Italian scum

“White Nationalists treat Mediterraneans like Republicans treat Mestizos.”

Stubbs


The 1924 US immigration Act was aimed at restricting the Southern and Eastern Europeans, among them Jews who had migrated in large numbers since the 1890s, as well as prohibiting the immigration of Middle Easterners, East Asians, and Indians. Thanks to it, the quotas for immigration from Southern Europe were so restrictive that there were more Italians, Greeks, Hungarians, Portuguese, Romanians, Spaniards, Chinese, and Japanese that left the United States than those who arrived as immigrants. Alas, white Christians are crazy, and after their saner periods they cannot control their ethno-suicidal impulses. A good example of this is precisely how the Italian mafia infected a previously Nordic, genuinely white nation.

Recently, at home, I watched a few scenes from both the first two Godfathers and Goodfellas. Tommy DeVito (interpreted by Joe Pesci in Goodfellas), inspired in a mafia fellow of the real US world, is one of the most repulsive characters I have ever seen on the big screen. Presently I can no longer tolerate watching the whole films. I find that Italian subculture nauseating. That’s why, at the beginning of the second Godfather film, set in the year when I was born, Senator Geary’s words after he attended the First Communion celebration for the son of Michael Corleone, the head of the Corleone crime family, are notable. That’s in fact my favorite line of all mafia films I’ve ever seen.

the-godfather-2-senator

After the public ceremony, Senator Geary meets with Michael in his office. The Corleone family had obtained control of several casinos in Nevada. Geary offers to help Michael obtain a disputed gaming license in exchange for an exorbitant bribe, and this is how he addresses the godfather in front of his private gang:

Because I intend to squeeze you. I don’t like your kind of people. I don’t like to see you come out to this clean country [I remember how I loved these words while watching the film in the middle 1970s!] with your oily hair, dressed up in those silk suits, passing yourselves off as decent Americans. I’ll do business with you, but the fact is that I despise your masquerade, the dishonest way you pose yourself. Yourself and your whole fucking family.

Unfortunately, since many white nationalists are dense or dishonest enough to see “white” when a non-snatched individual sees “brown” or “olive,” I only will be able to share this soliloquy with non-“snatched” folks.

Published in: on October 14, 2013 at 7:10 pm  Comments (7)  

Bicausalism Type-B in action!

The non-white Immigration Act of 1965

See Hunter Wallace’s excellent “bicausal Type-B” reply to Kevin MacDonald’s “bicausal Type-A” article on the immigration act that screwed up America. These articles were posted today and yesterday respectively. (For the explanation of the word “bicausalism” just see my previous entries.)

Ciaran on Hitler

Hitler-Portrait


He was a visionary, and a statesman—but no general. Jewish power is based on the slander, and inversion of real history about the events of the Twentieth Century. Hitler and the Nazis are the Trojan Horse, used to colonize the very minds of Western Whites.

Hitler and the Nazis were not evil. You are blaming the victims. How dare you? They made a lot of mistakes—but Hitler was the last White Man that tried to defend his own people.

Every single time any one of you allows a lie to stand—you collude with our murderers. You may want to get rid of Hitler et al—but to allow the slander to stand is simply nothing more than laziness, and cowardice. How dare you?

Telling the truth about the real events of the Twentieth Century does not “keep White Nationalism in a ghetto”—it’s the laziness and timidity and cowardice that does that.

The Worst Generation fought against people who had done them no harm, actively participated in the Civil Rights dismantling of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and did nothing to resist the 1965 Immigration Act, “Women’s Lib”, and the absolute degradation of the culture. The Worst Generation went along with everything, while they wallowed in what’s turning out to be rather short-term affluence.

The worst Generation did immense, civilization-wrecking harm. They set the stage for our genocide. They did wrong—for a host of reasons. And one wrong enabled another.

I’d like to ignore Hitler—but I’m not allowed to. The Jewish Media parades his demonized corpse around 24/7. I challenge any of you to turn on a radio, a TV set, open a magazine, or website, and not have poor old Adolf thrown right in your face. His name is invoked in the weirdest, and most unrelated situations. We will never be free of Hitler until we stop caving to the monstrous and fallacious demonization of Hitler.

This generation should be called out for what they’ve done. They should be ashamed of themselves. The ones that are around can still vote. Their shame should be held up as an example to future generations. The Founding Generation will feel repulsion of the deeds of the Worst Generation.

Adolf Hitler and the soldiers of the Reich did not bring death and destruction. Talmudic Jewry, and their vile Shabbos Goy sell-out whores, did that.

Refusing to accept this alienating and self-obliterating lie is what sets us free.

Flattering the soldiers of World War II as “The Greatest Generation,” is one of Satan’s most beloved and successful tricks—cosseting human vanity. If that generation, and the succeeding generations, get hung up on that meme, that fraud, that con job, then it becomes more and more difficult to assess, with each passing day, the true, real-world legacy of that generation. Why do any of us want to lock ourselves into a mythos, created by our enemies, that leads directly to our dispossession and genocide, simply to flatter old men?

When I challenge these oldsters—and every last one of them is a Christian—I tell them:

“I know it’s terrible to have to accept the fact that the ‘biggest’ event of your life was a terrible, horrible mistake. But you are going to have to deal with this when you face God—so get used to the idea now. Think about how you will account for this…”

Published in: on April 20, 2013 at 10:45 am  Comments (25)  
Tags:

Auster on the Jewish Problem

When I was a liberal Larry Auster was one of the few authors who helped me in changing my worldview… at fifty! Although Auster and I have had strong disagreements in the past regarding the Jewish Problem, the recent article by Kevin MacDonald, “Lawrence Auster on the Role of Jews in Disestablishing White, Christian America” merits reposting here. Keep always in mind that, although Auster converted to Christianity, he is ethnically Jewish.

At The Occidental Observer webzine MacDonald wrote:

macdonald

Lawrence Auster is one of those rare Jews (Paul Gottfried is another) who seems to have an appreciation for the traditional people and culture of America and an understanding of the role of Jews in White dispossession—not that Auster and I haven’t had our disagreements (“Lawrence Auster gets unhinged”).

Auster recently posted a chapter originally written in 1998 on the role of Jews in the multicultural transformation of the U.S. and the decline of White America (“Jews: The Archetypal Multiculturalists”). He hits pretty much all the right notes. Auster often has a way of phrasing things and choosing quotations from prominent Jews that cut to the heart of the matter—almost like painting pictures that are worth a thousand words.

His dissection of Alan Dershowitz is classic—the supreme arrogance and hypocrisy of Dershowitz’s fanatic ethnocentrism that is entirely mainstream in the Jewish community. Dershowitz unabashedly gives Jews the right to alter America in the direction of multiculturalism to suit their interests, as well as to disregard the Constitution and the attitudes and interests of White America; Dershowitz simultaneously condemns the ethnocentrism and group feelings of non-Jewish Whites while supporting Jewish ethnocentrism, endogamy, and sense of group interests in America as well as the racialist, apartheid state of Israel. To say that Jews like Dershowitz have no respect for the traditional people and culture of America is a gross understatement; they see the world from a completely Jewish perspective in which the rights, culture, and traditions of non-Jews at best count for nothing. At worst, they are the appropriate target of hatred, scorn, and ultimately, one fears, far worse; indeed, Auster describes Dershowitz as “openly hostile to America’s historic civilization.”

Dershowitz is an example of extreme ethnocentrism where it is impossible to see the world except in terms of Jewish interests. Here’s Auster on Dershowitz excoriating WASP law firms for not hiring ethnically obsessed Jews like Desrhowitz:

He lived a life apart as a Jew, yet at the same time he expected high-society lawyers to staff their firms with people who couldn’t socialize with them. And he calls them bigots for not wanting to do this! [Auster’s emphasis]

Jews like Dershowitz are completely unable to see the situation from the perspective of those he condemns. Unfortunately, Dershowitz is entirely within the mainstream of Jewish opinion and activism among American Jews and certainly within the organized Jewish community in America. And because of the elite status of American Jews, this is very important indeed. Jews matter.

One thing that struck me is that nothing much has changed for the better since 1998. Despite the rather old references, Auster’s article is up to date because the processes he describes are ongoing. If anything, they have become more extreme. For any given example that he lists, there could be dozens more gleaned from the intervening 15 years. Nothing fundamental has changed.


“Jews re-made America”

Because of the Jews’ tragic history as a persecuted people, and because of their own ability, through their leading role in American intellectual life, to set the terms of permissible discourse, it is impossible in today’s society to have an honest discussion on the subject of Jewish cultural impact. While every other ethnic group can be spoken of in a critical light, if only to a very limited extent, nothing that is even implicitly critical is allowed to be said or inferred about Jews

One may wonder exactly what the Jews’ “tragic history as a persecuted people” has to do with this—one should at least phrase it as perceptions of persecution because Jewish historical memory is profoundly tinged by Jewish ethnocentrism (see, e.g., the work of Andrew Joyce on the Russian pogroms, the Limerick affair in Ireland, and Jewish writing on historical anti-Semitism). But it’s certainly true that 15 years later it’s still impossible to have an honest discussion of Jewish influence on culture (Joe Sobran’s classic statement on the subject dates from 1996). And, given the intellectual shoddiness of the Jewish intellectual movements that have dominated intellectual circles throughout the West (psychoanalysis, Boasian anthropology, critical theory, and Marxism) much more than talent is involved here. In fact, the limits on permissible discourse on Jews are maintained by exclusion from the mainstream media because of Jewish influence and by the threat of job loss and other negative repercussions for those who publicly criticize Jews.

In particular, Jews have used their power to disestablish the traditional idea of America as having a European ethnic and a cultural core based on Christianity.

The Jews also (as few people recognize, because the subject is forbidden) changed America in some profound and not always positive ways. In terms of national identity, Jews were instrumental in the reformulation of America as a universalist society based strictly on ideology rather than on peoplehood, a change that set the stage for mass Third-World immigration and the much more profound redefinition of America as a multicultural society. In terms of morality, many Jewish intellectuals, writers, and entertainers deliberately undermined the older Anglo-American Victorian ethos, a program of moral/cultural subversion that climaxed in the Sixties counterculture and the dominant nihilist culture of the 1980s and 1990s. In terms of politics, Jews were instrumental in replacing the old American order of Constitutional self-restraint with the statist politics of unrestrained compassion.

Auster highlights the chutzpah underlying Jewish activism in overturning public expressions of Christianity, beginning in the late 19th century—the topic of a recent academic book confirming Auster’s comments. He also cites David Hollinger’s important work showing the role of Jews in altering the attitudes of American intellectuals in the direction of secularism, universalism, and ethnic pluralism. The result of the ascent of the Jews was that

the elite universities had changed from guardian of the old Western order to its subverter. [See also here.] This transformation in the universities then reverberated through the rest of the culture, stripping America’s public institutions, entertainments, symbols, and manners of the Christian and bourgeois values they had once embodied. America’s transition from a Protestant culture whose public institutions, celebrations, and symbols reflected Christian belief, to a pluralist, secular society with no identity at all, was complete.

Auster cites Jews who unabashedly celebrate the Jewish role in the displacement of White America with no fear of anti-Semitism—yet further examples of the overt expressions by Jews of Jewish power tabulated in Andrew Joyce’s recent article. Auster mentions sociologist Earl Raab’s pride in the Jewish role in changing the bias toward Northwestern Europe in U.S. immigration laws, and he notes Rabbi Abram Goodman’s comments that “Now I witness a Harvard that has been thoroughly cleansed and Judaized.” Auster comments that “thus an American Jew in 1997 unselfconsciously boasts of eliminating America’s former Christian culture, describing this elimination in terms (“thoroughly cleansed and Judaized”) not unlike those once used by the Nazis about the Jews.” Indeed, as Ron Unz has shown, Jews are now vastly overrepresented at Harvard controlled for their academic achievement, while non-Jewish Whites are underrepresented by a factor of at least 15 compared to Jews, again based on academic achievement. I rather doubt that Goodman (or Dershowitz, for that matter) is shedding any tears for Harvard’s egregious discrimination against non-Jewish Whites—discrimination that is far greater than historical discrimination against Jews who, even before the end of WWII, were admitted to Harvard at levels far above their percentage of the population. Our new hostile elite is far more corrupt than the old elite—and far less representative of the population as a whole.

The Judaization trumpeted by Rabbi Goodman means the destruction of the European cultural heritage of America:

Now that their enemies have been scattered and silenced, the left and the minorities can admit that their real agenda all along was not simply inclusion, equality, justice, or tolerance toward Jews and other minorities, but the destruction of the Christian culture.

And, of course, it goes beyond the destruction of culture to the destruction of the political power of White America—a phenomenon that is becoming increasingly apparent in U.S. elections. The entire process has never been about the pursuit of moral ideals; it has always been about ethnic hard ball, and the end result is the displacement of White America, its culture and its people.

The Jewish Role in Unleashing Displacement-Level Immigration to the U.S.

Auster is quite aware of the role of Jews in the demographic displacement of White America (see also here), noting particularly that Jewish immigration reformers not only wanted to end the bias in favor of Northwestern Europe but to ease the immigration of as many non-Whites as possible (see also here, p. 291). He focuses (as do I; see previous link, p. 285ff) on an extraordinary article from 1952 in Commentary by Harvard historian Oscar Handlin in which Handlin essentially deplores the fact that non-Jewish immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe do not have the same hatred against the traditional people and culture of America that Jews have. Auster takes Handlin’s argument to its logical conclusion:

If an immigration law that is designed to preserve the nation’s ethnic majority is racist (because it implicitly puts down other groups), then the same must be true of any manifestation of the ethnic majority, including its very existence. After all, if a nation still has an ethnic majority, and a culture that reflects that majority, doesn’t that impute inferiority to all people not related by blood to that majority? Therefore the only way to procure real democracy is to turn the ethnic majority into a minority, which is to be accomplished (and since 1965 has largely been accomplished) by immigration…

The 1965 Immigration Act, the culmination of a forty-year, largely Jewish-led campaign, was not simply a piece of “liberal” legislation (i.e., an act aimed at formal equality) which later turned out to have unforeseen, radical consequences. As early as 1952, the liberal idea of equality before the law was already linked in the minds of Jewish immigrationists with the radical project of dispossessing America’s white, Anglo-Saxon, Christian majority.

The hatred of Jews extends also to other White cultures. Auster notes literary critic Leon Wieseltier’s rejoicing at the displacement of traditional English culture by the Muslim onslaught:

Wieseltier is not exactly shy in his hatred. He mocks an Englishmen’s fears about the survival of English culture. He rejoices at the thought of Englishmen being discomforted, disoriented, and displaced in their own country by Muslims. If anyone is driven by an ethnic animus, surely it is Wieseltier and the many Jews who think and feel as he does.


Hypocrisy and Double Standards

Of course there is a massive hypocrisy about all this: “The Jews feel that they have a right to homogeneity and collective survival. But, as we have seen, the Jews deny this same right to white gentiles” [Auster’s emphasis]. This desire to destroy and vilify the ethnic ties among non-Jewish Whites while maintaining their own is deeply rooted in Jewish tribalism. “It is a blind, unreasonable, unappeasable force.” Exactly. TOO has an archive of 39 articles related to Jewish double standards related to ethnocentrism and we repeatedly discuss the legitimacy of White identity and interests. But the organized Jewish community and the vast majority of American Jews are completely tone-deaf when it comes to a hypocrisy that is so obvious that a child could see through it.

Auster seems to adopt a cultural explanation of Jewish ethnocentrism, attributing the pervasive double standards to deep immersion over the centuries in a tribalistic culture represented by the Talmud and its very different ethical treatment of Jews and non-Jews. (My view is that Jewish culture reflects biological influences—the deep ethnocentrism and collectivism at the heart of Middle Eastern culture [see here, p. 24ff], abetted by selection within the Jewish community that effectively excluded less ethnocentric Jews [see here, passim].)

As a result, Jewish patriotism toward America is always contingent on whether America meets specifically Jewish interests. The interests of the nation as a whole, much less the interests of the descendants of the White Europeans who founded the country, are completely irrelevant. “Over and over, Jewish-American patriotism seems to be based on some factor extrinsic to America itself” such as America’s role in defeating Hitler or supporting Israel.

Jewish Subversion of Traditional American Culture Via Media Influence

Auster also highlights another theme of TOO—the Jewish role in the subversion of the traditional culture of America resulting from their control of Hollywood. In a comment on the movie Outbreak reminiscent of Edmund Connelly’s work on the “Jews to the rescue” theme of Hollywood movies like Independence Day, “the Jew now cast as action hero—and his brilliant black sidekick heroically foil the plot.” There is also the denigration of WASPs as stereotypically evil also documented by Connelly (see above link): “the anti-WASP animus in film and TV had evolved into a formalized demonology. The cold-hearted, inhuman WASP—the WASP as super-Nazi—has been a regular fixture in one suspense/action movie after another.” The bottom line is that

Eastern European Jews, with their discontented, irrepressible temperament, were admitted as equals into a culture that had been formed by Anglo-Saxons and other northern European-origin people, with their pacific, self-controlled temperament. The former outsiders then proceeded to make their own sensibility the center of the culture, while diminishing and demonizing the Anglo-Saxon.


Provoking Anti-Semitism

Auster acknowledges that the Jewish role in the dispossession of Whites and their culture will likely lead to anti-Semitism:

[Another prospect] will be an upsurge of anti-Semitism among marginalized whites, many of whom will blame the Jews (not without cause) for the ruin of white civilization. Having acted all along on the ludicrous and hostile assumption that the white American majority is a potential neo-Nazi force that must be dispossessed, Jews will hardly be in a position to complain about real anti-Semitism when it appears among whites who have actually been dispossessed.

Despite his awareness of the forces that have dispossessed White America, Auster is very concerned to deflect anti-Semitism, even though he understands that anti-Jewish attitudes are completely expectable.

To seek to transform America into a Messianic project, to identify with the Other (whoever the Other may be) at the expense of the native majority, to deny to the native majority its ethnic identity while indulging in one’s own ethnic identity—this is not just a bad agenda, it is a Jewish agenda, and it is entirely moral for citizens of a free country to criticize it as such.

Auster’s basic argument is that not all Jews have been involved in or support these transformations, and a certain percentage of Whites (such as David Hollinger, about whom Auster says “he barely conceals his pleasure at Christianity’s being pushed aside”) have welcomed or at least acquiesced in these transformations. (It remains to be seen how much pleasure White Americans will have in majority non-White America where a very large percentage of non-Whites, including Jews as described here, have historical grudges against them. I rather doubt that pleasure will be a majority opinion among Whites.)

Nevertheless, we should be clear. These transformations could not have occurred unless there was overwhelming support for them among the vast majority of Jews and within the organized Jewish community. Indeed, there is far higher consensus among Jews on issues related to White dispossession than even on Israel, where there are beginning to be cracks in the unified support among American Jews for whatever Israel does. While there is a certain analogy between Auster and Gottfried on one hand and Philip Weiss and Peter Beinart on the other as opponents of the mainstream Jewish community on issues related to White dispossession and Israel respectively, the letter have been far more active in trying to convert other Jews and they speak for far greater numbers of Jews on Israel-related issues than Auster or Gottfried do on issues related to White dispossession. And in any case, the mainstream Jewish community remains as staunchly anti-White and pro-whatever-the-government-of-Israel-wants as ever.

Auster cannot point to any significant Jewish organization that has dissented from the dispossession of White America. (To be sure, groups like ultra-Orthodox Hasidic Jews have played no role in the dispossession of White America, either in favor or in opposition, since they live in a hermetically sealed world completely cut off from the rest of the society.) Nor can he point to any other identifiable group that promoted these cultural changes. While it is true that Europeans are more prone to individualism and moral universalism than other groups and this made them more susceptible to dispossession (see here, p. 14ff), there can be little doubt that Jewish activism is ultimately responsible for the displacement of White Americans (see, e.g., here).

The fact that some Whites have greeted these changes is expected (although it is certainly short sighted and selfish), given the fact that in contemporary American society the media environment (the constant propaganda of Whites as evil noted by Auster; see also here) and the rewards (e.g., career opportunities for White university administrators or corporation CEO’s who promote multiculturalism) and punishments (e.g., job loss and ostracism resulting from opposing multiculturalism) overwhelmingly favor the changes wrought by the Jewish hostile elite. The power of the hostile elite is now institutionalized and strongly defended from attack, particularly against attacks by disaffected Whites. As noted above, a key marker of Jewish power is that Jewish power, unlike the power of any other group, has been successfully relegated to outside the boundaries of acceptable discussion.

Moreover, Jewish influence extends far beyond the organized Jewish community. The very large influence of Jews in the media, resulting in the invidious portraits of Whites and Christianity and positive portrayals of everything Jewish (see here, p. 53ff), has been the work of individual Jews and informal Jewish networks, not Jewish organizations.

The same can be said of the Jewish networks involved in the Jewish intellectual and political movements discussed in The Culture of Critique—movements that collectively undermined the concept of America as a White, Christian nation. Indeed, the crux of the issue, displacement-level non-White immigration, is a consensus issue among all Jewish organizations and among all Jews from the far left to the neoconservative right. As Auster says about neocon Norman Podhoretz, he “does not regard non-Jewish Americans as his people. In effect, he sees America as ‘one nation, many peoples’—which is, of course, the multiculturalist view of America.” And remember, Podhoretz, is what passes as a conservative among Jews. The hatred for the White establishment among neocons as they were climbing the ropes of power is legendary (see here, p. 4).

Righteous Anger

So what is the appropriate reaction to all this among White Americans? Recently Bill O’Reilly has been harping on “righteous anger” as an entirely appropriate response to the rather mundane issue of President Obama’s failure to propose specific budget-cutting measures. Given the cataclysmic consequences to White America, righteous anger at the Jewish community is an entirely appropriate response for Whites whose cultural and demographic displacement is well-advanced as a result of Jewish activism. This is, after all, the mirror image of the hatred that is such a prominent characteristic of the mainstream Jewish community, as noted here in the discussion of Dershowitz, Wieseltier, Handlin, and Rabbi Goodman and reflected in the theme of Jews as a hostile elite. (Whites expressing righteous anger at what Jews have done to America are likely to experience far more negative consequences than did these Jews for openly expressing their hatred toward White America—a telling indication of Jewish power.)

No one would think it unjustifiable if a people becomes angry when they are physically invaded, reduced to a minority, and their culture taken away from them. Although not the result of physical invasion, the end result of this Jewish onslaught is exactly the same.

There is no more grievous crime against a people than the crime being committed against White America. Righteous anger is an appropriate response indeed.

The Sin against the Holy Ghost

O splendour of the flesh! O ideal splendour!
O love renewed, triumphant dawn aurora,
Where, at their feet the Gods and Heroes,
Callipyge the white and her little Eros,
Drowned in the snow of rose-petals, press
Women and flowers beneath their feet’s caress!

—Rimbaud

female portrait nude

Since English roses are the Crown of the Evolution, that Nature took unfathomable ages to create, when I lived in Manchester nothing shocked me more than the spectacle of watching snow-white women with Neanderthalesque partners on the streets: dysgenics to the maximum degree.

Below, paragraphs from Arthur Kemp’s March of the Titans:


The world today is dominated by technology as never before. It is impossible to travel anywhere without seeing some vestiges of or manifestations of technological wizardry which have shaped all life on the planet today, particularly those innovations developed at the time of the Industrial Revolution.

While this fact is commonly known and countless books and works have been written on the subject, all have ignored one crucial feature of this astonishing technological revolution: the plain facts are that the great technological innovations which have set the pace for the entire world are exclusively the product of a tiny minority of Whites.

This fact, like so many other unpalatable truths in history, is ignored because of the political implications it carries: it is possibly the most politically incorrect view which can be made, although the facts leave any objective observer with no other option but to arrive at this inescapable conclusion.

[Kemp goes on to explain the origins of technology and science. He sketches the lives of dozens of white inventors and scientists, a long list from the ancient Greeks to modern inventors: all whites. In other chapters he writes about immigration and eugenics in the US until 1945. He also writes about monstrous dysgenics: what I call the Sin against the Holy Ghost, non-white interbreeding with Aryan women:]

Having established itself as the second White heartland, a second Europe, North America immediately became the focus for massive development, advances—and a magnet for further immigration from all parts of the world. America’s rise to greatness depended to a great degree upon its large racial homogeneity.

Following the banning of further Black immigration in 1808 (when the further importation of slaves was outlawed) American immigration policy was specifically geared to ensuring that as few non-Whites as possible entered that country. As a result of this policy, the White population did indeed increase: great industries sprang up and America soon almost equaled Europe in terms of population numbers.

In the period immediately following the end of the American Civil War, the Republican Party dominated American politics, partly through the disenfranchisement of the Whites in the South and their replacement with Republican supporting Black voters. The Republicans remained in control of both houses of Congress until 1875, and of the presidency from 1869 until 1885, in the latter year losing it to the Democrats.

After 1900 the legislation enforcing segregation was carried to new heights:

• a 1914 Louisiana statute required separate entrances at circuses for Blacks and Whites;

• a 1915 Oklahoma law segregated telephone booths;

• a 1920 Mississippi law made it a crime to advocate or publish “arguments or suggestions in favor of social equality or of intermarriage between Whites and Negroes.”

• Arkansas provided for segregation at race tracks;

• Texas prohibited integrated boxing matches;

• All states had segregated schools; and

• All states prohibited mixed race marriages.

Segregation was not, as is commonly believed, restricted to the South. In 1910, the northern city of Baltimore in Maryland became the first city in America to officially delineate separate Black and White suburbs, and was followed by Dallas, Texas, Greensboro, North Carolina, Louisville, Kentucky, Norfolk, Virginia, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Richmond, Virginia, Roanoke, Virginia, and St. Louis, Missouri.

The policy of segregation was carried out at the highest level: when Woodrow Wilson became president in 1913, the first action he took upon arriving in Washington DC, was to order the segregation of all federal facilities in the American capital.

Eugenics

During the last part of the 19th Century and the early part of the 20th Century, America became the world’s center for racial science. By the time that Theodore Roosevelt became president of America in 1913, and lasting right until the beginning of the Second World War in 1939, explicitly racial policies were followed by virtually all American presidents.

When D.W. Griffith’s classic 1915 film, Birth of a Nation, which told the story of the Reconstruction period and the rise of the original Ku Klux Klan, was publicly praised by American president Woodrow Wilson, the film was an immediate hit, with audiences all over America flocking to see the epic.

Madison Grant

The chief racial theorist at the time in America was Madison Grant (1865-1937) who counted amongst his personal friends at least two American presidents. Grant wrote two of the most influential works of American racialism: The Passing of the Great Race (1916) and The Conquest of a Continent (1933). In both these books Grant expounded on racial anthropology and the need for eugenics—or racial improvement by selective breeding (in the same way that specific breeds of animals are reared).

In his book, The Passing of the Great Race, Grant called for a halt to non-White immigration into the United States. The book was an international best seller, being favorably reviewed by Science, the journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and numerous other equally influential publications.

Lothrop Stoddard

American president Warren G. Harding publicly praised eugenicist Lothrop Stoddard’s book, The Rising Tide of Color, at a public speech on 26 October 1922; this was followed the same year by the appointment of one of Grant’s compatriots, Harry Laughlin, as an expert witness on eugenics and racial differences in IQ (as had been measured in the U.S. military) by the U.S. Congress Subcommittee on Immigration.

1924 Immigration Law

A huge wave of immigrants to the United States occurred between the 1840s and the 1920s. During this era, approximately 37 million immigrants arrived in the United States. Census figures indicate that about 6 million Germans, 4.5 million Irish, 4.75 million Italians, 4.2 million people from England, Scotland and Wales, approximately the same number from the Austro-Hungarian Empire, 2.3 million Scandinavians, and 3.3 million people from Russia and the Baltic states entered the United States. Between the 1840s and the 1870s, Germans and Irish groups predominated. Between 1854 and 1892, more Germans arrived in any given year than any other ethnic group, except for three years when the Irish predominated.

Starting in 1880 however, the waves of immigrants started to come increasingly from Eastern Europe: millions of Eastern European Jews and Southern Europeans, all considerably “darker” than the original White settlers in America who had all virtually exclusively come from the Nordic sub-racial dominated countries of Northern and Western Europe.

The influx of Southern Europeans, in particular, was opposed by the American eugenicists, and became the subject of much work and investigation. The end result of this work, combined with the earlier investigations and evidence by Harry Laughlin, produced the 1924 Immigration law. In 1924, the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion put before the Congress led to the Johnson Act of 1924, which cut down to little less than a tiny trickle the number of immigrants into America, limiting those who did enter to those of specific Northern and Western European ancestry only.

This law remained in force until 1965. Grant was acknowledged as the father of these immigration laws; and he went on to found the American Eugenics Society with Laughlin, the U.S. Congress appointed eugenics advisor.

The suppression of American eugenics

The science of eugenics became international: the First World Eugenics Congress was held in London in 1912. The later British prime minister, Winston Churchill, was one of the official sponsors, with the then British prime minister, Arthur Balfour, delivering the inaugural address.

The Second Eugenics Congress was hosted by the American Museum of Natural History in New York, with more than 300 delegates from all over the world—except Germany, as that country was still ostracized after the First World War. The guest list was impressive: including the future American President Herbert Hoover and the scientific genius Alexander Graham Bell, who was also the Congress’s honorary president, amongst many others.

The Third World Eugenics Congress—and the last—was held at the American Museum of Natural History in New York again in 1932, where prominent attendees included Dr. J. Harvey-Kellogg (from Kellogg’s cereals) and Leonard Darwin, son of Charles Darwin, the developer of the theory of evolution.

Grant’s second major work then appeared in 1933: The Conquest of a Continent, detailing the racial make-up of the United States and warning that racial integration would cause modern America to disappear. The book, published by the well-known Scribner and Sons publishing house, became the focus of a boycott organized mainly by the Jewish Anti-Defamation League.

This occurred despite Grant making no specific remarks about Jews in the book: but by this time the Nazi Party had come to power in Germany and the American racialist movement was to a large extent held responsible for helping to prepare the scientific background to Nazi policy, and as such the propaganda mills were turned against Grant as much as they were turned against the Nazis.

Finally the Jewish anthropologist, Franz Boas, launched an all out campaign against eugenics. Combined with the propaganda linking Grant’s work to the openly anti-Jewish Nazi government in Germany, fewer and fewer public figures were prepared to associate themselves with eugenics, and by the end of the Second World War the science had been successfully suppressed in America.



Non-white immigration into the white heartlands

The dominating theme of European history in the last quarter of the 20th Century has been the large-scale immigration of non-White peoples and races into the modern era White heartlands of Europe, Australia/New Zealand and North America. This process has taken place via two avenues: legal immigration and illegal immigration: it is difficult to formulate estimates on which has been the greater. Whatever the channel used, the reality of masses of non-Whites settling in these territories can quite rightly said to be changing the face of these continents.

According to Eurostat (the Statistical Office of the European Communities) in their publication Migration Statistics, 1996, there is not one of the 15 countries in Western Europe which, at the beginning of 1994, did not have less than 3 -10 per cent of what they euphemistically call “non-nationals resident”.

France, Germany, Austria, the Benelux countries, Denmark, Scandinavia and England are all listed as having “non-nationals resident” of more than 10 per cent, with Germany in two regions registered figures of “more than 15 per cent.” An average of between 10 and 15 per cent of “non nationals resident” in Western Europe as of the mid 1990’s is therefore an accurate estimate, given that official figures are always behind actual statistics, as the number of illegal immigrants always closely shadows the number of legal immigrants.

white-woman-black-man

Racial mixing has been extremely prevalent in Britain. According to the 1991 census, taken by the Office for National Statistics in London (ONS), 40 per cent of young Black men in Britain are married to, or live with, a White partner. The trend is less common on the other side of the sexual divide, where one in five young Black women has a partner who is White. Britain has, as a result of this large non-White influx, suffered a large number of Black riots, the most serious of which occurred in 1981, when countrywide riots saw large areas of many inner cities razed to the ground.

According to an article in the newspaper, USA Today of 17 June 1998, the number of mixed-race marriages in the USA was 150,000 in 1960. By 1998 it had increased to “over 1.5 million” and it estimated that the number of mixed-race children in America stood at “over 2 million.”

The 1960s will also go down in history as having introduced one of the most significant factors to affect White numbers in the entire history of the world: the development of the birth control pill, or oral contraceptive, which was first approved for use in the United States in 1965. Social demographic trends have shown that it is only in the Western, White, industrialized countries where contraception is used to any significant degree.

The reproduction rate in White countries (amongst their native populations) has, since the introduction of the pill, dropped to the point where in most White countries it is below the stable replacement rate of 2.4 children per female. In the non-White Third World however, no such restraints exist, and the population grows exponentially as fast as the White population declines in Europe and North America: this demographic time bomb will in the not to distant future have serious consequences for the entire earth.

The resultant massive overpopulation of the non-White lands of the earth provides the major driver for non-White immigration into the White heartlands of Europe, Australia and North America.

____________________________

I blame Christianity’s secular offshoots for this, and look forward to participate in the Day of the Rope…

The liberal axiom

Today that I translated the below piece to Spanish a sentence caught my attention:

“Instead of opposing non-discrimination, [conservatives] oppose multiculturalism and political correctness. But let’s say that we got rid of multiculturalism and political correctness. Would that end… immigration? No. Multiculturalism is not the source of… immigration.”

Auster adds that the source of it is modern man’s blind belief in the Non-Discriminatory Principle, the liberal axiom.

The following is only a part of the 2009 speech, “A Real Islam Policy for a Real America,” that would be published in a book. In the speech Auster said (brown bold-type is mine):



To deal with the crisis facing our civilization, we must be both realistic and imaginative. The realism part consists in recognizing how bad our situation is.

The entire Western world is at present under the grip of the modern liberal ideology that targets every normal and familiar aspect of human life, and our entire historical way of being as a society.

The key to this liberal ideology is the belief in tolerance or non-discrimination as the ruling principle of society, the principle to which all other principles must yield. We see this belief at work in every area of modern life.

The principle of non-discrimination must, if followed consistently, destroy every human society and institution. A society that cannot discriminate between itself and other societies will go out of existence, just as an elm tree that cannot discriminate between itself and a linden tree must go out of existence. To be, we must be able to say that we are us, which means that we are different from others. If we are not allowed to distinguish between ourselves and Muslims, if we must open ourselves to everyone and everything in the world that is different from us, and if the more different and threatening the Other is, the more we must open ourselves to it, then we go out of existence.

This liberal principle of destruction is utterly simple and radically extreme. Yet very, very few people, even self-described hard-line conservatives, are aware of this principle and the hold it has over our society. Instead of opposing non-discrimination, they oppose multiculturalism and political correctness. But let’s say that we got rid of multiculturalism and political correctness. Would that end Muslim immigration? No. Multiculturalism is not the source of Muslim immigration. The source of it is our belief that we must not discriminate against other people on the basis of their culture, their ethnicity, their nationality, their religion. This is the idea of the 1965 Immigration Act, which was the idea of the 1964 Civil Rights Act applied to all of humanity: all discrimination is wrong, period. No one in today’s society, including conservatives, feels comfortable identifying this utterly simple idea, because that would mean opposing it.

To see how powerful the belief in non-discrimination is, consider this: Prior to World War II, would any Western country have considered admitting significant numbers of Muslim immigrants? Of course not; it would have been out of the question. The West had a concrete identity. It saw itself as white and in large part as Christian, and there was still active in the Western mind the knowledge that Islam was our historic adversary, as it has been for a thousand years, and radically alien. But today, the very notion of stopping Muslim immigration is out of the question, it can’t even be thought.

What would have been inconceivable 70 or 80 years ago is unquestionable today. A society that 70 years ago wouldn’t have dreamed of admitting large numbers of Muslims, today doesn’t dream of reducing, let alone stopping, the immigration of Muslims. Even the most impassioned anti-Islamic Cassandras never question—indeed they never even mention—the immigration of Muslims, or say it should be reduced or stopped.

You don’t need to know any more than what I’ve just said. The rule of non-discrimination, in all its destructive potentialities, is shown in this amazing fact, that the writers and activists who constantly cry that Islam as a mortal danger to our society will not say that we ought to stop or even reduce Muslim immigration. Such is the liberal belief which says that the most morally wrong thing is for people to have a critical view of a foreign group, to want to exclude that group or keep it out.

The dilemma suggests the solution. What is now unthinkable, must become thinkable; what is now unsayable, must become sayable; and ultimately it must replace non-discrimination as the ruling belief in society. I know that this sounds crazy, utterly impossible. But fifty or a hundred years ago it would have seemed crazy, utterly impossible, that today’s liberalism with its suicidal ideology would have replaced the traditional attitudes that were then prevalent. If society could change that radically in one direction, toward suicidal liberalism, it can change back again. It’s not impossible.

In the same way, modern liberalism says that it is evil to believe that some people are more unlike us than others, because that would also be a violation of the liberal principle that all people are equally like us. The equality principle of modern liberalism says that unassimilable immigrants must be permitted to flood our society, changing its very nature.

This is the ubiquitous yet unacknowledged horror of modern liberalism, that it takes the ordinary, differentiated nature of the world, which all human beings have always recognized, and makes it impossible for people to discuss it, because under liberalism anyone who notes these distinctions and says that they matter has done an evil thing and must be banished from society, or at least be barred from a mainstream career.

This liberalism is the most radical and destructive ideology that has ever been, and yet it is not questioned. Communism and big government liberalism were challenged and fought in the past. But the ideology of non-discrimination, which came about after World War II, has never been resisted—it has never even been identified, even though it is everywhere. What is needed, if the West is to survive, is a pro-Western civilization movement that criticizes, resists, and reverses this totalistic liberal belief system that controls our world.

[See my corollary to this post: here]

Published in: on June 21, 2011 at 2:49 am  Comments (2)  

What Germany was trying to prevent

swastikaHitler greatly admired the U.S. 1924 Johnson Immigration Act which sharply reduced the number of Jews from Eastern Europe who could get entry into America each year.

As far as Nazi doctrine goes, Alfred Rosenberg said that the swastika was the symbol of White Revolution/Rebirth which must someday save the entire West, including America. Rosenberg had extensive contacts with White Nationalists in every Western country. However, from a military point of view it was not Hitler’s duty to liberate America from Jewish domination. You must remember that the German Reich only had at maximum of—including Austria and the Sudetenland—about 100 million people. It is illogical to think that Hitler could have conquered America and we are foolish if we are disappointed in him because he could not do so.

The Third Reich was not just one thing. Yes, Hitler wanted an empire for Germany in Central and Eastern Europe in which the Nordic race would dominate but he also wanted the doctrine of Nazi racialism of the superiority of the White race to spread all over the world. Nazi policies on Slavs were largely tactical, the Slavs had to be labeled “inferior” to justify stealing their territory.

The “Anti-Semitic” doctrine of the Third Reich was sent to Muslim North Africa, the Middle East, South America, and even Japan. There was an Arabic language edition of Mein Kampf printed in Syria in 1938. The Arabic version deleted references to the Nordic race but all non-Jews were taught to guard themselves against the Jews who were the most dangerous foe of mankind. The ruler of Iran, Reza Shah Pahlavi, established close relations with Nazi Germany. One weekend while I was surfing the internet I found an Iranian website and several Iranians made the statement, “Iran has modern highways because of Hitler, Hitler built our roads.”

What I’m trying to say here is: The Third Reich had a doctrine but they knew when certain aspects of that doctrine needed emphasis under different scenarios.

If you are asking if Hitler cared whether America remained dominated by Jews, yes he cared. If the Germans had won WW2 they would have spread Nazi doctrine by radio, film, and television all over the globe and certain parts of America would have come under its influence. As Francis Parker Yockey wrote in Imperium, a political idea needs a state in order to expand across the world. Now if the Third Reich had become a massive Empire from the Atlantic to the Urals, the culture and philosophy of the Empire would have inspired large parts of the Western White world, including South America.


Commenter replies:

Good points, Otto. I can see Uncle Wolf’s problem. Imagine trying to tell 1940’s White America that in 50 years their country would be controlled by jew banking and media, overrun by third world scum, race-mixing with niggers, jew-led foreign wars that never end, Whites-only hate crimes, unheard of taxation, debt, usury, black power, mex power and faggot power!

They never would have believed it!

Commenter replies:

Yes, you are absolutely right and it’s also the reason why the senior citizens who did grow up in that 1950’s All White America still cling so strongly to the idea of Hitler as Demon. They never needed Hitler to be anything else but evil because they were protected and satisfied in their All White World, but for those of us who did grow up in later decades, either 1980’s or 1990’s see very clearly the minority-oriented Communist Jew chaos that Hitler was trying to prevent long before any of us were even born.

Let the truth be told: America really lost WW2 because they fought on the side of those who would one day enslave them.

______________

Originally posted at VNN Forum in 2004