On butcher Simón Bolívar

Editor’s note: My comment today mentioning gorilla Hugo Chávez makes me think that folks in the alt-right are also clueless about other anti-white ‘liberators’ of Latin America. The following is a Spanish-English translation of an interview with historian Pol Victoria:
 

______ 卐 ______

 

Simón Bolívar [left, a recent facial reconstruction] has become an almost religious reference. There are even political regimes that call themselves ‘Bolivarian’. The Venezuelan regime has made him a demigod. But who was really Bolivar? Was he the spotless hero sold by Bolivarian propaganda today?

The truth is, no. On the contrary, Bolivar’s career is covered in blood.

Let us place ourselves: from 1808, when Napoleon invaded Spain, the Spanish viceroyalties of America first revolted against the French and then proclaimed their own independence. It was not a war of young oppressed nations against an old invading empire: it was rather a civil war between supporters of independence and supporters of the Crown (the ‘realists’).

In present-day Venezuela, the fight was so bloody that Simón Bolívar declared the ‘war to the death’ against the royalists, and applied it to the letter. After the battle of the Tinaquillo, in August of 1813, he destroyed a series of towns and passed through the arms all the ‘Europeans and Canary Islanders’ [i.e., the whitest Iberians living in the Americas], as he called the royalists.

In September of that same year he dictated forced recruitment and shot those who refused to take up arms. He then shot 69 Spaniards without trials. In December 1813 he defeated the diminished royalist army in Acarigua and ordered the killing of 600 prisoners. On February 8, 1814 he dispatched the Spanish prisoners of Caracas, Valencia and La Guaira: about 1,200 civilians, mostly merchants, and he ordered that ‘all imprisoned Spaniards immediately are passed through the arms, even in hospitals, without exception’.

As gunpowder was scarce, it was resolved to kill them with sabre and spear blows, and by crushing their heads with large stones. The elderly and disabled were taken to the gallows tied to their chairs. Despite the pleas of the archbishop of Caracas, Bolívar consumed the massacre. The last part of the carnage reports that those who were sick in the hospital were also executed.

These are just a few episodes in Simón Bolívar’s bloody career; without a doubt, the most cruel and ruthless of the Latin American ‘liberators’. It would also be necessary to recount the murder of the shipwrecks of a Spanish ship on Margarita Island; the criminal looting of Santa Fe, and the murder of the prisoners after the battle of Boyacá.

Interestingly, today Simón Bolívar has a statue in the Parque del Oeste, in Madrid [i.e., not only Americans; most Iberian whites are clueless too].

Published in: on July 31, 2019 at 2:53 pm  Comments (1)  

We demand…

arrest and criminal prosecution
of western leaders responsible for
genocidal Third World immigration

by Ferdinand Bardamu

 

I: The Massacre at Christchurch

The massacre of 50 Moslem worshipers, in Christchurch, New Zealand on Friday, March 15th, has been energetically denounced as a “terrible tragedy” the world over. If the attack had been carried out by a Moslem against Christians or Shi’ite sectarians, the media would have excused the perpetrator as not representative of the general Moslem population, despite the common occurrence of such massacres in the Middle East; however, because 28 year-old Australian national Brent Tarrant is the alleged gunman, whites are collectively to blame for a “system of state-sanctioned white supremacy that manifests itself daily.” Whatever the Christchurch massacre was, we must not join hands with the forces of political correctness in denouncing it as a “terrible tragedy”; we must not agree with VDARE columnist Patrick Buchanan that the massacre was “[a]n atrocity and act of pure evil by a man with a dead soul.” Moslems kill fellow Moslems, Christians and other religionists on an industrial scale, but the Western lugenpresse pays scant attention to these “terrible tragedies,” nor have any of them ever received the same amount of press coverage as the rare massacre perpetrated by the lone race-conscious white, in defense of his civilization from non-white invasion and conquest. Either we denounce all such occurrences as “terrible tragedies” whenever they occur or we pass over them in silence.

Christchurch is one of a growing number of incidents in a larger racial and ideological struggle, one that will have far-reaching political ramifications for the entire Western world. Today, whites find themselves in the midst of a demographic war being waged against them by their own “post-national” governments. Since the post-national state itself is an ideological pipe-dream, the main determinant of national belonging within the state is ethno-racial identity. In fact, because of mass migration, Samuel P. Huntington’s 9 major civilizations, and the inevitable conflicts they will engender being in such close quarters, are already present, in embryonic form, within the larger post-national states of the Western world. The internal dynamics of the new post-national world order are best described as “anarcho-tyrannical.” Non-whites take whatever they want from the white man in a Darwinian free-for-all, but the white man must be tyrannized over and compelled by an impersonal managerial bureaucracy to surrender everything he has. The post-national state’s multiparty dictatorship imposes its will upon whites through physical, but not moral force, which means that the conflict of interest between the hostile elite and indigenous whites cannot be resolved by appeal to some higher or independent authority.

Christchurch is an act of war within the chaotic multicultural environment of the post-national state. If Tarrant’s actions are the catalyst of a much larger conflict, they must be analyzed with the dispassionate objectivity of the military historian, from the vantage-point of strategy and logistics. The elites imported Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations into our own backyards and neighborhoods, but disingenuously excused this unprecedented act of belligerence as innocent “cultural enrichment.” Although white nationalists should eschew violence whenever possible, more radical fringe elements may believe that when white racial survival is at stake, no logical or ethical limit can be imposed on the force needed for the complete destruction of those who would threaten whites with racial extinction; in the most objectively desperate situations, it remains a truism that survival always necessitates war. Nevertheless, for white nationalists in formerly white countries, violence is generally counterproductive; if leftists were able to infiltrate the main institutions of Western civilization over the course of decades, white nationalists should be able to do the same. Ethical considerations are indeed peripheral to the white nationalist struggle against multicultural hegemony, but this is only because there is a political goal that must be achieved at all costs (which means that violence cannot be completely ruled out if the situation demands it). For us, this goal is twofold: the repatriation of all non-whites in the Western Hemisphere and the criminal prosecution of hostile elites.

We must not dismiss Tarrant as, to quote various sensationalistic media accounts, a “lunatic right-wing extremist,” a “working class madman,” or a “crazed gunman.” Such tactics are reminiscent of Soviet psychiatry, used to publicly humiliate dissidents and marginalize legitimate criticism of government policy. In the former USSR, dissidents who publicly challenged official Marxist-Leninist dogma were diagnosed as schizophrenic, locked away in mental hospitals and force-fed anti-psychotic pills until they were reduced to mindless, drooling zombies barely able to dress and feed themselves. Communist regimes around the world embraced political psychiatry as a means of enforcing conformity to state policies and the orthodox ideological interpretation of Marxism-Leninism favored by communist officials. Using the scientific-sounding jargon of psychiatry to associate political dissidence with mental illness was a highly effective tactic; if anti-communism was a sign of serious mental illness, the public would pay no attention to it.

Labeling dissidents and their theories “insane” or “crazy” isn’t only confined to communist nations. In 1989, the Ontario attorney-general famously denounced the late J. Philippe Rushton’s research on race and intelligence as “loony.” To this day, anti-racist academics continue to respond viscerally to Rushton’s r/K selection theory and life history approach to human differences, summarily dismissing both as “weird” and “bizarre,” without seriously engaging his body of work on an academic or intellectual level. By attributing Brent Tarrant’s actions and message to some simplistic individual-level mental pathology, critics want to dismiss whites who complain about being ethnically dispossessed in their own homelands as mentally ill. Smearing someone with the mental illness label because you disagree with what they say or do is a common left-wing tactic.
 

II: The Reality Behind “The Great Replacement”

Tarrant’s manifesto, entitled “The Great Replacement,” is the work of a rational and lucid mind. He makes a great deal of the fact that hostile elites all around the Western world are flooding formerly white nations with millions upon millions of culturally and racially unassimilable non-white foreigners; in consequence, whites will become minorities in their own countries before 2100.

No one, except the most indoctrinated multiculturalists, can deny the reality of the “Great Replacement,” the demographic transformation of the West into Los Estados Unidos de América, Eurafrica and Eurabia. This is an act of self-immolation that has lowered Western standards of living. Only our mostly dim-witted elites would see this as cause for celebration, while hiding behind armed bodyguards in heavily fortified compounds; better to be insulated from the corrosive effects of imported diversity than engage the electorate in serious debate as to its merits.

Whether the elite wishes to acknowledge it or not, exposure to diversity opens eyes, sometimes giving sight to the most hardened liberals and cultural Marxists. Tarrant, originally a communist, then an anarchist, was “radicalized” by Moslem terrorism in Western Europe. This lead to the realization of certain factual and statistical realities; unlike other racial or religious groups, Moslems came close to invading the cradle of the Occident and exterminating its indigenous white civilization and culture. By 732, the Moslems had conquered the entire Iberian peninsula and would have subjugated all Europe, but for Charles Martel, who defeated them at the Battle of Tours; in 1683, they invaded Europe again, only to be defeated by John III Sobieski and his Christian coalition at Vienna.

The Koran, which calls for the indiscriminate killing of infidels, is best described as a blueprint for world domination. Because violent jihad is a religious obligation, Moslems are far more likely to commit acts of terrorism than any other ethno-racial or religious group; in the United States alone. Moslems are 1% of the population, but have been responsible for 27% of all violent extremist incidents from 2001 to 2016; this means that they are 27 times more likely to commit terrorist offenses than the general population. Moslem animus towards the West has forced some whites to resort to violence to drive out the Islamist plague, which is understandable; Moslems are hostile invaders who wish to kill all unbelievers or force them to pay the jizya tax and submit to dhimmitude under a Moslem Caliphate based on Shariah law.

The hostile elites have granted the West’s historic enemies a free hand in Western Europe and North America to rape, murder, pillage, colonize and enforce Shariah law in a land that neither belongs to them nor wants them. This is a depraved and vicious act that cries out for some kind of judicial punishment.
 

III: Your Fundamental Right to Freedom of Association

In the language of natural law, which has unfortunately been distorted beyond recognition by liberal demagogues, marrying one’s own race and living among one’s own kind are the most fundamental negative rights. Freedom of association lies at the heart of any truly free and democratic society; only the vigorous preservation of this freedom can maintain the racial homogeneity necessary for the flourishing of free institutions. With freedom of association comes the freedom to discriminate. Individual liberty and moral autonomy historically necessitated anti-miscegenation laws, the Supreme Court’s “separate, but equal” doctrine, racial restrictions on citizenship and immigration, literacy tests for voting and rejection of women’s suffrage; paradoxically, the repeal of this legislation was an attack on individual liberty in the name of leftist mob tyranny.

If all non-whites have the right to freedom of association in their own countries, which they freely exercise because they have not unilaterally disarmed themselves by extinguishing their own racial consciousness, then whites must also have the same right. It should come as no surprise that the liberal totalitarian has long ago discarded negative rights; this is because they constitute a significant impediment to the implementation of multicultural policies. Liberal managerialism and Lockean natural rights are mutually incompatible.

To the race-conscious white man, the loss of freedom of association is a fate worse than death. Can you imagine not being able to voice your own opinions on the matter because of elite totalitarian control of the mass media? Can you imagine being shouted down and harassed at every moment as a racist and a bigot, for demanding something taken for granted by non-whites? The non-white invaders are not nearly as empathetic or compassionate as whites; they cannot even begin to fathom white suffering in the face of genocidal Third World immigration. Tarrant’s hatred is the Saxon’s hatred in its purest and holiest form, the kind of hatred that Rudyard Kipling spoke so highly of in his own poetry, although misplaced and channeled towards counterproductive ends (in other words, he should have targeted members of the globalist ruling class instead). In a world where all non-whites have a right to live in their own nations, with members of their own race, language, culture and religion, why shouldn’t Tarrant, as a member of the white race, not have these same rights to the kind of things non-whites take for granted?
 

IV: Senator Anning’s Common Sense on Third World Immigration

On March 15, in the aftermath of the Christchurch massacre, Queensland senator Fraser Anning said in the following statement to the press: “The real cause of bloodshed on New Zealand streets today is the immigration program which allowed Muslim fanatics to migrate to New Zealand in the first place.”

This was one of the few times that a Western politician had dissented from elite consensus. Moslems have been allowed to emigrate to Europe since the 1960s. For decades, their colonization of the cradle of Western civilization has been an orgy of murder, pillage, widespread rioting, brutal acts of terror and gang rape. So far, our mostly dim-witted, but hostile elites have callously turned a blind eye to this terrible rampage instigated by their own inept multicultural policies. Instead, they call for more immigration from the Third World. The belief that immigrant social pathologies exist because, to quote Barbara Lerner Spectre, “Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural” is accepted as an article of faith by members of the hostile elite.

How was Senator Anning rewarded for speaking truth to power?

The following day, during a press conference in Melbourne, he was egged by a 17-year-old named William Connolly. This was a vicious act of assault with a potentially dangerous weapon. Anning retaliated by punching Connolly in the head. The boy was subsequently arrested, but later released from police custody without charges. Despite video evidence of the assault, Victoria police chose to hypocritically stand by and do nothing. Prime Minister Scott Morrison inexplicably demanded that criminal charges be filed against Anning. Connolly was lionized as a hero; in just four days, “Egg Boy” was able to raise $57,000 in donations. This was a shocking miscarriage of justice, in a world where lives are routinely destroyed and reputations ruined for much, much less by intrusive, tyrannical governments and brutal, low-IQ Neanderthals masquerading as police officers.

The message sent was clear:

If you publicly speak out against Third World immigration, but are violently assaulted or otherwise criminally victimized as a result, you deserve it and no one will come to your defense, not even the police.

On March 18th, a petition calling for Anning’s expulsion from the Australian parliament was being circulated, with 1.2 million signatures, although no laws exist that would allow the Senate to expel one of its own members.

On March 27th, Anning scathingly rebuked the Australian government’s immigration policies in an open letter to the Prime Minister:

It is a matter of fact that in recent times, these kinds of deadly attacks have proliferated in Western countries. Initially, these attacks were mostly committed by Muslims but more recently, have been committed against them.

It is a matter of causation, not moral blame, that until recently we were largely immune to this problem because until the 1970s Western populations were, for the most part, ethnically, culturally and religiously homogenous.

I believe that these changes were initiated by governments, not requested by the people, who generally wished to retain their way of life, as did others around the world.

This is one of the few times on record that an MP has publicly rebuked the national government—of any globalist-occupied Western country—for its incredibly stupid multiculturalist policies.

On April 2nd, Australian lawmakers unanimously voted on a bipartisan motion to officially censure Anning for his remarks on Christchurch. Fellow senators denounced Anning as an “absolute disgrace,” as “pathetic” and “shameful”; his comments were derided as “inflammatory and divisive.” Senator Anning rightly dismissed the bipartisan motion as an attack on freedom of speech and “an exercise in left-wing virtue signaling of the worst kind.”
 

V: Why Our Hostile Elites Deserve Criminal Punishment

Senator Anning should be applauded for standing up to the leftist totalitarians of the Australian parliament, who remain intent on using non-white invasion as a battering ram against the white working class. Morrison, the Australian parliament, and most Western government officials certainly deserve blame for their reckless and utterly stupid multiculturalist policies. However, Anning does not go far enough. He calls for the criminalization of multiculturalist policies, but stops short of calling for the arrest and criminal prosecution of those Western government officials who are busily reducing whites to minorities in their own countries.

If a dog fatally mauls a child or a woman, the owner is charged with murder. This is especially true in cases involving negligence and reckless disregard for public safety. Of course, the dog is not responsible for mauling the child; millions of years of canine evolution have genetically predisposed the animal to aggression directed at unfamiliar humans and dogs. The same goes for Moslem immigrants who gang rape, murder or commit acts of terrorism in Western Europe and the Anglosphere. These foreigners do not deserve most of the blame for gang-raping or terrorizing whites, or even dispossessing them of their schools, hospitals and cities; their low IQ, high rate of inbreeding, strong ethnocentric tendencies and penchant for testosterone-fueled aggression mean that they, like animals, are largely under the control of instinct. The Moslem invaders have less autonomy than whites, which significantly diminishes their capacity to accept responsibility for their actions. The proper course of action is to look at who let the non-whites into the country, just as the proper course of action in the case of the killer dog is to find out who the owner is.

We must ask ourselves:

Who gave this foreigner affirmative action or welfare payments so he could dispossess whites in their own neighborhoods and cities?

Who naturalized this foreigner as a “new citizen” of our country?

Who approved this foreigner’s application for residency?

Why did this foreigner decide to get on a plane and fly to our country? Did someone tell this foreigner to come to our country? If so, who?

We must keep asking ourselves these questions until we come to the real culprits behind genocidal Third World immigration: the “democratically elected” politicians of the various multi-party dictatorships in the West that supposedly represent the will of the common people.

When immigrants gang rape or terrorize whites, the real gang rapists and terrorists are not the unwanted non-whites, but the politicians of Western Europe and the Anglosphere. In France, if a group of non-whites gang rape and then murder a white woman or girl, it is not the non-whites who are primarily responsible; on the contrary, the real gang rapists and murderers are Emmanuel Macron, his Council of Ministers and the French parliament. In Germany, if a group of non-whites carry out a terrorist attack that maims or kills dozens of innocent civilians, it is Angela Merkel and the entire Bundestag who are the real terrorists and murderers. They let those non-white foreigners in and forced whites to live around them, well aware of the many dangers Third World immigration poses to unwary or unsuspecting whites.

For every immigrant who is charged with gang rape, murder or terrorism, the politicians, immigration officials and others responsible for allowing non-whites into the country, should also face charges of rape, murder or terrorism. As custodians of the state, the hostile elite should be intelligent enough to know that ceaseless, massive and indiscriminate importation of racially incompatible and unassimilable foreigners will cause significant problems for the host society. Indeed, Western leaders and immigration officials would think twice before importing Africans, Moslems and other scum into their own countries if they were held accountable for their actions by the criminal courts. If such had always been the case, the demographic transformation of the West would not have proceeded with such rapidity and it would have remained overwhelmingly white. Even in cases where the foreigners neither rape, murder or commit acts of terrorism, Western leaders are still not absolved of their actions; for every historic white community that has been ethnically cleansed by mass immigration, those leaders and immigration officials behind it should be hunted down and prosecuted for crimes against humanity, namely genocide.

If a race-conscious white patriot opens fire on non-white invaders imported by the nation’s hostile elite, such as what Tarrant did at Christchurch, the elite must not only be held fully responsible for the massacre, they must also be arrested and prosecuted for it. The laws of evolutionary biology dictate that two subspecies of the same species do not occupy the same geographical area without risking passive genocide through miscegenation, domination of one subspecies by the other and, eventually, the physical extermination of the weaker of the two subspecies. As Senator Anning has pointed out, if the non-white foreigners gunned down at Christchurch had stayed in their own countries where they belong and had not ventured where they were not wanted, they would still be alive today.
 

VI: Nuremberg-Style Justice for Globalist War Criminals

After WWII, the leading Nazi war criminals were rounded up and tried at the Palace of Justice in Nuremberg. The city was chosen by the victorious allies for its symbolic significance; the birth of the Third Reich was accompanied by the pomp and pageantry of the massive propaganda rallies that had been annually staged in the city; if Nuremberg witnessed the birth of Nazism, the city would also witness its death throes. Just as Nuremberg was selected to be the final act in the Wagnerian tragedy of Nazism, the Götterdämmerung of the Nazi leadership, so the main airports in all globalist-occupied Western nations should be reserved for the trial of the globalist elite. These airports imported the great mass of non-whites into the West, so they were of instrumental significance in the establishment of official multicultural policy in all globalist-occupied Western countries. Special prisons and courthouses near all of the main airports, surrounded by moats, walls, pillboxes and military checkpoints, would have to be constructed to feed, house and medicate the globalist leaders as they await trial for treason and crimes against humanity.

The globalist traitors merit Nuremberg-style justice far more than the Nazis, whose crimes were comparatively innocuous; at least they didn’t ethnically cleanse their own people and destroy their own nations through mass invasion, miscegenation and race war. Since 1948, when the hostile elites inaugurated their program of genocidal mass non-white immigration, there have been a seemingly endless series of gang rapes, murders, riots and terrorist attacks across Western Europe and the Anglosphere; in addition, the mass invasion of non-whites has been used by elites to ethnically cleanse whites from their own schools, colleges and universities, hospitals, neighborhoods, towns and cities. As long as the white man remains asleep, this process of destruction will continue until there is nothing left to demolish.

But what should happen if there is a resurgence of white racial consciousness before the multiculturalist destruction of all Western societies has been completed? This is why the elites have now embraced a policy of “multicultural accelerationism”; they must do everything in their power to speed up the pace of mass non-white immigration by making it as indiscriminate and as massive as possible; in Canada, for example, mass immigration has increased from 150,000 annually in the early 1990s to over 300,000 in 2018; this will increase to over 400,000 in the near future.

Like all governments throughout history, the globalist elite will not be in power forever. Because their time is limited, Western Europe and the Anglosphere must be destroyed as quickly as possible before anyone is able to stop them and reverse their destructive mass immigration policies.
 

Additional Resource:

The full text of Senator Anning’s open letter to PM Morrison is available: here.

Zero-budget movies about the Gulag

From minute 40 to 43 Michael Kingsbury explains exactly what we have been saying this month: Whites need a very specific story, and Kingsbury wisely states which story should it be: a tragic story, like the Gulag that killed dozens of millions of whites.

Decades ago I was very naïve. I could not figure out why, in the middle of the Cold War, Kissinger and Nixon did not ask Hollywood to make films about the Gulag in order to win the cultural war that was already taking place in the West. I knew nothing about the Jewish question, let alone that whites were behaving like accomplices of the Jews. (Recall the phone call between Nixon and Billy Graham in which they worried that the media was controlled by Jewry but, from the presidential chair and the pulpit, they did nothing to solve the problem.)

Now I know that both Christians and secular whites are involved not only in the empowerment of Jewry, but in the internalisation of a foundation myth that diabolises the white race. What I did not understand in the past, times when I told people that the media feeds us with ‘a hundred films and documentaries about the Holocaust and zero about the Gulag’, I understand now.

Kingsbury is right in what he says, as I pointed out above, from the 40th to the 43rd minutes. That is why I place so much emphasis on Hellstorm, a true holocaust of Germans that even the so-called white nationalists in North America don’t want to see, apparently because those facts put their dear nation at the level of the USSR of Stalin.

The white man, compassionate by nature, must radically change the story he tells himself. And what better way that, instead of Game of Thrones fantasies, tell stories about real events of the 20th century: events that the System has been hiding for a century (according to Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, the Gulag system started in 1918 and ended a couple of years before the year I was born).

No one wanted to sponsor Kingsbury for his Gulag films. The three films he made were practically zero-budget movies. It reminds me the conditions in which I am also forced to work.

Wouldn’t whites be better off If Hitler had won the Second World War?

by Ferdinand Bardamu

Interviewer: And what in your opinion is the tragic element of our epoch?

Louis-Ferdinand Céline: Stalingrad…The fall of Stalingrad was the end of Europe. There’s been a cataclysm. Its epicenter was Stalingrad. After that you can say that white civilization was finished, really washed up.

— Interview, 1960

 

I: Western Europe’s Post-WWII recovery

WWII is considered the most destructive conflict in history. No other conflict, not even the 13th century Mongol invasions, comes even close. An estimated 60 million to 80 million are believed to have been killed during WWII; in contrast, the Mongols only killed an estimated 30 million to 40 million. Huge swaths of territory in Europe were reduced to ruin by Allied bombing. Germany, Poland and Russia suffered the most devastation. The combined wartime expenditures of both Axis and Allied powers were astronomical, running into the trillions of dollars in today’s currency. In the immediate wake of Axis defeat, there was chaos; Europe had no functioning governments or judicial systems. The economy had virtually disappeared, save for a thriving black market. Schools and universities were no longer open to students or the general public. Millions were left homeless; families were torn apart; entire populations, like the ethnic Germans of Eastern Europe, were forcibly driven from their homes. Armed bands of men took whatever they wanted and the occupying soldiers of the Red Army engaged in mass rape. Women of all ages and classes openly prostituted themselves for food and shelter. Many took advantage of the war’s end to settle old scores; National Socialist collaborators were rounded up, beaten and killed. Women who were perceived as being too friendly with the soldiers of the Wehrmacht were seized and had their heads shaven.

In 1948, Congress approved the four-year Marshall Plan, authorizing disbursement of billions of dollars in US funds to rebuild European industry and infrastructure. The amount given in aid totaled 5% of US GDP. By the time Western Europeans had received these funds, their continent was well on the way to full economic recovery. From 1947 to 1949, mining and manufacturing production was restored to pre-war levels in most areas; in 1950, per capita food production was restored to pre-war levels. West Germany, the most war-ravaged country in Western Europe, reached pre-war levels of per capita GDP in 1955. To all neutral observers, West Germany’s recovery and economic growth was nothing short of miraculous. It was known as the Wirtschaftwunder or “West German economic miracle,” the brainchild of Chancellor Konrad Adenauer’s Minister of Economic Affairs, Ludwig Erhard. He stimulated economic growth through currency reform, abolition of price controls and tax cuts. From 1950 to 1959, West German GDP grew faster than anywhere else in Western Europe. By the 1960s, West Germany had emerged as the largest and most influential economic power in Europe. In contrast, East Germany, its Stalinist counterpart, stagnated under Soviet rule.

Despite the enormous devastation caused by WWII, Western Europeans were able to rapidly recover and achieve levels of economic and industrial development far surpassing pre-war levels. This wasn’t the first time Europeans were able to easily bounce back from tragedy; they had also bounced back from the ravages of the Black Death and the Mongol invasions.
 

II: The hostile elite’s pathological “Europhobia”

Since the end of WWII, the hostile elite has been flooding Western Europe with non-whites from the developing world’s most impoverished and war-torn areas. Globalists advocated diluting white racial purity to never again experience the horrors of European all-out war. The hostile elite justified this race replacement using the most flippant excuses. “Europeans aren’t having enough children,” they complained, “we need more super-fertile Third World invaders!” “We need fresh blood for jobs no European wants to do,” others moaned, “without workers, who will support Europeans in their old age?” On deeper examination, the hostile elite’s reasons for Third World invasion must be immediately dismissed as deliberate falsehoods.

Globalists claim that low fertility is always a bad thing; but a reduction in the number of excess mouths to feed would allow wages and living standards to rise. Letting jobs go without anyone to fill them isn’t as damaging as the globalists would like us to believe; through the market’s built-in self-correcting mechanism, rising corporate demand would induce an increase in real wages and the labor supply would fix itself. If there is a genuine labor shortage, excess demand would be channeled into research and development, leading to the invention of labor-saving devices. Conversely, they could also stimulate the fertility rate by offering various incentives, like cash bonuses. Excessive reliance on foreign workers to support elderly Europeans is just another ridiculous Ponzi scheme; invaders would get old, requiring even more workers; needless to say, such infinite growth is ecologically unsustainable. There are limits to Europe’s carrying capacity; as neo-Malthusian ecologists are fond of pointing out, infinite growth with limited resources is an impossibility. A more logical solution would be to eliminate mandatory retirement age, allowing the elderly to work for as long as they wanted. Another serious problem with the fatuous “we need workers to support our elderly pensioners” is that Mohammed al-Baghdadi will not want to support elderly whites when his people form Europe’s next majority.

There is only one plausible reason for elite-managed Third World invasion: demographic aggression against Europeans in retaliation for the horrors of WWII. For centuries, whites were subjected to evolutionary selective pressures that maximized the prevalence of beneficial traits, but removed maladaptive traits from the gene pool. Not only did IQs rise, but high trust cultures fostering social cohesion and co-operative behavior were established. As a result, Europeans were able to rapidly recover from tragedies like the Mongol invasions and the Black Death. In fact, if Europe had been destroyed by a devastating thermonuclear war, the surviving whites would have still been able to recover because of their enormous social and human capital. After a few generations, the population would have returned to replacement levels of fertility and Western civilization would flourish once again.

Sub-Saharan Africans and Middle Easterners are the majority of Europe’s invaders. The sub-Saharan African is known for his penchant for violence and savagery; Middle Easterners are usually inbred hicks. In many Arab populations, the consanguineous marriage rate exceeds 50%. Because of low IQ, many are believers in militant Islam, an ignorant, crass superstition originating in the Saudi desert. As these two groups increase in Europe, Western population genetic structure will change for the worse, making it harder for Europeans to recover from tragedy. If the percentage of Africans and Middle Easterners becomes high relative to whites, white resilience in the face of tragedy will eventually disappear. Changes in the white race’s underlying genetic structure are irreversible, unless vigorous negative eugenic action is taken. By flooding Europe with Third World invaders, globalists are destroying the cradle of Occidental civilization, something the Mongol Hordes and the Soviet communists were never able to accomplish.
 

III: National Socialist-occupied Europe
vs. globalist-occupied Europe

In their propaganda literature, the National Socialists said they opposed the “big capitalism” of the “American economic system,” the globalism of the interbellum years. In the 1932 pamphlet “German Farmers, You Belong to Hitler!,” they warned that global expansion of American capitalism would turn the world into a “giant trust” concerned only with “profits and dividends”; man would be enslaved to the empty “slogans of progress, technology, rationalization, standardization.” The final aim of American “big capitalism” was “the world dictatorship of Jewry” through “parliament and the swindle of democracy.” National Socialism and globalism were diametrically opposed; only globalists promoted white genocide, whereas the Third Reich was preoccupied with issues of white racial survival.

Whatever destructive impact National Socialism had on the world stage was actually quite small, at least when compared to the destructive impact of contemporary globalism. The National Socialists, some of the most genuine European nationalists in Western history, treated their citizens with far greater compassion than the current hostile elites of Western Europe. The National Socialist party’s large-scale public investment in make-work schemes, the building of new autobahns and land reclamation, stimulated economic growth. Through these policies Germany managed to escape the Great Depression; by 1939, unemployment was almost 0%. National Socialists provided their citizens with one of the highest living standards in the world; at no point did they ever seek to exert negative pressure on real wages and living standards by artificially increasing labor supply. German racial hygiene was improved through eugenics; this meant euthanasia for the genetically unfit and Lebensborn, the controlled breeding of racially pure Aryan children. Through legislative policies and material incentives, the German fertility rate was increased. Abortion and birth control measures were outlawed, except for those deemed “useless eaters”; free money and food were given to women who had children. Women who had 6 or more children were exempted from paying income tax; those with 8 children or more received a Mother’s Cross made of pure gold, one of the Third Reich’s highest honors.

The barely disguised, murderous anti-white hatred of globalism makes it a far more destructive force than National Socialism. Globalists support Third World invasion because it reduces white fertility, the result of lowering wages and rising housing costs because of excess demand. The removal of economic opportunities for indigenous whites through outsourcing is considered a humanitarian duty. Third World invasion has other negative effects on whites. In Frank Salter’s On Genetic Interests (2003), territories monopolized by “ethnies” are said to have very specific carrying capacities; if Great Britain’s maximum carrying capacity is 120 million, but is currently occupied by 60 million whites, the addition of 60 million non-white aliens would prevent indigenous Britons from increasing their numbers beyond 60 million. The presence of genetically distinct Third World invaders would result in substantial losses in white ethnic genetic interests. The disappearance of the white man’s distinctive racial traits would genetically transform the population. This is genocide through race replacement and miscegenation.

Compared to the Third Reich’s environmental impact, the globalist regimes of modern Europe are far more destructive. As most population growth in globalist-occupied Europe is both artificially induced and massive, there will be overcrowding, significant material scarcity and increased carbon emissions (cause for concern among those convinced by the scientific evidence for global warming). Exponential population growth in a finite territory always harms ecological sustainability; available resources for the next generation of whites would be substantially reduced.

German National Socialists tried to preserve, increase and enhance Western Europe’s white population. The globalists, on the other hand, actively seek to destroy Western Europe through physical and cultural genocide. Their favorite leftist weapons, feminism, multiculturalism and non-white invasion, will reduce indigenous whites to a minority. This will eventually lead to race extinction through miscegenation and race war. The end result of globalism will be far more destructive than the World Wars combined; at least under National Socialist rule, Western Europe would have survived and flourished.
 

IV: Globalism: more dangerous than
National Socialism… and Communism?

Cultural Marxism is the ideological foundation of contemporary globalism. This is the belief that racial and sexual inequality are caused by social oppression. Marxist ideology has informed all modern attempts to socially engineer humanity to reduce inequality. Since equality does not exist in nature, Marxist social engineering of egalitarian outcomes will always lead to mass murder and genocide. In The Black Book of Communism (1999), Stéphane Courtois and other European academics estimated communism’s death toll at 85 million to 100 million individuals during the 20th century, as opposed to the 25 million noncombatant fatalities attributed to the National Socialist regime (other sources generally place this at approximately 11 million). Whatever one thinks of the politics of the Third Reich, they were at least grounded in the scientific realities of neo-Darwinian biology, which is why they were far less destructive and far less murderous than communism and that other Marxist-derived ideology, globalism.

Interestingly enough, the greater internal weaknesses of communist regimes like the Soviet Union made them far less dangerous than their globalist counterparts. The inability of the centrally planned economy to efficiently allocate resources, as well as military expenditures vastly in excess of consumer goods spending, among other reasons, led to Soviet collapse in 1991. Cultural Marxist propaganda combined with neo-liberal capitalism is far more economically sustainable than Soviet communism. At least communist ideology did not ruin ordinary Russians by destroying their way of life and culture. The Soviet version of multiculturalism, the ethnofederal model, never dissolved Russian ethnic identity to replace it with a deracinated, faceless Homo sovieticus. On the other hand, the purpose of globalist multiculturalism is total destruction of Europe by erasing its indigenous culture and reducing indigenous whites to a minority, finally wiping them out through miscegenation and race war. If there is no anti-globalist revolution in the near future, this policy will continue indefinitely, until whites one day go extinct.

At least Russians were able to emerge from Soviet totalitarianism with their racial health still intact.
 

V: The 20th century’s greatest tragedy

Let us envision an alternative scenario where the Axis powers had emerged from WWII as the victors.

National Socialist-occupied Europe would stretch from the Pyrenees to the Russian Far East. There would be destruction, but far less than the wave of destruction unleashed by hostile globalist elites. Whites would be able to quickly rebuild and replenish their numbers through natural increase. Most importantly, their population genetic structure would remain intact. The National Socialist totalitarian regime would eventually crumble, as no system of governance endures forever, replaced by some other form of government promoting white racial interests. Obviously, there would be no globalism, multiculturalism or Third World invasion.

National Socialist eugenic policies would make Europeans stronger and healthier; this would increase their capacity to maintain and advance their own civilization. Because the Soviets were defeated by the Wehrmacht at Stalingrad in 1943, there would be no Cold War. If there is a Cold War between the Third Reich and the United States, the aim of American foreign policy may be “containment” of National Socialist power and influence in the Americas. If North America’s hostile elite embraces multiculturalism and Third World invasion following an Axis victory in WWII, dissident whites would at least have a safe haven to flee to; they would also have a base of operations to conduct covert anti-globalist activities against Washington.

An Axis victory in WWII would mean that whites would not be under attack, as they are today. By shielding their citizens from the genocidal race-mixing propaganda of the globalists, Soviet communism inoculated Eastern Europe from the twin pathologies of multiculturalism and non-white invasion. National Socialism would naturally have been far more effective at preserving white racial purity. An all-white Western Europe would be able to pick up the pieces when North America’s globalist regime inevitably collapses and devolves into both civil and race war, perhaps installing a sympathetic National Socialist government in Washington.

The Allied victory in Europe was a colossal mistake; the wrong side had won the war. The forces of darkness, represented by the liberal-leftist regimes of Roosevelt (later Truman), Churchill and Stalin, had triumphed over the racial and national freedom offered by the Italian fascists and German National Socialists, the real would-be saviors of Europe. Although not obvious then, this has become blindingly obvious now. Céline’s pronouncement on the fate of Western civilization remains prophetic: “Europe died at Stalingrad… After that you can say that white civilization was finished.”

Tarrant explained in 5 minutes

In the context of the New Zealand attack coach said, ‘I think we are in our way to the civil war, the Second Civil War. And I don’t think there is anything to stop it’ (start watching: here).

Published in: on March 27, 2019 at 8:07 pm  Comments (15)  

Feels lonely sometimes

This morning I was looking for another of Linder’s archived quotable Gab quotes and, while finding this one—:

The theory that “exposing the jews” would solve the problem was first put out there by Henry Ford. We now have 100 years to judge “how’s that theory working out for you, White man?”

—at the same time I was listening to the first episode of Black Wolf Radio: two voices of English men I’ve met personally. In the podcast, one of them used the word ‘Marxist’ repeatedly.

(Left, Soviet Union stamp commemorating the 100th anniversary of the Manifesto.) Luis Salazar, a Marxist teacher of the Madrid School (a school founded by those Spaniards who fled the Franco regime), taught us Marxism in Mexico City in the middle 1970s. This word has changed so much since the 70s that presently it means something altogether different.

In white nationalist circles, it now means the ideology of white genocide through the inversion of values. I still remember pretty well the content of the Communist Manifesto that we had to study at the Madrid School, and thus I believe that the term ‘neo-Christian’ would better describe the ideology of white genocide.

Of course: ‘cultural Marxism’ is the term in fashion in white nationalist circles after the old term ‘liberalism’, in the sense of liberalism ran amok, fell into disuse. But since classical liberalism and classical Marxism weren’t ideologies aimed at the extermination of whites, the priest of the 14 words should try to develop a more concise vocabulary. From the POV of the priest, white nationalism uses terms very loosely because it has failed to settle accounts with Christianity.

If one cries ‘Marxist’, the impression on the listener is that things were going on well until Karl Marx in the 19th century. But the French Revolution enforced egalitarian principles before Marx was even born. And long, long before the French Revolution white culture was overwhelmed by an ideology of Semitic origin that erased almost all vestiges of the original Greco-Roman world.

The terms used by white nationalists only convey the level of awakening in the movement, and this includes Linder’s quote above. Yes: some of those who destroyed the Greco-Roman world were anti-Semites, but the virus of enforced egalitarianism in the Ancient World (that could only be implemented by destroying everything noble that whites had created) was far more destructive for classical culture than to Judaism.

This is White history, as every regular visitor of this site should already know. Alas, as Mauricio said, ‘The leap from level 5 to level 6 is astronomical due to the Xtian malware rejection. Feels lonely sometimes’.

Russo-Jewish history

Yesterday, I received from FedEx the treatise of Richard Carrier that endorses the Christ myth theory at the postdoctoral level. White nationalists who continue to believe that there is historical evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed should obtain a copy of Carrier’s book. As I have said several times, the movement called white nationalism is schizophrenic in that, logically, there can be no such chimera as a Jew-wise movement that submits to the god of the Jews and, at the same time, loves a supposed Jewish dude called Jesus.

Yesterday I could barely tolerate a few seconds of the recent YouTube conversation between Richard Spencer, James Edwards and Kevin MacDonald precisely because of these internal contradictions that did not exist in the upper echelons of Nazi power. And it was precisely the Nazis who wanted to destroy the Soviet Union in which the genocidal Jews played a fundamental role. Precisely because white nationalists are more bourgeois than revolutionary, I fear that in the not too distant future the United States will become an open field of extermination at the mercy of Jews similar to Stalin’s willing executioners.

Solzhenitsyn only wrote two non-fiction books: The Gulag Archipelago and 200 Years Together. No wonder that the second of these books, which deals with Russo-Jewish history, has not been translated by recognised publishers in the Judaized United States. The good news is that Solzhenitsyn’s second non-fictional book has been translated for dissidents like us, who are only allowed to discuss these things on the internet.

I suggest saving the PDF of 200 Years Together on your hard disk. The PDF will become handy when the US becomes like the SU. I want to read it in the coming weeks and months and add some quotes on this site. For the moment, this is the table of contents:
 

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
200 Years Together

 
Volume 1 – The Jews Before the Revolution:

Chapter 1: Before the 19th Century (translated by R. Butler and J. Harris)
Chapter 2: During the Reign of Alexander I
Chapter 3: During the Reign of Nicholas I
Chapter 4: During the Period of Reforms
Chapter 5: After the Murder of Alexander II
Chapter 6: In the Russian Revolutionary Movement
Chapter 7: The Birth of Zionism
Chapter 8: At the Turn of the 20th Century
Chapter 9: During the Revolution of 1905
Chapter 10: During the Period of Duma
Chapter 11: The Jewish and Russian National Consciousness Prior to WWI
Chapter 12: During World War I
 
Volume 2 – The Jews in the Soviet Union:

Chapter 13: The February Revolution
Chapter 14: During 1917
Chapter 15: Among Bolsheviks
Chapter 16: During the Civil War
Chapter 17: Emigration Between the Two World Wars
Chapter 18: In the 1920s
Chapter 19: In the 1930s
Chapter 20: In the Camps of GULAG
Chapter 21: During the Soviet-German War
Chapter 22: From the End of the War to Stalin’s Death
Chapter 23: Before the Six-Day War
Chapter 24: Breaking Away from Bolshevism
Chapter 25: Accusing Russia
Chapter 26: The Beginning of Exodus
Chapter 27: About the Assimilation
Author’s Afterword

Octavio Paz

Today in the morning I slightly edited yesterday’s entry, ‘Roma (2018 film)’, and added a postscript.

I must say once again that the paradigm from which I see white decline is different from the monocausal paradigm of many white nationalists.

Here in Latin America it is clear that in addition to the Jews the mestizos also want the whites to disappear, so I call them ‘little Jews’ insofar as they do not have the influence that the Jews have in the West. But the saddest thing is that the white intellectuals in Latin America also want, unconsciously, that the Aryans disappear from the map. And I do not mean only the famous Mexican film directors mentioned in my entry yesterday, but the Creole intellectuals: that is, the top intellectuals of Spanish descent.

Octavio Paz (Mexico City, 1914-1998) was a Mexican poet, essayist and diplomat. He won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1990 and the Cervantes Award in 1981. He is considered one of the most influential writers of the 20th century and one of the great intellectuals and poets of the Spanish language of all time.

In 1995 I saw a television program in which Ted Koppel interviewed the winners of the Nobel Prize for Literature Octavio Paz, Derek Walcott, Czeslaw Milosz and I think others. When Paz told Koppel that the Anglo-Saxons should miscegenate as the Spaniards had done in Mexico, something in my heart rebelled very deeply…

I knew that these words of Paz represented something wrong, and that it had been insolent to utter them precisely on American television. But at that time the Matrix of political correctness had me in its power and I had not read a single ethno-patriot. However, the resentments against someone I admired were recorded in my memory, so much so that I remember my rejection of Paz’s words in 1995 as if it had been yesterday.

Presently I not only see as wrong the pronouncements of the winners of the Nobel Prize in the Koppel interview: I see them all as true idiots. Let’s see a fraction of the excerpts from the Koppel interview. Octavio Paz said:

A new solution must be found to this problem of the multiplicity of cultures and races and communities that are here [United States]. Such is the relevance of this debate. It differs a lot from Mexico. My country was also founded with a universal idea, only that it was not the Reformation and Protestantism, but Catholicism and the Counter-Reformation. We were also universalists and we are a mestizo country, something that you are not yet [my emphasis: just what made a memory dent after watching the program]. I am quite sure that, if you are wise, you will be multicultural. It would be a great thing.

‘Multicultural’ is a grotesque euphemism for miscegenation (‘something that you are not yet’) and, therefore, a euphemism of white extinction in the US.

Now I see that Paz, like the filmmakers that I mentioned yesterday, did not give a damn that the white race disappeared in the neighbouring northern country. This is the only one of the races (white, black, oriental and Indian) that is actively committing suicide precisely because of ethno-suicidal ideas such as those of Paz and the filmmakers mentioned yesterday. I have called this type of pronouncements the sin against the holy spirit of life: a sin that, personally, I do not forgive.

In the interview with Koppel, Paz also said: ‘He who could have deserved the Nobel prize but never received it was Céline. He was perhaps one of the great novelists of France, but he was anti-Semitic. What to do with it? It is really very complicated’.

Now, twenty years after Paz’s death I see that, like the ultraliberal Swedes who awarded the Nobel Prize to Octavio Paz, Paz himself was an absolute ignorant of the Jewish question. Ultimately, the laureate writers are as stupid as the rest of the treacherous elites.

Spencer on Bowers

Further to my claim that ‘Wallace’s and Johnson’s love is murdering the white race’.

After minute 28 Richard Spencer, in the show The Public Space #201, said that Robert Bowers ‘should be punished for this crime…’ Eight minutes later he said, ‘We absolutely condemn them’ (Bowers and Dylann Roof). Spencer is right that Roof and Bowers committed mistakes from the point of view of harming the movement. But that’s not the point of this post.

While talking about a hypothetical ethnic cleansing after minute 134, Spencer mocked the novel of William Pierce of ‘kill all these people… Turner Diaries… We are going to live through this slaughterhouse… It will be only us… That is both absolutely absurd and completely undesirable. I think our movement does need to recognise other people morally speaking; that they are going to have their place under the sun…’

Spencer is not a post-Nietzschean. He has not read my Day of Wrath. Like Hunter, Greg and thousands of other identitarians, Spencer is a neo-Christian. Stalin’s (((willing executioners))) killed about 60 million. In narcosis while diving, the most dangerous symptom is the impairment of judgement. How many millions more will they have to kill outside Russia to wake up Christians and neo-Christians from their axiological narcosis?

Linder quote

This is simply racial war.

People keep saying there is going to be a civil war or race war, but this is wrong. There is one now, by official policy. It’s been going on for decades.

As demographics change, the government will get bolder and the war will get hotter.

Published in: on August 30, 2018 at 4:58 pm  Comments (2)