 million mark again only in 1941. In both 1922 and in 1927, Jews were the sole ethnic group, with women comprising more than 20 percent of its membership (24.1% in 1922 and 23.0% in 1927).

…Extrapolation leads to the conclusion that Jews remained, into the 1960s at least, the most party-saturated nationality in the Soviet Union, and in terms of absolute numbers, the largest non-Slavic group of Communists, with the possible exception of the Tatars. At the same time, the party saturation of the Soviet Jewish community fell from about 300 percent of the national average in 1940 to between 140 and 180 percent in 1965. However, once the Jewish emigration movement gained momentum, and the Jewish population continued to drop as a result of both emigration and negative natural growth, the percentage of Jewish Communists among all party members nationwide fell progressively, although in certain areas their proportion in the Jewish community actually grew.

This showed Jews as over-represented in both the Revolution and the ruling parties that came in its aftermath until Stalin began his purges, most of which were apparently bloodless, that removed Jews from power and made anti-Semitism part of the official doctrine of the Soviet Union.

At that point, however, the idea had been cemented in European imagination that Jews were the driving force behind the Bolshevik revolution, and this idea remained consistent for some time, especially given high Jewish participation in Communist and Socialist organizations in the West.

Today we are beginning to see discussion of this portion of that segment of history, including an acknowledgement of the high number of Jews involved in war crimes in the Soviet Union:

An Israeli student finishes high school without ever hearing the name “Genrikh Yagoda,” the greatest Jewish murderer of the 20th Century, the GPU’s deputy commander and the founder and commander of the NKVD. Yagoda diligently implemented Stalin’s collectivization orders and is responsible for the deaths of at least 10 million people. His Jewish deputies established and managed the Gulag system.

…Many Jews sold their soul to the devil of the Communist revolution and have blood on their hands for eternity. We’ll mention just one more: Leonid Reichman, head of the NKVD’s special department and the organization’s chief interrogator, who was a particularly cruel sadist.

In 1934, according to published statistics, 38.5 percent of those holding the most senior posts in the Soviet security apparatuses were of Jewish origin. They too, of course, were gradually eliminated in the next purges. In a fascinating lecture at a Tel Aviv University convention this week, Dr. Halfin described the waves of soviet terror as a “carnival of mass murder,” “fantasy of purges”, and “essianism of evil.” Turns out that Jews too, when they become captivated by messianic ideology, can become great murderers, among the greatest known by modern history.

Sever Plocker, the author of this piece, makes an important distinction here: Communism is a “messianic ideology” which converts Jewish tendencies toward trying to do good into apocalyptic visions. This appeal snared many in the West, such that in the 1930s most “intellectuals” had Communist sympathies.

In fact, in America, the composition of the Communist party was very similar to the frequency of Jewish participation as found in the Soviet Union:

The so-called “Old Left” was led by the Communist Party (CPUSA), and that organization almost collapsed after 1956, when its members learned, to their sorrow, that the Soviet state they had been worshiping for decades was, under Joseph Stalin, actually a murderous tyranny.

…In 1939, according to Professor Klehr, some 40 percent of the 39,000 CPUSA members were Jewish, and concentrated in big cities, New York in particular. Half of the party’s cultural apparatus, centered in New York, was Jewish, added Tony Michels.

When Henry Wallace ran for president on the Communist-inspired Progressive Party ticket in 1948, about one third of his vote came from Jews.

This furthered the view among Western leaders that Jews were associated with Communism, and was information that the Nazis were almost certainly aware of. Douglas Reed writes of the international opinion regarding Jewish participation in Bolshevism and Communism:

At the time, the facts were available. The British Government’s White Paper of 1919 (Russia, No. 1, a Collection of Reports on Bolshevism) quoted the report sent to Mr. Balfour in London in 1918 by the Netherlands Minister at Saint Petersburg, M. Oudendyke: “Bolshevism is organized and worked by Jews, who have no nationality and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things.” The United States Ambassador, Mr. David R. Francis, reported similarly: “The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution.” M. Oudendyke’s report was deleted from later editions of the British official publication and all such authentic documents of that period are now difficult to obtain. Fortunately for the student, one witness preserved the official record.
This was Mr. Robert Wilton, correspondent of the London Times, who experienced the Bolshevik revolution. The French edition of his book included the official Bolshevik lists of the membership of the ruling revolutionary bodies (they were omitted from the English edition).
These records show that the Central Committee of the Bolshevik party, which wielded the supreme power, contained 3 Russians (including Lenin) and 9 Jews. The next body in importance, the Central Committee of the Executive Commission (or secret police) comprized 42 Jews and 19 Russians, Letts, Georgians and others. The Council of People’s Commissars consisted of 17 Jews and five others. The Moscow Che-ka (secret police) was formed of 23 Jews and 13 others. Among the names of 556 high officials of the Bolshevik state officially published in 1918-1919, were 458 Jews and 108 others. Among the central committees of small, supposedly “Socialist” or other non-Communist parties (during that early period the semblance of “opposition” was permitted, to beguile the masses, accustomed under the Czar to opposition parties) were 55 Jews and 6 others. All the names are given in the original documents reproduced by Mr. Wilton.

Maybe all of these guys were anti-Semites; maybe they were not, or the truth was somewhere in the middle. It is important to avoid committing the fallacy of accidentally cherry-picking data, because as anyone can figure with some basic math, most Jews were not involved.

It may be that Jews have a higher rate of Leftism. There is an idealism in the Jewish faith and culture that always seeks a pacifism and balance, as one would expect from a mercantile and not warrior society, combined with an honest goodwill. In my experience, most people of Jewish heritage have been generous, thoughtful and highly opinionated, and these characteristics taken together lead toward a proclivity toward idealistic beliefs such as egalitarianism, and anyone who looks seriously at egalitarianism realizes that it is unstable without socialism, which in turn requires a strong state to protect it, much as we now have in the West.

These documents are not mentioned here to fuel the anti-Semites, but instead to do the exact opposite: to point out that wherever a group is foreign among a national culture, it will feel like an outsider, and thus be inclined toward political activity, at which point it will act out its own cultural mandate rather than that of the host culture. This is why diversity does not work: each group works in self-interest, and according to its own inclinations, as Herzl noted long ago.

To avoid future Holocausts, we need some clarity on this issue so that it can be fairly discussed without devolving into the kind of scapegoating that leads to pogromism. Then, we need a safe homeland for Jews, which means an Israel without rampaging Palestinians blowing themselves up on buses and at cafes. This assertion proves controversial for the West, which being Leftist has aligned itself with the underdog in the Palestinians instead of the more successful Jewish population in Israel.

It would also make sense for Jews in the West to right now start abandoning radical Leftism. With a Jewish candidate for president, Bernie Sanders, running on a socialist platform, and Jews making half of the donations to the Democrat party, Jewish visibility as a voice of the Left endangers them as cultural backlash collides with the Left. People have seen what our future would be like under the Obama-Clinton regime, and are starting to realize how much the Left has re-shaped American and European society over the past century, and the radical response seen with the election of Donald J. Trump and Brexit signifies that the pushback is still in its infancy but gaining strength rapidly.

As we transition from failed liberal democracy and the socialist state, we run a high risk of re-enacting old and bad patterns including pogroms. It is better to face this issue honestly now than to allow the possibility of violence to emerge unchanged and bloodthirsty as it does when a scapegoat is successfully created.

Democracy, People Power And Individualism Are The Downfall Of Europeans

Thursday, May 4th, 2017

People defend democracy because they find it hard to believe that we did this to ourselves. But think of it this way: every culture has the goal of improving itself; democracy replaces that goal with “being democratic.”

When a civilization begins, its goal is to avoid being destroyed; once it achieves enough wealth that there are no longer threats, people either find another purpose or look inward.

The problem here is that any other purpose will not be tangible like the idea of overcoming threats. This is an evolutionary challenge to the development of the human mind: we need to be able to understand the value of the intangible and long-term future purpose as well as be able to react to short-term threats.

Among human populations, there are some who innately understand the need for a long-term intangible purpose. They gravitate toward immutable but ongoing goals like the transcendentals — “the good, the beautiful and the true” — or the constant struggle against entropy, stupidity and venality in order to produce a civilization that endures and improves until the end of time.

Democracy replaces more than the people. It replaces the culture and its genetic root. We might view democracy as a virus or other parasitic organism:

The end result of complete cellular representation is cancer. Democracy is cancerous, and bureaus are its cancer. A bureau takes root anywhere in the state, turns malignant like the Narcotic Bureau, and grows and grows, always reproducing more of its own kind, until it chokes the host if not controlled or excised. Bureaus cannot live without a host, being true parasitic organisms. (A cooperative on the other hand can live without the state. That is the road to follow. The building up of independent units to meet needs of the people who participate in the functioning of the unit. A bureau operates on opposite principles of inventing needs to justify its existence.) Bureaucracy is wrong as a cancer, a turning away from the human evolutionary direction of infinite potentials and differentiation and independent spontaneous action to the complete parasitism of a virus. (It is thought that the virus is a degeneration from more complex life-form. It may at one time have been capable of independent life. Now has fallen to the borderline between living and dead matter. It can exhibit living qualities only in a host, by using the life of another — the renunciation of life itself, a falling towards inorganic, inflexible machine, towards dead matter.) Bureaus die when the structure of the state collapse. They are as helpless and unfit for independent existence as a displaced tapeworm, or a virus that has killed the host. – William S. Burroughs, Naked Lunch

Instead of acting for ourselves (individualism) or the group (collectivism), people should act for this organic whole known as civilization which includes both individual and group. It balances the needs of those against the need to survive for the future, and to improve in the present. Democracy counteracts this, which is why it is easier and more popular.

When Can We Call It “Terrorism”?

Friday, April 7th, 2017

The decline of Western Civilization in South Africa has reached such epic proportions that it has even attracted the attention of the fake news media. Their stock answer is always to deride South Africa as a third world country with a nice mountain. They have to say this, since contemporary South Africa is a product of Leftist, Hollywood and media intervention.

After Mandela died the newspaper attention waned, but when affirmative action Trevor Noah replaced John Stewart as a comedian on American television’s Daily Show, a few commentators woke up and started to see some strange political adventures taking place. This is not to be confused with Hollywood’s routine derogatory inclusion of South Africans in its scripts as mercenaries and criminals.

The news glosses over inconvenient facts that contradict the Leftist narrative. It routinely avoids mention of the farm murders, wherein white farmers are killed by members of an African underclass which is supported by the ruling political party, thanks to the greater numbers of African voters.

One fact that cannot be debunked is that a United Nations representative established that Boers are currently subject to level six genocide. In other words, the Zulu nation is not under threat (at all) and neither are the British, German or Portuguese descendants living in South Africa.

The Boers face an escalating wave of violence, discrimination and government-mandated marginalization. We all know where this leads: to their elimination. For some strange reason genocide is not classified as “terrorism.” Even Rwandan genocide failed to rate a blip on American media screens. So what do you do when a South African asks for help?

Even here affirmative action plays a role, because black South Africans enjoy migrant status in Kentucky’s sanctuary cities while Boer migrants are refused.  Apparently American diplomats accept anyone, unless the South African Ambassador to America complains to the Secretary of State when “certain” people apply.

Clearly American Politicians are complicit in the Boer genocide as classified by the UN, which is acceptable because it is not terror. This is explained by arguing that, for genocide to be terror, there has to be a political intent. Since Mandela already ruled in South Africa, there can be no political intent for killing farmers.

But farmers, women, children and workers are indeed being brutally and tortuously killed. The trick is that it is not all at once.  Therefor some commentators call it a gradual genocide, which the UN seems to agree with. In fact Gregory Stanton agrees that the Bushmen are also being genocided at the same time. This has led to even more UN agencies getting involved such as (UNPO) “Unrepresented People”  in the World.

All of the UN involvement in response to requests for help has come to naught, meaning that “official” channels and the media those channels control, literally ignore the reported facts, despite acknowledging it.

Despite experts identifying gradual genocide, it is still required of the victim to prove that he is being terrorized, before asking for help. The proof experts refer to is the politically authorized dissolution of the regional security service structure in the entire country.

In other words, the police must become implements of the political policy of the regime, and not just law enforcement. Obviously this presents a huge logical hole because laws can be changed to prosecute or ignore the victimization of a target group.

After Mandela became President, thousands of terrorists previously trained elsewhere in Africa such as Tanzania, “returned” to South Africa in glorious fashion, to be designated as “veterans” while some of the experienced terrorists were employed in staff military and police positions. Since they were all trained in terrorist acts such as surveillance and weapons, those that did not receive jobs felt disillusioned and promptly started with advanced criminal acts such as hi-jacking money-in-transit vehicles very effectively.  Once bank security became more effective, they changed to the next low hanging fruit, such as remote farmers with safes containing money and weapons.

Heists and farm murders have been noticed by senior police officials, but they gloss over it as statistically insignificant when compared to blacks being killed. Unbeknownst to them, this is exactly where the political intent rears its ugly face. They are willing to ignore the greater percentages of whites being victimized to focus on the more numerous black citizens, whose victimization is not designed to eliminated them as a population.

A recent study by a civil activist group showed that when elected black officials go on television expressing hatred for whites or denouncing farmers in song or in verbal abuse, that farmer deaths increase afterwards.

This gives them a dual pronged strategy: in private ignore the crimes against whites, who being a smaller group face a greater threat from fewer crimes, and the political strategy behind them; in public, encourage these crimes with political rhetoric and the implication that these crimes will go unpunished.

In social media, hatred for whites is recorded virtually every day. This demonstrates that within the tribal black communities writing in their own languages, hatred for whites, specifically for the farmer is not only “allowed”, but also a popular topic, where it is tribally entrenched to kill whites, rape their women and take their goods/money. This is a cultural wave of ethnic violence.

This is a human rights violation being committed from one group unto another group. What makes it worse is that it is the majority discriminating against the minority. However, the more responsible officials will on this point say that it’s “only a few extremist individuals” who are not even an identifiable group.  One could answer that if it is only a few, why don’t they ever get caught?

White experts such as Gareth Newham of the Institute of Security Studies try to help the South African Government by proposing a “specialized police unit” and specialized courts to address the common triad of carjacking, house robbery and business robbery. What these experts are saying is that police efforts are being hampered by political interference.

This proves that there is intentional political causation of ethnic violence hidden within crime in South Africa, and while it is evident in all categories, the undeniable genocidal effect against white farmers is documented (not to forget the Bushmen tribe, who as an ethnic minority are also targeted). This is terror perpetrated on farmers and protected by the state.

That policy extends into the United States of America, where politicians also protect the criminals. They hide behind the thin distinction that genocide has to be officially ordered by a militarized, politicized police form, but forget that true ethnic violence is spontaneous and requires only a wink and a nod from those officials in a disorganized fashion.

The world has failed recognize the gradual genocide of farmers as terrorism and genocide. Despite the massive investment by Western politicians in fighting “terror” and “racism,” neither of these terms apply when white people are the victims. This invalidates the terms, and makes us wonder whether like terror, these terms are simply a political weapon designed to conceal ethnic crimes.

Why The Left Is Anti-White

Wednesday, March 29th, 2017

Much drama and conspiracy-analytical thinking has gone into trying to understand why Hollywood and the Left are consummately anti-white, casting non-white actors to play white roles and portraying white people as stupid, incompetent and weak. It seems like a conspiracy, since we see the same thing in politics that we do in movies and literature.

More likely, this behavior represents a simple pathology. Most human behaviors distill down to simple cognitive mistakes which become pathological because a pillar of self-image rests upon them; think of drug addicts who inject drugs into suppurating limbs in order to overcome self-doubt, or obese people who gobble food because fullness suggests safety to them.

In this case, the pathology is resentment. People resent those who rise above because the act of separating from the herd shows the relative gap between the exceptional individual and the group. Naturally, since few are excellent and most only in one area, the rest are consumed with a sense of guilt for not being exceptional, anger at this person for making them look bad, and a sublimated hunger to similarly be excellent in something. The best of us overcome the guilt and anger because those are misdirected rage at the self, having both the confidence and the analytical skill to dispense with such things. The undisciplined and the rest simmer in their discontent and decide to destroy the person who made them look bad, feeling perhaps correctly that they cannot be changed, and yet too egotistical to admit the need for guidance by those above them.

Someone wrote a book about this once. This fellow came down, asserted difficult truths, disturbed the comfortable pretense by which most people were rationalizing their bad behavior, and so the group came together and had him killed. This book is either The Bible, The Apology of Socrates or Stranger in a Strange Land because this tale is as old as time. Herds hate heroes.

In the case of Western European civilization, we rose too high for the rest of the world, including those among us who found themselves excluded because they did not participate in that rise. As a result, they invented a reason to feel good about themselves by declaring our rise to be cheating, and concluding that tearing us down would make the world more “equal,” so that non-contributors would feel good again about not being those who gave more than they took.

Resentment defines daily life in egalitarian societies. We hate the excellent, so we remove them and place celebrities and politicians in their place. The Rich™ are blamed for every problem, as are successful groups like whites and Jews. Entertainment hates the suburban family with a white picket fence, yet it is what we all desire, or some reasonable equivalent.

To defeat this anti-white bias, we need to go to its root cause, which is resentment caused by a lack of hierarchy. Strong leadership, powerful culture, and a clear purpose obviate the appeal of resentment. By making these changes, those of us who can still think can form a society which will rise from among the ashes and again achieve greatness.

The Real #Rapefugee Crisis II (Cometh The Vikings)

Tuesday, March 28th, 2017

So guess what happens when a population reproduces rapidly without the typical consequences that nature metes out to all expanding groups? This population soon experiences the Tragedy of The Commons at an exponentially accelerating rate. They have no means or method to deal with it. They predictably export this problem far and wide. What did this look like in history? (If you’ve got time to relax with a cordial and watch).

Let these people sail into your lands untouched, and you’d better say a prayer for Lindisfarne. The Vikings were directly analogous to the ecological concept of the invasive species. Nothing in
Western or Southern Europe could stop them. Most didn’t try until it was Happy Frikking Easter, 9th Century Paris.

In order to survive, The Vikings had to export their excess population. Since the whole Adopt-A-Ragnar Program didn’t seem to go well, they had to pretty much be bungholes about it until Ethelred The Unready got the message and ponied up the Danegeld.

Germany’s Chancellor is the modern Aethelred. The Magic Dirt Hypothesis is her excuse and facade behind which she gives it up like Debbie doing Dallas. You see, I don’t entirely blame Islam for the rapes terrorizing Scandinavia the way Ancient Vikings terrorized Britain and France. However, I blame the negative externalities of Islamic Culture and Sharia Law for making the Arab World similar to the Old Viking World in many respects. It encourages being fruitful and multiplying, but in many respects it forbids the necessary innovations needed to support a large population in a tolerable standard of living. Thus, the Hammer of The Gods drives their ships to new lands. Valhalla, they are coming.

Columnist David Goldman famously described Islam as a ring of spears aimed at the rest of the world. It has reached a point where, like the Vikings, the Islamists must expand, must conquer, or in the end they will die in mass waves. They descend now upon Sweden, Germany and any other country blind enough to take them. They are overwhelmingly young, overwhelmingly male, and overwhelmingly impoverished. They seek their women the way the Romans did amongst The Sabines. And that is the real #Rapefugee Crisis.

To solve this crisis, we must force the Vikings to stop raiding. We need to deny these raiders access to any booty. Send them back home like a pack of hounds of ill omen. Make them fix the Islamic World and sort their problems in house. Make them face what Christianity had to face in the wake of The Thirty Years War. They must face the grim dilemna of having to evolve or die. Only when their violence fails does their Renaissance truly begin. Only when conquest is not a means to prosperity and expansion will the #Rapefugee Crisis truly end.

Recommended Reading