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.

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.”

Robert Morgan’s comment

The wall is a good example of why the issue is cultural, not the result of a conspiracy. Endless excuses are given for not building it (too expensive, won’t work, will cause too much environmental damage, will interfere with local jurisdictions, etc.), which of course is part of its charm for those who, like Trump, really don’t want a wall anyway. But a moment’s thought shows that calling for a wall in itself proves the lack of seriousness with which American whites take the problem of illegal immigration.

The approximately 2000 mile long border with Mexico could be better protected by perhaps a hundred roving snipers who shoot to kill, and this at an infinitesimal fraction of the cost of a wall. Each sniper could be made responsible for a 20 mile stretch of border, upon which he could station himself at random, ever-changing locations. After only a few illegal crossers are shot and killed, it’s overwhelmingly likely that attempted infiltrations would drop to close to zero. After all, would you want to cross the border illegally if you knew for a fact that there was even a 1 in 100 chance it would be the last thing you ever did? Thus, instead of billions for a wall, the problem could be made to disappear essentially for the cost of a few bullets.

A simple solution like this is ruled out though by Christian ethics, which has so influenced Western culture that it’s considered outrageous; completely beyond the pale even by those who nominally are opposed to Christianity itself. When even non-Christians and anti-Christians subscribe to Christian ethics, then you know that Christianity’s cultural dominance is total.

Published in: on March 21, 2019 at 1:31 pm  Comments (19)  

Fury in Saxony

Thousands of angry Germans, led by National Socialists, crowded the streets of the Saxon city of Chemnitz in protest of violent crime committed against Germans by non-White invaders.

I don’t usually report on the news. But the case of Germany is different. This article by James Harting deserves consideration.

Published in: on September 4, 2018 at 8:39 pm  Comments (3)  

All Christians are Cucks, 6

I intended to go through various Christian sites and social media pages in order to collect for you a massive amount of their lunatic statements, phrases and beliefs—but, I will be very honest here—I saved some, but I just couldn’t finish the job. I had to think about my own health and seeing all the idiocy made me worried about my anger, blood pressure and various other things…

Alas, how does one help wake up a 2000 year old brainwashing? Well, one must be persistent and ignore the hardship that is involved in succeeding in it. If I were to look at this difficult task and wonder what exactly it would take me to achieve victory against this Jewish poison, I’d probably never even begin doing it. I’d find myself demoralized from not only the advantage of Time they have, but also of the generations of people that have been self-indoctrinating their own children with this infection. When that happens, when the lemmings poison themselves, then the Jews have won over their minds.

Or, look at this one [the author linked these words to a defunct page], which is from Psalms—and, if you remember, Psalms are the Scriptures in which it is said that they will destroy all Nations surrounding them. All Nations. So, here we have a spin on that mission by telling us that they will “sing their song” in all the Nations. Boy, that must be a particularly sick tune of Death, right? We have said already that “vibrations” are capable of changing the entire infrastructure of the Mind. Therefore, having the Jews sing among us is lethal and dangerous: their singing is primarily expressed nowadays through the Media. Ain’t that a charming sound?

To those of us who still have working Aryan brains, their patterns are becoming ever more self-evident. For example, in Deuteronomy 7:6 we can read: For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession. So, we have a group of people walking among us who believe to be better than we are, yet at the same time are telling the rest of the Goyim that we are all equal. Of course, from the Jewish perspective, we are all equal: we are all the same Cattle and Animal to them. All these liberal, modern bullshit ideologies are viewpoints on life from the Jewish perspective.

This equality and diversity thing eventually accomplishes another commandment from the Jewish Bible which we find a few verses later, in Deuteronomy 7:16: You must destroy all the peoples the Lord your God gives over to you. Do not look on them with pity and do not serve their gods, for that will be a snare to you. Never does it enter the mind of the average Christian that Jews have destroyed their entire culture and are planning to literally genocide their people. It never enters their mind that the Jewish Semitic War God Yahweh might have “given over to the Jews” the European people.

But, just a moment ago we had seen that Christians use Deuteronomy as some kind of Jesus reference, which just goes to show us once more that they really, I mean really, do not know how to read or have a functioning brain anymore.

These are the modern liberal White women—they get raped and feel sorry for the invading immigrant who raped them. They allow a Negro immigrant into their house because he is a “refugee”, who then kills their daughter, and they don’t even get mad at him. If you wonder therefore why our Society is so fucked up, it is because it is Christian: it has a Christian mentality. No matter what horrible shit is done to our people, people as retarded as this bitch right here, she sees no evil in them.

Editor’s interpolated note: Those white nationalists who claim over their forums that Christianity has only been recently hijacked by Jewry are simply ignorant of history. Here down the south the 16th century Spaniards brought the religious orders along with the soldiers. All of them—no exception—preached love toward those Mesoamericans that sacrificed their children and even ate them.

This pic shows my hand holding some possible sacrificial instruments: archaeological pieces from the Aztec world of my private collection. The Spanish not only preached love toward the Amerindians: they actually married their women, ruining their gene pool forever. This happened when the Spanish Inquisition targeted crypto-Jews in New Spain, now Mexico, which proves that whites can behave ethnosuicidally without the help of the tribe. Unaided Christian ethics does the trick!

Axe of Perun continues:

It would seem that God is trying to make all White European Nations saints. They sure are suffering right now under heavy invasion of biological weapons of mass destruction. But, here you have a simple choice: you either follow the early Christian fathers and become a passive faggot who doesn’t defend himself or his people—or—you become a Jesuit and Church follower who does whatever the Church says even if it is wrong…

The problem is that Europeans were like this to each other always—especially the Nordic ones. We shared with each other, helped each other, we weren’t as materialistically mad as Semites were. But Jews used that Nature of ours and turned it into weapon against us. Our good Nature is killing us…

Editor’s interpolated note: Remember the slogan of this site: ‘LOVE IS MURDERING THE WHITE RACE’.

…because we have been duped into believing that an African Somalian is our Equal with whom we should share everything in common, even our daughters.

The Christian belongs to nothing else but Jerusalem: you have no other family, no other nation, no other profession. You are a believer whose place is in Jerusalem. You are a Semite who loves Jews and Yahweh, who can’t wait for Jesus to return and to establish a Communistic Kingdom on Earth ruled by the Jews. I don’t know actually who I hate more: the modern day Christians or the old ones.

So, what really changed over the years? Not much. Christianity began as a hippy movement which managed to destroy all Civilizations surrounding the Jews. It then disarmed and destroyed all European people. As Europe lost its strength to resist Evil, Jews introduced Islam and used their Arab brothers to try and conquer us. As that failed, they changed tactics. They began using us to spread this hippy movement message around the world carrying Jews alongside—allowing them to gain influence in every single place of the Earth.

Once they established their control all over the world, it was time to immigrate non-White people into our lands—no matter what the cost was. It was also time to make the Bible publicly available, because remember, up to the 1600’s it was forbidden to own a Bible—people had no fucking idea what it was saying. Well, as the message got out, the more liberal did Europe become through its various Christian movements…

Jews do not hate Christianity, they hate Europeans. I’ve said it many times before: they made the poison and won’t drink it of course. Since they know it is poison, they can openly claim they hate it. Besides, if they were to follow Christ, they would have to lose their Jewish identity—at least according to the version Paul sold to non-Jews. It is actually absolutely irrelevant what the Jews think about it. What matters is what it has done to us and what it is still doing to us.

________

Read it all: here.

A remainder to Anglin et al

Editor’s note: Five years ago I discovered this text as a sort of online flier and linked it for this site as a PDF. Now I am reproducing the text as a regular entry because of its very first words:
 

Defense of U.S. No Longer in White Man’s Interest

The highest priority of a country that any White man should fight to defend must be the protection of his race by prohibiting sexual contact between Whites and non-whites, thereby preserving the biological basis for European civilization. This is most effectively accomplished by the establishment of large geographical areas set aside for the exclusive use by those of wholly European ancestry. Those areas must be eternally defended against non-white entry by irrevocable law and military force.

European-descended people are now in a planet-wide race war as non-whites from every point on the globe seek to migrate to White countries, while our nation’s courts render legal decisions requiring Whites to feed, house, medicate and educate these non- whites. The United States Government, the State and City governments and the courts have failed us regarding these things and all of them are illegitimate. They are illegitimate because they do not serve the long-term racial interests of European-Americans. The government’s policies serve only the interests of the non-white races on American soil. The U.S. Congress and the state legislatures have enacted anti-discrimination laws and the courts have ruled “unconstitutional” certain racial laws enacted by our ancestors to protect them and their descendents.

What we have instead is Affirmative Action, non-white trade contractor “set-asides”, the defilement of our universities by the admission of low I.Q. Negroes, and an explosion of non-white crime that is many times greater than their percentage of the U. S. population. We have the mass media promoting sexual contact between White females and non-white males on nearly every TV program and in nearly every movie the American public sees. The same people who author these television programs are promoting the mainstreaming of queer “marriage”, the adoption of infants by queer “couples”, transsexualism and the encouragement of Whites to adopt non-white infants domestically and from overseas, “gun control” and massive non-white immigration into the U.S.

Any White person in the U.S. military, employed in law enforcement, or anywhere in the judicial system, is fighting to defend all of the above degeneracy and its practitioners.

Anybody who ridicules what is happening is usually portrayed in the media as a White male, and is always cast as a misfit, an outcast, an oddball or a pervert. The mass media expend a great deal of energy pacifying the White population and try to keep them off-balance and always on the defensive on racial issues by unending accusations of “racism” and “discrimination”— as if there were something morally wrong with us taken measures to protect our European race, our culture, and our ancestral and New World homelands. There is nothing wrong with it!

As the complexion of America continues to darken, Whites will become increasingly impatient, angry and conscious of the fact that something must be done. The Democrats, the Republicans and the Independents are all against us, and all now openly embrace multiculturalism, so we have passed the point where these developments can be reversed peacefully and the only avenue available to us is to encourage civil war and secession, in which individual states and clusters of contiguous states become race-based sovereign nations, or ethnostates. The coming civil war will be a guerrilla war and is actually underway now in its embryonic stage. That means that a weakened, chaotic, crime-ridden, unstable, and cash-strapped America with a flourishing underground economy is good for now. There are many things that we can do to hasten that day and be prepared for it. Among them are:

  1. Above all, understand that Whites are currently engaged in a low-level guerrilla war. In other words, we are in a planet-wide race war against all non-whites and that there will be no normal life for us from now on. This guerrilla war is about to escalate. Get ready!
  1. Raise your children with a strong sense of racial awareness and pride in their European heritage.
  2. Do not join the U.S. military or law enforcement. Do not defend the U.S. in any way and discourage your children from doing so.

  1. Home school your kids if you have an acceptable amount of education.
  1. Try to be self-employed so you can have control over your income, or at least have a small home-based cash-only business plus your day job. Try to barter your goods and services with individuals and businesses for items you and your family use daily, like food, gas, clothes, or other items that you know you can quickly sell for cash.
  2. Disassociate yourself from non-white acquaintances and, if possible, move to an all-White area. If you cannot avoid contact with non-whites in your work or school, keep those relationships on a formal basis—do not socialize with them away from work.

  3. Remember: Homeland security begins with a racially homogeneous society. Multiculturalism/racial integration = racial death.

Our enemies band together to protect their group interests with organizations like Rainbow Push Coalition, NAACP, La Raza, MEChA, AIPAC, Anti-Defamation League of B’nai Brith (ADL), Southern Poverty Law Center and others. They have a political agenda. Their political agenda promotes the racial homogenization of all of the Whitelands, destroying the biological basis for European civilization, and is extremely hostile to the interests of European-descended people.

The enemy is organized! Are you? Copy and Pass On

Day of Wrath, 18

What is redeemable in psychohistory?

The best introduction to the sane side of the deMausean thought available on the internet appears in the third part of the book The Emotional Life of Nations, especially in the final chapters: “The Evolution of Childrearing” and “The Evolution of Psyche and Society.” However, even in the following pages, where I would like to spare the salvageable part of deMause’s legacy, I will continue the criticism of his psychohistory.

 
Pseudoscientific charts

DeMause likes to interpolate ever-ascending charts on the historical treatment of children in his books, and even once he wrote that primitive humans treated their children better than our ape ancestors. I do not think that is true. The most terrible form of interactions between parents and children is the ritual sacrifice and cannibalism of one’s own children: a level of cruelty that has not been observed in primates other than man. Also, deMause assumes a gradual improvement in child treatment from 460 AD to approximately 1100 AD: an impossibility if we consider that we have no childrearing data around 8th century Europe. This mistake does not invalidate the salvageable part of deMause’s model: only the dogmatic idea that the treatment of children was always from worst to least bad.

In The History of Childhood deMause writes: “The image of Medea hovers over childhood in antiquity.” But in post-Homeric Greece it was already unusual to kill grown-up children as Medea did. The insistence on denigrating the Classical World is derived from the deMause’s dogma that childcare has always gone from worse to less bad, from major to minor abuse: the eternal upward charts in deMausean psychohistory. The prolific Jewish psychohistorian Robert Godwin, for example, emphatically dispatches the Greco-Roman world as barbarian in terms of upbringing. Once again: regarding the Jewish narrative versus the Aryan, in the next chapters we will see who were really the most barbaric.

One of the things that piqued my interest when I first encountered psychohistory was the secularized Judeo-Christian spirit breathed in it. DeMause and Godwin seem to reject the vision of the Enlightenment: to consider the Middle Ages darker than the most lucid moments of Greece and Rome. In contrast to deMause’s claims it does not seem likely at all that the Middle Ages was better as childrearing methods are concerned, or that Christendom was better compared to Pericles’ Athens or Republican Rome. In my own version of psychohistory, the Athenians should have treated the children well enough to allow the explosion of arts, philosophies and politics that we have inherited. However, due to the tenet that “the further back in history one goes, the lower the level of child care,” deMause has blinded himself to see the obvious. True, an archaic ritual performed at Knossos by the non-Aryan natives included the cooking and eating of children as part of the fertility celebration (see the history on the white race by William Pierce in Who We Are). But as Ramón Xirau writes at the beginning of his Introducción a la Historia de la Filosofía, the Greece that we know is great precisely because it gave up such practices: something I’ve always related to the Hebrew story of Abraham, who at the last moment changed his mind as to sacrifice his child. The veracity of Xirau’s opening paragraph can be substantiated in the final chapter of the most erudite contemporary study on the subject, Human Sacrifice in Ancient Greece by Dennis Hughes. To the Greeks of the time of Plato and Theophrastus, says Hughes, human sacrifice was a thing of the past; what was left in their time were isolated cases “and the custom is particularly associated with non-Greeks.”

Not only does the classical world refutes deMause. Julian Jaynes, the author of the book that could be classified as a different kind of psychohistory, implied that the cruel Assyrian law contrasted sharply with the Code of Hammurabi, written six centuries earlier. However, deMause might not err in his assessment of the West from the 12th century AD onward. One of my most memorable readings, based on the captivating television series by Kenneth Clark, was the second chapter of Civilisation about the “The Great Thaw” of Europe at the beginning of the 12th century, as well as the next chapter on courtly love: the West had invented love. The thaw was nothing other than the beginning to treat European women better than what non-westerners did in the rest of the world; hence the treatment of these women to their children changed. From the late 13th century begins the historical record of the death penalty in cases of voluntary infanticide. In addition to their relatively high IQ, psychogenically speaking the people of Europe would evolve more than the rest of the world.

But the white man of the present is suffering the worst psychosis in the history of the West. When by the end of 2008 I called deMause’s attention on the issue of the betrayal that the white man inflicts on himself with mass migration, I realized he knew nothing about the subject. This has led me to think that his chart that appears in his texts about the evolving historic personalities is flawed. DeMause puts there as inferior the psychoclass that has as its model the “patriotic” man compared to the “activist.” The truth is that patriots are precisely the ones who defend their nations against the greatest evil of our times: race replacement. Unlike the ivory tower where both deMause and the academics live, it appears that the recent Western self-treason represents the most serious, plummeting drop in psychogenesis since prehistory.

The case of deMause is aggravated by his Jewish colleagues who abhor not only the Classical World but the West in general: a position that has infected and corrupted his school of psychohistory since its inception. I have not been able to corroborate that deMause himself comes from a Jewish family, although the names he gave to his children, as well as his extreme aversion for the Third Reich, would seem to suggest it.
 

Shoddy scholarship

DeMause’s mistakes do not end with the discussion in previous pages. Since he sometimes uses his sources very loosely, the possibility exists that his psychohistory could consist of assumptions based on little, if any, evidence. I have found that occasionally deMause takes his data out of context, and that some of his pronouncements on subjects I know better contain serious errors. (For example, instead of the Mexica patron god, Huitzilopochtli, in his books he writes of him as an “Aztec goddess.”) Although such errors do not invalidate his theory, deMause could have used his sources more carefully.

So far the only interesting discussion about psychohistory I am aware of can be read in several discussion pages of Wikipedia. After Ark insulted the editors of the article mentioned above, he returned for a brief time to edit and discuss in the article “Infanticide.” In the discussion page Julie Hofmann Kemp, the editor whom Ark had insulted, responded to him and the other Wikipedia editors in a reasonable manner:

Problems with this. You’re using shoddy scholarship to try to back up an unprovable claim. DeMause provides no analysis or discussion of his sources, merely a catalog of horrific quotes. We cannot tell the context, nor can we take them as representative.

What Julie told Ark next is more substantial:

Anybody can go through books and pick out quotes to make an argument. Since deMause’s work is criminally lax in scholarship, I suggest you try to use better sources. I just reread “A Modest Proposal,” and could see absolutely nothing that referred to rotting corpses of babies in the streets. The only reference was to children accompanying their mothers begging. This certainly makes me question the veracity of other statements in this article.

Ark angrily replied that she could not accept the reality of infanticide because it was very uncomfortable for her. Julie responded:

No, Ark—I am fully aware that we live in a society where people do horrible things to children. I am also aware that this has long been the case. There are plenty of records out there for at least the Victorian area on things like the treatment of children in workhouses, and they clearly indicate widespread abuse of minors and women. I removed what I did [from the Wikipedia article] because I reread Swift and the deMause article you used as sources. Unfortunately, there seems to have been a lot of stuff quoted out of context. Some of the sources, like Philippe Ariès, I’ve read. If you want things to stay unchallenged, you’ve got to make sure they have recognizable merit. This is why I think we need to look beyond deMause. DeMause is only one of thousands of people writing on child abuse and infanticide. As a historian, I can see great gaping holes in deMause’s use of sources. It doesn’t make him wrong, but it certainly sets off warning bells—if the scholarship doesn’t stand up, then are the conclusions he draws really proven?

After further critical responses from other editors, quite reasonable and civic, Ark quit editing Wikipedia, and this time definitely, on my birthday of 2002. I agree that the way deMause has used the sources lacks academic rigor. However, if as Julie and others advised, it could be possible to source deMause’s model with non-deMausean references, the psychohistorical structure would be supported upon a new sort of column.

That is exactly what I did. In March and April of 2008 I massively edited “Infanticide,” the same article where years before Julie and Ark had discussed, adding a hundred references that I did not read in deMausean texts, but in a voluminous treatise of Larry S. Milner published in 2000. The model of the breakdown of the bicameral mind by surpassing the infanticidal psychoclass, is the cornerstone on which rests what remained of the psychohistorical building after my critique. Therefore, I will reproduce here what I added to that article, which I also translated for Wikipedia in Spanish. In my second book the critique of psychiatry contained such incredible facts that, unlike the other books, I was forced to include bibliographical notes. For the same reasons here I will do the same.
 
___________

The objective of Day of Wrath is to present to the racialist community my philosophy of The Four Words on how to eliminate all unnecessary suffering. If life allows, next month I will reproduce another chapter. Day of Wrath is available: here.

Anglin vs. Sargon

What is striking in the recent debate between Andrew Anglin and Carl Benjamin (also known by his YouTube pseudonym, Sargon of Akkad) is Benjamin’s schizoid stance that, yes, white people have the right to exist—but they don’t have the right to reverse the genocidal levels of immigration!

Reason for this schizoid disorder? This secular man subscribes Christian ethics, particularly a secularised version of the ethics of the Sermon on the Mount; Pauline universalism, and an out-group altruism that did not exist before Christianity.

Published in: on February 12, 2018 at 11:41 am  Comments (12)  

The religion of whites

by Jack Frost

franciscan-monk-with-amerind
The primary motivation of whites is their absurd morality, derived from Christian virtues such as charity, love of one’s neighbor, and unlimited self-sacrifice, even unto death (as did Jesus).

_____________

Note of the Editor: Above, a painting by Orozco about a Franciscan monk pitying a conquered Aztec.

Published in: on September 20, 2015 at 2:11 pm  Comments (2)  

Europe’s awakening

Michael_O'Meara

by Michael O’Meara

Excerpted from his book-review “The Shock of History”
originally published in 2011 at the old Alternative Right:

Dominique Venner’s thesis is that: Europeans, after having been militarily, politically, and morally crushed by events largely of their own making, have been lost in sleep (“in dormition”) for the last half-century and are now—however slowly—beginning to experience a “shock of history” that promises to wake them, as they are forced to defend an identity of which they had previously been almost unconscious.

Like cascading catastrophes (the accelerating decomposition of America’s world empire, Europe’s Islamic colonization, the chaos-creating nihilism of global capitalism, etc.), the shock of history today is becoming more violent and destructive, making it harder for Europeans to stay lulled in the deep, oblivious sleep that follows a grievous wound to the soul itself—the deep curative sleep prescribed by their horrendous civil wars (1914-1918 and 1939-1945), by the ensuing impositions of the Soviet / American occupation and of the occupation’s collaborationist regimes, and, finally, today, by a demographic tsunami promising to sweep away their kind.

The Sleep

The Second European Civil War of 1939-1945, however it is interpreted, resulted in a cataclysmic defeat not just for Hitler’s Germany, but for Europe, much of which, quite literally, was reduced to mounds of smoldering rumble. Then, at Yalta, adding insult to injury, the two extra-European super-powers partitioned the Continent, deprived her states of sovereignty, and proceeded to Americanize or Sovietize the “systems” organizing and managing the new postwar European order.

As Europe’s lands and institutions were assumed by alien interests, her ancient roots severed, and her destiny forgotten, Europeans fell into dormition, losing consciousness of who they were as a people and a civilization—believing, as they were encouraged, that they were simply one people among the world’s many peoples—nothing special—except in their evil.

Worse, for their unpardonable sins—for what Europeans did to Jews in the war, to Blacks in the slave trade, to non-White peoples in general over the course of the last 500 years—for all the terrible sins Europeans have committed, they are henceforth denied the “right” to be a “people.” In the Messianic spirit of Communism and Americanism, the Orwellian occupiers and collaborators have since refused them a common origin (roots), a shared history, a tradition, a destiny. This reduces them to a faceless economic-administrative collectivity, which is expected, in the end, to negate the organic basis of its own existence.

The postwar assault on European identity entailed, however, more than a zombifying campaign of guilt-inducement—though this campaign was massive in scale. Europe after Jahre Null was re-organized according to extra-European models and then overwhelmed with imported forms of mass consumerism and entertainment. At the same time and with perhaps greater severity, she was subject to an unprecedented “brain-washing” (in schools, media, the so-called arts, public institutions, and private corporations)—as all Europe’s family of nations, not just the defeated Germans, were collectively made to bear a crushing guilt—under the pretext of the Shoah or the legacy of colonialism / imperialism / slavery—their sins requiring the most extreme penance. Thus tainted, her memory and identity are now verboten…

In one sense, Venner’s Europe is the opposite of the America that has distorted Europe’s fate for the last half-century. But he is no knee-jerk anti-American (though the French, in my view, have good cause to be anti-US). He’s also written several books on the US War of Secession, in which much of America’s Cavalier heritage is admired. Knowing something of the opposed tendencies shaping American “national” life, he’s well aware of the moral abyss separating, say, Jesse James from Jay Gould—and what makes one an exemplar of the European spirit and the other its opposite.

Modeled on the Old Testament, not the Old World, Venner claims America’s New World (both as a prolongation and rejection of Europe) was born of New England Calvinism and secularized in John O’Sullivan’s “Manifest Destiny.”

Emboldened by the vast, virgin land of their wilderness enterprise and the absence of traditional authority, America’s Seventeenth-century Anglo-Puritan settlers set out, in the spirit of their radical-democratic Low Church crusade, to disown the colony’s Anglo-European parents—which meant disowning the idea (old as Herodotus) that Europe is “the home of liberty and true government.”

Believing herself God’s favorite, this New Zion aspired—as a Promised Land of liberty, equality, fraternity—to jettison Europe’s aesthetic and aristocratic standards for the sake of its religiously-inspired materialism. Hence, the bustling, wealth-accumulating, tradition-opposing character of the American project, which offends every former conception of the Cosmos.

New England, to be sure, is not the whole of America, for the South, among another sections, has a quite different narrative, but it was the Yankee version of the “American epic” that became dominant, and it is thus the Yankee version that everywhere wars on Americans of European descent.

Citing Huntington’s Who Are We?, Venner says US elites (“cosmocrats,” he calls them) pursue a transnational / universalist vision (privileging global markets and human rights) that opposes every “nativist” sense of nation and culture—a transnational / universalist vision the cosmocrats hope to impose on the whole world. For like Russian Bolsheviks and “the Bolsheviks of the Seventeenth century,” these money-worshipping liberal elites hate the Old World and seek a new man, Homo oeconomicus—unencumbered by roots, nature, or culture—and motivated solely by a quantitative sense of purpose.

As a union whose “connections” are horizontal, contractual, self-serving, and self-centered, America’s cosmocratic system comes, as such, to oppose all resistant forms of historic or organic identity—for the sake of a totalitarian agenda intent on running roughshod over everything that might obstruct the scorch-earth economic logic of its Protestant Ethic and Capitalist Spirit. In this sense, Europe’s resurgence implies America’s demise.

The Shock

What will awaken Europeans from their sleep? Venner says it will be the shock of history—the shock evoking the tradition that made them (and makes them) who they are.

Such shocks have long shaped their history. Think of the Greeks in their Persian Wars; of Charles Martel’s outnumbered knights against the Caliphate’s vanguard; or of the Christian forces under Starhemberg and Sobieski before the gates of Vienna. Whenever Europe approaches Hölderlin’s “midnight of the world,” such shocks, it seems, serve historically to mobilize the redeeming memory and will to power inscribed in her tradition.

More than a half-century after the trauma of 1945—and the ensuing Americanization, financialization, and third-worldization of continental life—Europeans are once again experiencing another great life-changing, history-altering shock promising to shake them from their dormition.

The present economic crisis and its attending catastrophes combined with the unrelenting, disconcerting Islamization of European life (integral to US strategic interests) are—together—forcing Europeans to re-evaluate a system that destroys the national economy, eliminates borders, ravages the culture, makes community impossible, and programs their extinction as a people. The illusions of prosperity and progress, along with the system’s fun, sex, and money (justifying the prevailing de-Europeanization) are becoming increasingly difficult to entertain. Glimmers of a changing consciousness have, indeed, already been glimpsed on the horizon.

The various nationalist-populist parties stirring everywhere—parties which are preparing the counter-hegemony that one day will replace Europe’s present American-centric leadership—represent one conspicuous sign of this awakening. A mounting number of identitarian, Christian, secular, and political forces resisting Islam’s, America’s, and the EU’s totalitarian impositions at the local level are another sign.

Europeans, as a consequence, are increasingly posing the question: “Who are we?,” as they become conscious—especially in the face of the dietary, vestimentary, familial, sexual, religious, and other differences separating them from Muslims—of what is distinct to their civilization and their people, and why such distinctions are worth defending. Historical revivals, Venner notes, are slow in the making, but once awakened there is usually no going back. This is the point, Venner believes, that Europe is approaching today.

The Unexpected

History is the realm of the unexpected. Venner does not subscribe to notions of historical determinism or necessity. In contrast to Marxists and economic determinists, anti-Semites and Spenglerians, he believes there are no monocausal explanations in history, and unlike liberals such as Fukuyama, he believes there’s no escape from (no “end” to) history.

The future of history is always unknown. Who would have thought in 1980 that Soviet Russia, which seemed to be overtaking the United States in the 70s, would collapse within a decade? Historical fatalities are the fatalities of men’s minds, not those of history.

History, moreover, is the confluence of the given, the circumstantial, and the willful. This makes it always open and hence potentially always a realm of the unexpected. And the unexpected (that instance when great possibilities are momentarily posed) is mastered, Venner counsels, only in terms of who we are, which means in terms of the tradition and identity defining our project and informing our encounter with the world.

Hence, the significance now of husbanding our roots, our memory, our tradition, for from them will come our will to power and any possibility of transcendence. It’s not for nothing, Dominique Venner concludes, that we are the sons and daughters of Homer, Ulysses, and Penelope.