May 4, 2015

Are You Becoming a Foreigner in Your Own Family?

via White Genocide Project

As the weather turns warm, family reunions provide the opportunity to be surrounded by the people most like us.
Sadly many White Americans now feel like foreigners in their own families.

The evidence of White genocide is easily visible in the world around, but is it visible within our own families?

This month we plant our memes and ask people to look at the evidence of White genocide in their own families.

Promote our memes and initial the messages this month.

Tell White Americans: “White folk, look at your own family, or families you know, and see it happening.” | We the People: Your Voice in Our Government

Tell White Americans: “White folk, look at your own family, or families you know, and see it happening.”

ALL White countries and ONLY White countries are being flooded with millions of non-Whites, and Whites are forced to integrate with them so as to “assimilate,” i.e. intermarry and be blended out of existence.

Whites today are where the Amerindians of Mexico were shortly after the Spaniards arrived and began interbreeding with them.

In time, Whites will be where those Amerindians are today: nearly interbred out of existence and replaced by a mixed race.

We see it beginning in our own families or in families we know.

We didn’t vote for our countries to be flooded with third-world non-Whites, nor did we vote to be chased down by diversity programs wherever we go!

The persons managing our genocide say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-White.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-White.

Denouncing the Communist Holiday

via Alternative Right

Had I a dozen sons — each in my love alike, and none less dear than thine and my good Marcius — I had rather had eleven die nobly for their country, than one voluptuously surfeit out of action. - Coriolanus

A few days ago, on April 25th, Italy celebrated a national holiday, La Liberazione d'Italia. This anniversary marks the end of fascism and the Second World War and the liberation from Nazi occupation. Many Italians of the Left rejoice, while many on the Right see it as a “communist holiday.”
The date was chosen by convention, as it was the day when the National Liberation Committee of Upper Italy (CLNAI) officially proclaimed the insurgency in a radio announcement, announcing the seizure of power by the CLNAI and the death sentence for all fascist leaders (including Benito Mussolini, who was shot three days later).
Two major issues arise when dealing with this “holiday.” The first is the Orwellian use of language, such as “liberation,” which obscures historical nuance and is partisan by nature. One cannot think of “liberation” in Italy, the same way one could think of the liberation of France, in so far as Italy was not “liberated” it was defeated. To celebrate this as an Italian is to be a masochist, a traitor, a defeatist, or all three. You might be able to celebrate it as a liberal, humanist, or capitalist, but definitely not as an Italian.
Italian fascism and Italian fascists were the first to proclaim that fascism was a uniquely Italian experience and expression bound up in the historical nuance of the country; that it could be imitated but not duplicated, copied but not exported. The project of fascism in Italy was a much needed re-affirmation of national identity, following the Risorgimento ("The Resurgence," the unification of Italy in the 19th century).
Uniting the past and the future.
There was a need to create an identity as Italians, and to connect this sense of affirmation, pride and unity in both forward-looking and backward-looking ways.
The Futurist art movement, the fascist project of renewal of the will, and the political policy of colonialism looked to the future. But Italy’s rich and proud history – represented artistically in Novecento Italiano and its neo-classical aesthetic and politically in the policy of irredentism and the accommodation reached with the Vatican – were also embraced.
But back to comparisons between French liberation and Italian: Italy was an Axis power, while France, even with its Vichy puppet government, was at best neutral. France was formally a Republic with a long history of liberal thought until Petain dissolved it, while Italy was only briefly democratic and then only provisionally and ineffectually so.
In effect, we are discussing the overwhelmingly bourgeois liberal decadence of France, which admittedly had some pockets of traditionalism, such as those expressed in writer Jean Giono’s “retour a la terre” (back to the land) aesthetic, which was endorsed by the Vichy government. But in France, this was the exception. Compared to this Italy was a much more overtly peasant society, characterized by political serfdom and hierarchical traditions, in which the liberal, democratic, and cosmopolitan pockets were the exception. This was the foundation of the European phenomenon of Fascism.
Death from above.
One cannot discuss the “liberation” of Italy without whitewashing these fundamental historical differences between disparate nations. Italians overwhelming welcomed fascism and deified Il Duce. Although flawed and ultimately tragic, Mussolini was a great national hero and more importantly an expression of the country’s essence. For this reason he should be revered and have a holiday in his name.
The second major problem with this national holiday is the conflation of the end of fascism with the end of the Second World War and the general liberation from Nazi occupation.
The language, while being biased and historically inaccurate, is also simplistic and propagandistic, creating a false chain of causality that exonerates the Allies of their fundamental enmity towards Italy. This chain, with quite a few links missing, goes like this:
Fascism→ War→ Liberation. 
A more objective and accurate, but still reductionist, chain of causality would look like this:
Fascism→ Nationalist Renewal→ Anglo-American/German War→ Allied destruction of Italy→ defeat→ democratic-puppet government.
Whitewashed from the historical record are, of course, Anglo-American war crimes committed against Italy. As Allied threats at the time made clear:
And what has happened so far is nothing compared to what Hitler and Mussolini will trigger in your country. When we say to you that Italy has become a no man’s land, we say it in earnest. Your country will be exposed to bombardment, constant attack, and the worst disintegration. The number of houses in flames will be enormous; the dead will pile up in the cities and the country.
Of course, the myth is rigorously maintained that Allied barbarism only acted against demonic forces, rather than being demonic itself. Amongst the Allied war crimes omitted from the historical narrative, is the completely amoral civilian bombing of Italian cities. The strategy of “morale bombing” employed by the RAF against Italy and Germany, (Dresden, Hamburg), had more of an effect on Italian capitulation than on the steadfast Germans.
There are a number of reasons for Italian “flip-flopping” during the war, not least because it was never really their war in the same way that it was for the Germans, who faced much greater animosity and demands for “unconditional surrender.” The Allies gave the Italians an option. Their propaganda assured them:
Remember that the only reason for the bombing attacks on Italian cities is your alliance with Germany.
Also one must take into account the existence of discordant elements in Italian political leadership, with one side favouring opting out. This included the church and King Victor Emmanuel III, who treacherously maneuvered in a way reminiscent of King Carol II and later King Michael I of Romania, who first utilized Antonescu’s National Legionary State against Horia Sima and Corneliu Zelea Cordreanu’s Iron Guard, and then turned on Antonescu himself.
Allies Dindu Nuffin.
The reality of Mussolini’s corpse hanging from a butcher’s hook like a slab of meat in the Piazzale Loreto in Milano is one of the most iconic examples one could imagine of scapegoating done by cowards.
Amongst the most egregious Allied war crimes swept under the rug by this liberation holiday, is the morale bombing which indiscriminately and purposefully attacked civilian targets for the purpose of turning the general population against Italian involvement in the war. This was because of a general theoretical and practical shift towards a “total war” model of warfare, in which the civilian population was complicit in the effort and was to be engaged as an enemy.
In the case of Italy, this resulted in the Gorla Massacre, as well as the bombing of Foggia, Frascati, and Naples, amongst others. Further crimes include the mass rape at Monte Cassino, in which the Allies allowed French Algerian, Tunisian, and Senegalese troops, attached to the French Expeditionary Corps, to rape and slaughter an entire town. We must also not forget the green light they gave to Tito’s partisans to massacre ethnic Italians and Germans in Yugoslavia, nor how the Anglo-Americans replaced the government of Mussolini in the South with mafia crime bosses, leaving them in charge after the invasion so that they still lord it over their regions like African warlords today, retarding the development of these regions through corruption.
April 25th is not a day that Italians should celebrate liberation, it is a day they should say they will never forget the crimes committed against them and they will always remember the great dream of true national liberation, the great dream of fascism, which was taken from them. Viva Italia!

The Banality of Ethnomasochism

via Radix

The enlightened guardians of public order will usually tell you that the criminals are not to be punished as vengeance, but in order to rehabilitate and/or prevent future crime, by removing the offenders from the public and deterring others from taking similar action. These categories are by no means mutually exclusive, and some can be molded into stepping-stones to others. German writer Anna Sauerbrey, ever mindful of the enormity of her people, seems to have combined all three. In an op-ed column for today’s New York Times, “Why Old Nazis Are Still Useful,” she proudly and frankly mourns the passing of the Nazi generation. Her reasoning is that Germany must always have a deep sense of shame in her past, and the spectacle of a real-life Nazi, even a 93-year-old one, is the best blunt instrument for accomplishing this. 

I am not sure whether she is working under the premise that the ends justify the means—perhaps she does not see anything particularly distasteful about her methods, but, to me, everything about the essay’s approach is strikingly ugly. Sauerbrey writes:
Survivors of the Holocaust still regularly speak in classrooms in Germany. Everyone reads the “Diary of Anne Frank,” over and over. I have read it knowing that my grandparents had at least tolerated the regime that murdered her — and that both my grandfathers served in the war. We have all grown up with the vague feeling of inherited guilt.
But while reading Frank’s diary or hearing Ms. Pusztai-Fahidi (a plaintiff in the trail against the aforementioned 93-year-old ex-Nazi) speak is moving, it is the perpetrators that really make you dizzy. In a way they are even more important to the German narrative than the victims.
Sure, it makes sense that German guilt is more important to Germany’s historical narrative than is the sufferings of Germany’s victims, but the writer’s purpose here is to appeal to a very extreme example of “the politics of fear.” In this especially odious case, the aim is for the Germans to be afraid of themselves. Because after all:
It is not enough to teach good liberal values. All that Humboldt and Kant failed to inoculate Germany from the virus of Nazism. Why should it now? Nor is history sufficient, by itself. The numbers of those killed in Auschwitz-Birkenau are horrifying, but abstract.
For many Medieval Christians, all Jews were forever guilty for the murder of Christ; for Sauerbrey, all Germans are forever guilty of the Nazi Holocaust. And they can never be trusted again. The strong implication is that the German problem requires a final solution, and perhaps partially with this in mind, Sauerbrey recommends that Germans dedicate themselves to welcoming refugees to their land. She is German, so absolute spirit and all that, I guess.

Now this is a revolting sentiment to me, but it has become such old-hat that it alone did not really surprise me. What I really found jarring about this article was how confident and straight-forward she is in her self-hatred, and in her desire for the rest of Germany to feel the same. Nowhere does she express any regret that it has come to this, nowhere does she qualify her position at all. Her tone is not polemical, or at all angry. Why should it be? To her, the idea that Germans are uniquely and forever guilty is not at all controversial. She takes it for granted, and assumes that everyone else does too.

Truth, Honesty, and Faith in Allah: The Rise and Fall of Lutfur Rahman

via The Occidental Observer

Progressive alliance: Lutfur Rahman and friends
Do you have a deep respect for the integrity of lawyers? Do you have an abiding trust in the veracity of Muslims? Then I’m afraid you’re going to be sadly disappointed by Lutfur Rahman and his many supporters. This highly trained lawyer made history as Britain’s first Muslim mayor, winning two elections in the proudly vibrant London borough of Tower Hamlets. Now he has made history again: a high-court judge called Richard Mawrey has just ruled that Rahman is guilty of corruption and illegal practices. He has been stripped of his mayoralty and barred from standing in any future election.

Triumph of the Villains

It’s a final triumph for Rahman’s racist and Islamophobic enemies, who could not bear to see a brown-skinned Muslim mayor fighting for the oppressed and impoverished Bangladeshi residents of Tower Hamlets. That, at least, is the story Rahman and his supporters will now be spinning. And why not? Accusations of racism and Islamophobia have proved very useful to Muslims who combine gross corruption with farcical incompetence. This is an extract from the judge’s ruling in the electoral court:
Though Mr Penny [Rahman’s lawyer] did his best to counter the allegations by calling many witnesses who claimed to have attended polling stations without observing anything amiss, the body of evidence to the contrary was overwhelming and convincing. By contrast, the witnesses for Mr Rahman were not always very impressive. Quite obviously Mr Rahman and his team had rounded up a large number of sympathetic voters and had handed them pro forma witness statements with only the name of the witness and of the polling station to be filled in. Witnesses whose command of English turned out in the witness box to be rudimentary nonetheless produced polished English prose in their witness statements containing words that appeared to baffle them in cross-examination. The occasional witness claimed to have typed out his witness statement himself, oblivious to the fact that its appearance was absolutely identical to that of other (allegedly unconnected) witnesses. The nadir came when one witness gave a graphic account of how he had attended a polling station to cast his vote and found it a haven of tranquillity, only to be confronted by Mr Hoar with absolutely incontrovertible evidence that the witness had, in fact, voted by post well before polling day and could not have voted in person on the day. (Judge’s Ruling on the Mayoral Election held in Tower Hamlets on 22nd May 2014)
I bet he did vote on the day. Corruption and incompetence are characteristic of the Third World, but that is exactly what you would expect in Tower Hamlets: the Muslim “community” there is a Third World colony in a First World nation. If you import Third World people, you will get Third World behaviour. This isn’t difficult to understand, but liberals resolutely refuse to understand it. Instead, they perform a traditional cultic ritual: they wring their hands and lament the inevitable consequences of their own policies. The Guardian is upset by “the division that has blighted [Tower Hamlets] for more than five years.” Can you believe that? Mass immigration by non-White Muslims into a White Christian nation has led to “division.” And Muslims who are corrupt in Bangladesh are also corrupt in Britain. Who could have foreseen it? 

Rumours of corruption

Not highly educated, high-IQ liberals. Still, give the Bangladeshis of Tower Hamlets their due. Unlike their relatives back home, they haven’t chopped up any atheist bloggers to date. But if they do, liberals will respond just as they did to the Charlie Hebdo massacre: with more hand-wringing and more denial of the obvious. This is the electoral judge again:
The evidence laid before this court … has disclosed an alarming state of affairs in Tower Hamlets. This is not the consequence of the racial and religious mix of the population, nor is it linked to any ascertainable pattern of social or other deprivation. It is the result of the ruthless ambition of one man. The real losers in this case are the citizens of Tower Hamlets and, in particular, the Bangladeshi community. Their natural and laudable sense of solidarity has been cynically perverted into a sense of isolation and victimhood, and their devotion to their religion has been manipulated — all for the aggrandisement of Mr Rahman. The result has been to alienate them from the other communities in the Borough and to create resentment in those other communities. (Judge’s Ruling on Lutfur Rahman)
According to the judge, Rahman was the Pied Piper of Tower Hamlets, leading the poor innocent Bangladeshi community astray with his ruthless ambition and cynical manipulation. As a genuine White Londoner might say: “What bollocks!” Of course the problems in Tower Hamlets are indeed caused by the “racial and religious mix” there. The Guardian reported “long-term watchers of Tower Hamlets” who “say rumours of corruption in the borough did not start with Rahman. Before he came on the scene — when the Labour, and before them the Liberal Democrats, were in power —  there were allegations of vote rigging and postal vote fraud.”

The allegations were correct: Bangladeshis were applying their long-honed electoral skills. Rahman knows his own people and their deeply corrupt culture. He didn’t trick them: he treated them. He channelled large sums of money to them and their religion. That’s how he was able to win “the open support of the Borough’s Muslim clergy.” The crooked non-White lawyer Barack Obama used “Hope and Change” to win elections; the crooked non-White lawyer Lutfur Rahman used “Hoque and Choudhury.” Alibor Choudhury is Rahman’s thuggish lieutenant, while Hafiz Moulana Hoque is the “Chairman of the Council of Mosques of Tower Hamlets.”

“Faith in Allah Always”

Note that “Hafiz” in Hoque’s name. It’s the honorary title given to a Muslim who knows the Koran by heart. So would you expect Hafiz Hoque to be a dedicated crook? Of course not. Unfortunately, that’s exactly what he is. As a close ally of Lutfur Rahman, he responded warmly when Rahman asked him and his fellow Muslim clerics for “their blessing so that he can be on the path of truth, honesty and have faith in Allah always.” The blessing duly arrived:
On 16 May 2014 (6 days before the election) the Weekly Desh, a newspaper published in Bengali and in English with a circulation of about 20,000 (mainly in the Borough), carried a letter. The letter was solely in Bengali and no English version appeared in the paper. … The letter was signed by 101 Imams and other religious leaders and scholars. Leading the list was Mr Hoque. …
… We are further observing that today’s Tower Hamlets have made significant and enviable improvements in the areas of housing, education, community cohesion, inter-faith harmony, road safety and youth developments. In order to retain this success and make further progress it is essential that someone is elected as Mayor of the Tower Hamlets Borough on 22nd May who is able to lead these improvements and who will not discriminate on the basis of language, colour and religious identities.
We observe that some people are targeting the languages, colours and religions and attempting to divide the community by ignoring the cohesion and harmony of the citizens. This is, in fact, hitting the national, cultural and religious ‘multi’ ideas of the country and spreading jealousy and hatred in the community. We consider these acts as abominable and at the same time condemnable. … As a cognisant group of the community and responsible voters and for the sake of truth, justice, dignity and development we express our unlimited support for Mayor Lutfur Rahman and strongly call upon you, the residents of Tower Hamlets, to shun all the propagandas and slanders and unite against the falsehood and injustice. … (Judge’s Ruling on Lutfur Rahman)
Note the smarmy and insincere liberal phraseology: “community cohesion,” “inter-faith harmony,” “cohesion and harmony.” Note also the blatant lying: the clerics claimed that Rahman would “not discriminate on the basis of language, colour and religious identities.” But they were supporting him precisely because he would discriminate: against Whites, for Bangladeshis; against kaffirs, for Muslims.

Tower Hamlets is a shining example of what a “racially diversified, de-Christianized America” will look like. It will be a corrupt and violent kleptocracy. As we’ve seen, the judge’s report into Lutfur Rahman’s criminality is full of farce. But it’s also full of tragedy. Mass immigration by non-Whites into London has had serious consequences for London’s Whites both financially and physically. Bangladeshis, Jamaicans and Somalis haven’t won any Nobel Prizes for Britain, but they’ve certainly excelled at crimes like murder, rape and robbery.

One of the many White traitors who assisted the rise of Lutfur Rahman in Tower Hamlets is called Michael Keith. Once a far-left Labour councillor in the borough, he is now a professor at Oxford University and “Director of the ESRC [Economic and Social Research Council] Centre on Migration Policy and Society.” Back in 1995 Keith was certainly applying Jewish ideology back in 1995:
One of the targets of Mr Keith’s ire was a leaflet that had been put out by the Liberal Focus team. Entitled ‘Focus Fights for Mrs X’ it related how an elderly lady living on ‘possibly Wapping’s most dangerous estate’ [Wapping is a ward in Tower Hamlets] was, in essence, living in fear of attacks by thugs and nothing was being done to help her. The vice in this leaflet was that it contained a photograph of a large black man in a very aggressive pose. It was said to be the boxer Mike Tyson but this is not easy to verify from the photocopies that remain. At all events, it was described as ‘the Mike Tyson leaflet’. It was just about tenable to describe this leaflet as playing to racial fears. (Judge’s Ruling on Lutfur Rahman)
The “racial fears” were perfectly justified: as non-Whites flooded into Tower Hamlets, many poor elderly Whites were trapped by the rising tide. Weak and isolated, they were easy prey for vibrant criminals. And who spoke up for them? Their fears about the crime they faced were “racist” and despicable. Any attempt to speak the truth was demonized by White traitors like Michael Keith and non-White crooks like Lutfur Rahman.

Brave New Britain

The consequences are plain to see in 2015. A Third World colony is firmly established in Tower Hamlets and Lutfur Rahman’s downfall will not end its pathologies. What do liberals think will happen in Britain as Muslims continue to grow in numbers and influence? The kleptocracy of Tower Hamlets wasn’t due to the “ruthless ambition of one man.” It was due to the incurable corruption of many men — brown-skinned ones like Alibor Choudhury, Rahman’s thuggish lieutenant, and Hafiz Hoque, Chairman of the Council of Mosques. Muslims in Tower Hamlets voted for Rahman not despite his corruption but because of it.

The electoral judge pretended otherwise. He would have been sacked for racism if he had spoken the full truth: that Third World immigration is turning Britain into a Third World nation, where gross corruption mixes with farcical incompetence. And with other things, as the judge hinted at the end of his ruling:
On past form, it appears inevitable that Mr Rahman will denounce this judgment as yet another example of the racism and Islamophobia that have hounded him throughout his political life. It is nothing of the sort. Mr Rahman has made a successful career by ignoring or flouting the law … and has relied on silencing his critics by accusations of racism and Islamophobia. But his critics have not been silenced and neither has this court. Events of recent months in contexts very different from electoral malpractice have starkly demonstrated what happens when those in authority are afraid to confront wrongdoing for fear of allegations of racism and Islamophobia. (Judge’s Ruling on Lutfur Rahman)
The judge is obviously talking about Rotherham, Oxford and other rape-enriched British towns and cities. But he didn’t name them. In other words, he was silenced: he didn’t speak the full truth for fear of the consequences, but I suppose it’s encouraging that he alluded to them at all. His final words were these: “Even in the multicultural society which is 21st century Britain, the law must be applied fairly and equally to everyone. Otherwise we are lost.”

Then Brave New Britain is indeed lost while Muslims and other non-Whites remain here in growing numbers, injecting the poison of identity politics ever deeper into the body politic. But let’s not forget the wise words of the former Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks: “the process began with Jews.” Muslims exploit the “culture of victimhood,” but they didn’t invent it. Jews did. Meanwhile, Israel responds to ethnic enrichment in the only sensible way: with a resounding Bronx cheer.

Ethnic enrichment? Not for Israel!
Ethnic enrichment? Not for Israel!

The Old College Try: How Blacks Stay Eligible for College Sports

via American Renaissance

In the summer of 2010, the University of North Carolina (UNC) athletic department was caught up in a scandal. Many basketball and football players were found to have taken phony courses and to have been given high grades for papers they did not write and classes they did not attend. This had been going on for over a decade, and involved thousands of players. Cheated, by Jay Smith, a professor of history at UNC, and Mary Willingham, a UNC academic advisor and whistle-blower in the scandal, is a full account of this sordid tale of academic fraud.


The authors provide an abundance of evidence for bogus independent-study classes, inflated grades, plagiarized work, and an administration that deliberately ignored obvious fraud. All the cheaters were apparently black athletes, and many black professors were involved, but the athletes are portrayed as victims rather than beneficiaries of this fraud.

Students or athletes?

The problem of lowering academic standards to recruit athletes goes back many years. In 1939, University of Chicago President Robert Maynard Hutchins chose to eliminate the school’s football program rather than relax standards. “To be successful, one must cheat. Everyone is cheating, and I refuse to cheat,” he explained. This was when college athletes were nearly all white, and the problem has only gotten worse.

Robert Maynard Hutchins
Robert Maynard Hutchins
In 1986, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) enacted Proposition 48, which set minimum academic standards for athletic eligibility. A minimum score of 700 out of 1,400 on the SAT and a 2.0 grade-point average hardly seem demanding, but a number of coaches and black race activists decried the measures as discriminatory. And, indeed, a 1988 report found that 78 percent of the athletes who could not meet these requirements were black. Coaches quickly learned how to get around these minimum standards. This book shows how.

The center of the UNC scandal was the African and Afro-American Studies Department (AFRI/AFAM), and the chairman of the department, Julius Nyang’oro, an immigrant from Tanzania, was at the heart of the fraud. Prof. Nyang’oro enrolled athletes in AFRI/AFAM courses and made sure they got grades good enough to keep them eligible to play. Four of the five starters from UNC’s 1993 national championship basketball team were AFRI/AFAM majors. Prof. Nyang’oro got season tickets right behind the UNC bench.

Julius Nyang’oro
Julius Nyang’oro
Independent studies classes were a key part of the fraud. Independent study is generally reserved for talented graduate students who want to do work that is more focused than a typical course syllabus. Students are usually graded on a paper that reflects original research.

Needless to say, the UNC athletes were not producing original research, though in most cases they seem to have turned in a paper. Whether they actually wrote them is another matter. As the authors note, the purpose of AFRI/AFAM independent study was to give “virtually free grades to players who were valuable to their profit-sport teams.” These courses were popular; more than 2,300 students did AFRI/AFAM independent study from 1991 to 2011.

But how did athletes pass required courses such as English and math? UNC also has a foreign language requirement. How did students barely literate in English learn a foreign language?

Keep him eligible

Cheated devotes a section to the career of Julius Peppers, a star black athlete who played on both the football and basketball teams from 1998-2001. Mr. Peppers went on to a long NFL career and is still an active player at age 35. He did not earn a degree but was kept eligible thanks to the AFRI/AFAM department and other phony courses, such as Swahili and French drama, in which athletes got passing grades for little or no work.

At UNC, Mr. Peppers had to maintain a GPA of at least a 1.75, but when he took real classes he failed. He got Fs in Algebra, Earth & Climate, and World Regional Geography, and Ds in Applied Ethics, English Composition, and Stagecraft. It was his inflated grades in AFRI/AFAM courses (usually Bs) that barely gave him the GPA he needed to keep playing.

Julius Peppers played both football and basketball at UNC.
Julius Peppers played both football
and basketball at UNC
Football and basketball players had tutors, counselors, and advisers whose main job was to keep them eligible–even a D is better than an F. One of Mr. Peppers’s academic counselors, Carl Carey, remembers that basketball and football coaches were always after him to “keep him eligible, keep him eligible.” He then put pressure on faculty. In one case, Mr. Carey literally banged on the doors of a drama teacher’s office to get Mr. Peppers a second chance to take a test that he had failed. He got a D, which saved his eligibility.

Mr. Peppers case was not unusual. Another unnamed football player teetered on ineligibility despite earning 9 As, 8 of them in AFRI/AFAM courses, and the other in an equally corrupt class, The French Novel in Translation.

By the mid-2000s, Prof. Nyang’oro had abandoned all restraint. Confident that he would not be caught, he gave student-athletes As in “paper classes” for which they did no work at all. This particularly benefited the UNC 2005 national championship basketball team:
A single statistic underlines the enormity of the fraud from which the 2005 team benefited. A handful of players from the team took a total of thirty-one paper classes over a few semesters and summer sessions. All thirty-one grades awarded, without exception, were either A or A-. Rashad McCants, a star forward on the championship team, followed a paper classes-only schedule during the spring semester of 2005, meaning that he was relieved of all academic burdens in the season in which he pursued his national championship dreams. Perversely, McCants saw his GPA rise significantly–he even made the dean’s list after a semester in which he had done no academic work.
A 2010, a UNC football player named Marvin Austin tweeted about glamorous evenings at nightclubs with “bottles comin’.” This drew the attention of the Raleigh News & Observer, which investigated, and ran a series of articles on the fraudulent courses. The university’s response was, at best, a cover-up:
No instance was found of a student receiving a grade who had not submitted written work. No evidence indicated that student athletes received more favorable treatment than students who were not athletes. In addition, no information was found to indicate that the department personnel involved in these courses received a tangible benefit of any kind.


The NCAA gave UNC minor punishments, including the loss of some scholarships and a year’s probation for the football team. The Epilogue of the book notes that at press time the NCAA had announced a new investigation into “academic irregularities,” so further punishments may yet be announced. Prof. Nyang’oro retired in 2012, and charges against him were dropped in exchange for his cooperation in the investigation, though he should surely be the main target of the investigation.


Race is a constant subtext to Cheated, and the authors profess to believe that black athletes were the true victims–they were “cheated” out of a college education. The book is full of liberal posturing:
Between the early 1990s and 2011 the Department of African and Afro-American Studies appears to have been on the receiving end of a form of racism that most often goes unacknowledged, a patronizing racism rooted in low expectations.
It is not only the uninformed and secretly racist sports fan who believes that African American athletes should feel ‘lucky’ even to be on a college campus.
Self-satisfied and privileged whites tend to chalk up classroom shortcomings among black athletes to laziness, lack of drive and ‘cultural’ issues.
Why would UNC tolerate a 51 percent graduation rate among black male athletes (versus 89 percent for the student body as a whole) unless its officials assumed that lower levels of achievement were to be expected of black students?
Not once does Cheated blame any of the black athletes who actually participated in and benefited from the cheating. Some of this is perhaps understandable. The book is full of black athletes who couldn’t pass even remedial courses despite an army of tutors and counselors. Perhaps the book could not even have been published if it also portrayed them as pampered beneficiaries.

However, black athletes are admitted to top universities despite not even coming close to meeting admissions requirements, they get full scholarships with free room and board, and end up with degrees they don’t deserve. This does not even include the “under-the-table” money and gifts they often receive from recruiters. These people are exploited and cheated?

Moreover, playing at a top school such as UNC means a chance to play professional sports. Even a few years in the NBA or NFL can mean millions. Julius Peppers has already spent 14 years in the NFL. Is he a victim or a beneficiary?

Although Cheated is all about race, it does not treat it directly. How many of the athletes involved in the UNC scandal were black? Were any of them white? The school has produced a number of white athletes, but Cheated does not mention a single white in connection with the scandal–though the mother of Tyler Hansbrough, a white basketball player, landed a make-work job at UNC when he agreed to attend.

Most college athletes are white, and play sports such as baseball, wrestling, tennis, or hockey. Were any of those sports involved in the scandal? How many black athletes actually earned their degrees? Did women athletes get special treatment or only men?

Cheated does not answer these questions, but it suggests that academic fraud almost exclusively benefited black football and basketball players.


The authors offer two solutions. One is simply to pay college football and men’s college basketball players. Players could pursue degrees if they wanted, but they would not have to go to class at the school they supposedly represented.
What would feminists and Title IX advocates say? What would be the status of black athletes in other sports who couldn’t keep up their grades? Most schools lose money on football and basketball teams; would they still have to pay players?

Here is the book’s second solution: “Every university that plans to lower its admissions standards in pursuit of athletic glory should be required to develop an intensive literacy program that will ensure college readiness by the player’s second year in residence.” Good luck.

There is a third solution. Make athletes meet minimum standards on SATs and grades, and expel any who cheat or plagiarize. In other words, treat athletes like regular students. This works for wresting, swimming, hockey, baseball, field hockey, volleyball and all other sports.

It would mean far fewer blacks playing football and basketball, and there would be cries of “racism.” But quality of play might not decline that much. The college basketball national championship game this year featured an 80-percent white Wisconsin team against a Duke team that–though it had darkened considerably–won four national championships with mostly white teams over the last 24 years.

The Duke team that won the 2010 NCAA National Championships.
The Duke team that won the 2010 NCAA National Championships.

The scandals at UNC and many other major sports colleges can be understood only though the lens of race and racial differences, and despite the usual platitudes and hectoring, Cheated gives glimpses of the racial realities behind the scandal. But blacks as a whole simply cannot meet academic standards created for whites, and this makes a return to the tradition of the student athlete impossible. Scandals such as the one at UNC are likely to continue.

With Foreign Policy already Locked-up, Jewish Money Aims for Domestic Policy Chokehold


The following article is facinating if you know how to read it. A new Jewish PAC will focus on strictly domestic issues. Does this mean that Jewish commentators like Peter Beinart and Norman Finkelstein are right when they say that Jews don’t vote based on Israel anymore? Well, for the most part, they don’t have to because both candidates in any given election are so beholden to Israel that Jews can ever more forcefully make domestic policy demands. And as we see in the article below, top among their demands are open borders and gay marriage.

The PAC is being set up by “Bend the Arc Jewish Action,” which is led by Alex Soros, the son of George Soros. The PAC will support congressional candidates who are “unapologetic progressive champions.” So while Republican candidates are tripping over themselves to carry out the war mongering Zionist foreign policy agenda, Democrats push the Zio domestic agenda of subverting traditional morality and displacing the European majority. Heads Jews win, tails Goys lose.

Bend the Arc launches PAC for domestic policy issues

WASHINGTON (JTA) — Bend the Arc launched a political action committee that in its fundraising for candidates will focus strictly on domestic issues of concern to Jewish-Americans.

“Bend the Arc Jewish Action PAC will leverage the Jewish community’s political resources to support members of Congress and congressional candidates who are unapologetic progressive champions,” said a statement issued Tuesday by the liberal Jewish policy group.

“By highlighting the core progressive values of Jewish voters, Bend the Arc Jewish Action PAC will send a clear message that political candidates cannot rely solely on their support for Israel to earn the support of the Jewish community; they must stand for progressive ideals and policies at home.”

The PAC launch included an announcement of $200,000 going to 12 endorsed lawmakers, all Democrats.

Directing the group will be Hadar Susskind, who also leads Bend the Arc Jewish Action, the Washington-based lobbying arm of Bend the Arc, a group that advocates on an array of liberal policy issues, including voting rights, immigration rights, gay marriage equality, economic justice and gender equity.

Susskind has a long background in Jewish community advocacy, having worked for groups including the Jewish Council for Public Affairs and J Street.

Chairing Bend the Arc Jewish Action is Alex Soros, the son of noted liberal philanthropist George Soros, and chairing the affiliated PAC is Marc Baum, a hedge fund manager from New York. Other donors include Ilyse Hogue, the president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, and Paul Egerman, the national finance chairman for Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).

The endorsed lawmakers are Reps. Mark Takano, Mike Honda, Xavier Becerra and Barbara Lee of California; Keith Ellison and Rick Nolan of Minnesota; Jan Schakowsky of Illinois; Ruben Gallego of Arizona; David Cicilline of Rhode Island; Yvette Clarke of New York; Bonnie Watson Coleman of New Jersey; andAlma Adams of North Carolina.

Observations of an Overeducated A/C Man, Part 1

via Theden

Theden Editor's Note: This week and next, Theden will be running a special four-part editorial from our resident HVAC repairman and observer of the Millennial world, Albert Morgan. In these installments, Morgan will discuss some the archetypes of his peer group and what they may portend for that generation as it comes of age. Enjoy.

I introduced myself recently as an overeducated Millennial tradesman. In that article, I noted a number of ways the modern university system lets young people down—and young men in particular. I contrasted the common pitfalls of higher education in early 21st century America with my own experience. Some of those pitfalls I readily wandered into. Others I managed to avoid. On the whole I’d say I’ve made it through better than most, at least according to reports like this one from our nation’s capital. Pay no attention to the fluff about increased equality in the workplace or coverage under Obamacare, By the White House’s own statistics, the average Millennial has 30K in student loans, lives with his parents after college, isn’t buying a home, marries later, majored in social sciences, and faces diminished prospects for their overall career.

I measure up like so: “Nope, Nope, Check, Check, Check, Nope.” Perhaps I’m merely average rather than “better than most” after all.

Or perhaps not. Numbers and papers very often fall into the lattermost of the categories of lies, damned lies and Statistics. My own lying eyes provide me with three anecdotes of other young men navigating this post collegiate world, anecdotes that add a bit of detail to broad-strokes outlines like the above report. The four of us are close friends. Each of us is colored both by individual aspects of our being as well as by the broad social trends that we’re all experiencing in our little spot of Dixie. I see in them roads I’m thankful I avoided as well as ones I wish I would have traveled sooner. Systematic success as well as failure. All in all this is our little tile in the mosaic of a generation that is coming of age in a strange and out-of-sorts world. We are the Overeducated Repairman, the Mystic, the Gamer, and the EMT. We and young men like us are the raw material that my thede must make into its leaders, its patriarchs, and its citizens or, failing that, suffer what will come.

TradYouth's May Reading Discussion: Do it Yourself

via TradYouth

This month, it’s all on you.  Talking about action, theorizing action, and dreaming about action is not quite the same thing as “action!”.  Studying philosophy and discussing philosophy with friends is all well and good, however, action is louder than words.  This month’s reading discussion is about action and activism.

Some of the regulars who have attended the reading discussions on campus will be graduating from college this month, too.  It’s fitting that those regulars will be “graduating” from the reading discussion program as well.  As you all head out into the world and leave from high school or college you’ll be looking for places to work and ways to use your education.  This is what it’s all about– getting out there and using your education for productive things in the real world.

There’s a couple of different ways to be productive and do activism in your community.  This article will give you a few suggestions or places to start. 

Reading Discussions

One good way to get involved with your friends and to meet other like-minded people is to hold a reading discussion.  These are usually pretty easy to do.  You don’t have to look at very difficult readings, and ideally the readings should be matched to your audience’s reading level and intellectual capability.  There are many Traditionalist authors whose writings are available at no charge.  Consider the following as a place to start:

-The collected works of G.K. Chesterton
-The collected works of Julius Evola
Menace of the Herd by Erik Ritter von Kunhelt Leddin
-The collected works of Rene Guenon
-Imperium by Francis Parker Yockey

There’s a number of ways to hold a reading discussion, too.  You can meet at your public library in a reserved room, go hang out at a diner and talk over a cup of coffee, or do some video chat online.  There are lots of resources for hosting online dicscussions, Tiny Chat and Google+ Hangouts are two options.  Heads up: Google+ Hangouts are very demanding of system resources and frequently give trouble when not operating on Google products such as Android phone or Chromebook.


Outside of reading discussions, posting or distributing fliers is a good choice.  Look for public read-boards in any place that allows the public to post fliers.  Some grocery stores even have public read-boards, so get out there and take a look at what’s available.  Do not hold out expectations that nobody will remove your flier.  This happens.  It comes with the territory.  The best you can hope for is to have one that doesn’t come off as being too aggressive and that it will stay up longer by virtue of the fact that it won’t piss someone off too quickly.  Use your best judgement on this.

If you’re up to doing a more aggressive fliering campaign you might try making posters or banners and applying them to a building’s wall with wheat paste glue.  This is normally considered vandalism, so if you choose to do this it is at your own risk.  Assuming that you’ve made due diligence and investigate the potential hazards of this technique, you’ll need two things to do this: banners and wheat paste glue.

To make wheat paste glue you will need ( tools or supplies ):
flour (wheat works best)
container with a lid

To make a small batch of wheat paste glue, first boil 1 cup of water. Pour the cup of water into a saucepan and bring to a boil over heat.  Follow by putting 3 tablespoons of flour into a bowl, add 10 teaspoons of cool water until it forms a runny mix.  Once the water has boiled, add the runny mix to the boiling water. Stir well.  Keep stirring. The mixture will foam up while it boils, so the constant stirring is essential to keep it from bubbling over and to keep it from getting chunky. Keep the mix boiling for 2 minutes.  Take the boiled mix off the heat. Add 2 tablespoons or more of sugar (added strength).  Let it cool. Pour into an appropriate container for carrying with you. It will keep well for about a week (refrigerated).


Follow the directions above, but use these amounts:

– Boil 12 cups of water
– Mix 6.5 cups of flour with 6-7 cups of cool water until it is a little runny
– Add mix to boiling water and stir for a couple of minutes (longer if you want to thicken)
– Turn off heat and mix in 4.5 cups of sugar.
– Let it cool.

Naturally, the wheat paste glue isn’t any good without a banner.  I’ve already done a DIY tutorial on that and you can read it here.  Utility poles, back alley brick walls, or public art spaces (if your city has such a thing) are all things that you might consider.  Use a paint roller or wide paint brush to apply glue.

A short word about the wheat paste glue…  If you’re a cook you should recognize that this process is almost exactly like making a basic white sauce or roux.  It is, in fact, very much the same less the butter.  Don’t let the flour go lumpy or the mix won’t come out right.  You can prevent that from happening by vigorously stirring with a whisk.  A wooden spoon might work but that has not been my experience.  Do not let the wheat paste glue dry on your mixing utensils or mixing bowl.  It’s called wheat paste glue for a reason.  Above all else, do NOT pour any of the left over mixture down your sink or toilet or any other drain.  It will clump in the trap and impossibly block the drain.


If you’re looking for something cleaner and that does not require so much preparation, then maybe get out and try to chalk some sidewalks.  Again, this is normally considered vandalism, so if you choose to do this it is at your own risk.  The best chalk to use for sidewalks (the only kind really) is something called “railroad chalk.”  It normally comes in 1″ diameter sticks and is only sold in bulk.  The only thing that’s bad about buying in bulk is that you have to spend a little bit more than if you weren’t buying bulk.  The good news is that a box of 100+ pieces should last you for the entire summer and fall if you’re going out once every week or two.  Yellow, blue, and white work the best, and I have no earthly idea why.  Something about the color contrast between concrete and the chalk.  You might not think it, but white works really well.  However, if I were to recommend only one color it would be blue.

Flash demos and fast stands

Nothing says action like a demonstration.  Doing a one-man rally is sufficient if your goal is just to spread awareness of an idea or an organization, but do it smartly.  There is safety in numbers, and it’s easier to set up and break down with fewer people.  If you’re doing a stand by yourself then limit your time in any one spot to 15 minutes before moving to a new location.  Do what you’re comfortable with, and do it safely.  Please also read my DIY guide on how to make your demo speak.  If you decide to carry something for self defense while doing one of these kinds of demonstrations then please educate yourself on what your state specifically allows or disallows under said conditions.

Support someone who is doing activism

If you’re wanting to help but are simply not able to for whatever reason, then please consider financially supporting someone who can.  If you enjoy what TYN does, then please consider donating to help us continue in such fashion.

Scapegoating Police

via Radix

Society always needs its scapegoats. When social unrest reaches a breaking point and order appears lost, hapless victims are found for society to unleash its collective violence upon. Their guilt or innocence is of little concern as they are blamed for all the ills plaguing a community, with the hope that the scapegoat's death or expulsion will restore calm to the disturbed tribe. 

In Baltimore right now, six police officers are serving as the scapegoats for a city demanding justice for the death of heroin dealer Freddie Gray. But it’s not just Gray’s death that has Black Baltimoreans up in arms—it’s the injustices Blacks apparently face on a daily basis in America that has them mad as hell. As the public is treated to one long shaming session on racism, a few Baltimore cops are facing several years in jail for what could’ve been a routine arrest that resulted in a self-inflicted injury on the part of the arrestee. With a Black prosecutor seeking political fortune and a city government dominated by Blacks, it’s all but assured these officers will fry in court.

If they’re not, Baltimore will burn again and the mayor, the state’s attorney, and many others will be out of jobs. This is life in a Black-run city. The cops are serving the role of the sacrificial victims to the violence of the angry ghetto, and their incarceration is intended to sate the thirst for vengeance for a community that has the ear of the nation’s elite.

The important takeaway from the indictment of these six officers is who multiracial America is choosing to scapegoat. In a culture that gives non-whites—particularly Blacks—moral superiority over Whites, we will kowtow to their demands no matter how ridiculous they are. . .even if those demands mean the undermining of the only force that provides a semblance of order in their neighborhoods. Cops are now the preferred scapegoats for the sole reason that they are the symbols of a justice system Blacks hate, a justice system Blacks want undermined for their benefit.

However, this justice system has to be on harsh on Blacks in order to preserve stability and a measure of safety in a multiracial state. The current campaign against tough policing, if successful, would effectively turn any city with a large percentage of Blacks into a third world hellhole.

Yet, that might not harm the System or the urban elves that feverishly cheer on non-white interests.

Safely ensconced in expensive areas with militarized police, urban elves never have to deal with real-life minorities. . .outside of a few cat calls. Similar to how hoity-toity New Englanders forced busing upon lower-income Whites in Boston in the 1970s, these people don’t have to live with the consequences of hands-off crime policies. They’ve watched The Wire, they know that, deep-down, these inner-city Blacks are smart and have hearts of gold. That’s why they care so deeply about what happened to a man who’s only profession in life was pushing poison in his own neighborhood. Cops are the wrong kind of Whites anyway with their bigotry, their masculinity, their brutality, and their lack of sophistication.

If prison reform, eliminating stop-and-frisk, and other measures that would weaken law enforcement are implemented, it’s very likely that cities like Baltimore will get even worse and turn into Mogadishus in our midst—complete with corrupt government, high-crime, and no Whites in sight. We already have one in America in the ruins of Detroity, it’s not impossible to have more with time.

At the same time, there will be the proliferation of urban elf enclaves that are insulated from these communities and continue to believe the main problem with America is lingering White racism. They’ll be able to owe their safety to astronomical living costs and economics. The Brazilian tomorrow could come a lot sooner, but unlike our Southern Hemisphere counterpart, the Whites with wealth will have no idea that slum cities reside only a few miles away. The System will continue rolling on and it will invest in more military-grade equipment for the forces that are tasked with keeping the multiracial nightmare out of elf towns.

For now, police will continue to serve as the scapegoats for Black problems until they get a lighter hand from the legal system. Once that occurs, their neighborhoods and communities will further disintegrate and so will the cities they dominate.

But the question is then: who will be the next scapegoat for Blacks to place their woes upon when they geld inner-city cops?

Christ Is Greater Than the Negro

via Cambria Will Not Yield

And ye shall know that I am the Lord, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your gravesEzekiel 37: 13
And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.Revelations 21: 4

In olden days when I was a schoolboy “creeping like snail unwillingly to school,” we read the Greek and Norse myths from Bullfinch’s Mythology. I don’t think modern students read Bullfinch anymore, but I found his retelling of the Greek and Norse myths quite fascinating. As an undergraduate I read the myths again in literature and religion courses, but they were not as fascinating to me as objects of study as they were when they were just stories. There’s a moral there somewhere, but that is not what I want to write about on this occasion. What I want to focus on is the Greeks’ and the Nordic Europeans’ transfers from pagan believers to Christian believers, and then move on to the modern cult of negro worship.

The Greeks of antiquity have been studied and probed more than any other people, with the possible exception of the Hebrews. What I find the most interesting in the Greeks’ religion is the effect that rationalism had on their faith. As we know, their assembly of gods went from primitive nature gods to the pantheon of gods depicted by Homer in The Odyssey and The Iliad. But already in Homer we can see the beginning of the rationalism that was destined to kill the Greek gods, because if the gods cannot provide mortals with immortality, then of what use are the gods? The belief that the whole living man survived after death due to the beneficence of the gods was the belief of the pre-Homeric Greeks, who worshipped at their racial and familial hearth fires. But Homer’s heroes no longer had that comfort; in his works mortal men only survived after death as lifeless shades of their former selves:
“O strange! Then even in
Hades homes – and I knew not this
They have spirit and shape,
but in these no life there is.”
Achilles in The Illiad
And then this:
“Rather would I be a hireling
to drudge in the fields all day
With a landless master, who
squarely would feed me
and niggardly pay,
Than over the hosts of the
dead which have perished a
scepter to sway.”
Achilles in The Odyssey
That less than joyous vision of the afterlife came from a poet who was passing from faith to rationalism. It was left to Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle to put ‘paid’ to the account of the Greek gods. When Christ came onto the scene, the old Greek gods were merely State gods; the people had embraced the various mystery religions, and the intellectuals were stoics, epicureans, Platonists, etc. The Greeks came to believe that their more miraculous faith in a full-bodied resurrection was irrational and therefore false, so they sought other gods and eventually bent their knees to the Christian God.

The Nordic Europeans took a slightly different path to Christ than the Greeks. They never rationalized Odin and Thor; they were pagan believers when they encountered Christ. They left a full-blooded, vital pagan faith for a full-blooded, vital faith in Christ. Much is written about what the Roman Christians brought to the followers of Odin. They brought the Christian faith, but they also brought Greek rationalism, the same rationalism that destroyed the Greek gods. Could Christ withstand the rationalist attack that killed Zeus and his pantheon of gods? It was the mission of the Europeans, the only people who accepted Christ as conquerors rather than as the conquered, to stay close to their own hearth fires, to love Christ in and through their own people, and by doing so, keep the rationalist serpent from strangling the European faithful. It was a glorious battle over the Christian centuries: Every time Satan, the great rationalist, launched a new attack, the Lord God made a counterattack through His people, the Europeans. But in the 20th century, the battle became too one-sided; there was no European counterattack and it seemed like Satan had triumphed. It’s like trying to figure out why a perfectly healthy man contracts a hideous wasting disease. We can see that he’s sick, we know the name of his sickness, but why did he succumb to it? Western man is sick and dying from a surfeit of rationalism, but why wasn’t he able, as his ancestors were, to fight off the disease?

The fiendish rationalist, the man of the detached intellect and the satanic, caustic wit, George Bernard Shaw, spelled it out for us in Back to Methuselah. The belief in Christ gave way to rationalism, because the Europeans could not maintain their belief in Christ’s resurrection from the dead and the truths of science. Shaw also realized that men could not live without a mythic faith that they believed to be true, so he suggested that his myth should be substituted for Christianity, the myth of creative evolution. But Shaw’s new myth was too much like Homer’s myth; it was mystic rationalism; there was no flesh and blood God in Shaw’s new faith, so his new faith faded away before it ever came to be. I only know of one Shavian devotee who ever tried to adapt it, and he quickly fell into despair.

Shaw’s new myth did not take hold of Western man, but he did pinpoint Western man’s weakness: Western man couldn’t answer Dostoyevsky’s question in the affirmative, ‘whether a man, as a civilized being, as a European, can believe at all, believe that is, in the divinity of the Son of God, Jesus Christ, for therein rests, strictly speaking, the whole faith?’ If the ‘civilized’ European can only believe in Christ’s humanity, but not in His divine humanity, then Christ is not God, He is just an earthly demigod, and the resurrection of the dead goes back to Homer: We are only shades of ourselves when we die. Nothing is sadder in all of literature than the scene in The Odyssey when the still mortal Odysseus tries to embrace the shade of his deceased mother in Hades. Three times he tries to embrace her and three times he fails. Is this the promised end? About twenty years ago I read a book by a supposedly ‘conservative’ Catholic theologian on the subject of the resurrection of the dead. His description of the resurrection seemed to come right out of Homer. We survived as ethereal shades, not as integral, body and soul human beings. The great theologian ridiculed the Victorian notion of a heaven in which all one’s loved ones were gathered together, in the flesh, around the same hearth fire they had shared on earth. Isn’t that a childish notion? Yes, it is, and I believe in that childish notion. Doesn’t the Bible tell us to believe in such childish notions?
Thus saith the Lord God unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live; And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and ye shall live; and ye shall know that I am the Lord.
The belief in the resurrection of the dead is intimately connected to our attachment to our racial and familial hearth fire. If we never love our own with an intensity that makes us feel that death cannot be final, if we don’t yearn to embrace our loved one’s after death as we embraced them on this earth, then all we need is the Homeric life after death of the intellectual Christians, or, worse yet, the worship of the negro in this world and eternal oblivion in the next.

What is going on in Baltimore, where mobs of rock-throwing blacks force armed police officers to retreat, because the police are afraid to fire at and kill a sacred black, is going on throughout the Western world in one form or another. (1) The white men are in retreat, because they no longer believe in the bred-in-the-bone Christianity of the antique Europeans. Men must have a mythic faith, a faith that they believe to be true in their blood, the source of all true wisdom. Rational, intellectual Christianity is not faith, it is a caricature of a faith. The police officers in Baltimore cannot shoot the black rioters, the Brits and French cannot halt the Muslim invasion, because they have nothing to fight for, they have no attachment to their own racial hearth fires or to the God of their ascending race. The suicidal retreat from the hordes of color will not cease until white men believe, heart, mind, and soul, in the one true myth of the incarnate Lord, Jesus Christ.

In fleeing from the irrationality of a faith that posits the resurrection of the dead, the liberals of the Western world have adopted a faith that is irrational as well as morally reprehensible. It is not rational or moral to provide free food, housing, and education to a criminal race of people who have declared war on the white Christian race. The sacrificial altars for the black gods are everywhere. In church, at work, and at play, the white man offers tribute to the black gods, because he does not believe there is any other god beyond this world.

The myth of the noble black savage has one great advantage over the Christian myth. The black savage is not a god who can raise the dead, hence he does not insult the ‘intelligence’ of the liberals. He demands tribute and homage in this world only. But what does he give in return for tribute and homage? It doesn’t seem like he gives us anything but hatred, murder, and rapine. He is indeed the savage god who comes to us in a tide of blood. It’s useless to argue, or plead with the liberals who worship the savage black god; they are much farther beyond reason than the most zealous of the Christian mystics, and they are completely immune to pleas of mercy, because they are without mercy. Can anything be done with such creatures? No, there is no chance of any rapprochement between a white man and a liberal.

The whole history of the modern Europeans’ descent into hell was delineated for us by Walter Scott in the preface to Quentin Durward. We can become like unto Louis XI and view the caustic wit of the devil as the penultimate of human existence, in which case we will worship the devil through the sacred black man, or we can forsake the cleverness of this world for the foolishness of the vision of Christ crucified, Christ risen.

There is no love, no charity, no honor in the pigsties of negro worship, yet the white man continues to wallow in them. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy: If the Europeans look at the world through the prism of science and reason they will only see pigsties, and the negro will be their Lord and Master for all eternity. But should they look at existence through the spiritual eye of the heart, they will see visions and dream dreams, and they will forsake their negro gods for the one true God. Our people now resemble the ancient Hebrews cavorting around the golden calf. The return to grace starts with a refusal to worship the heathen gods. From that refusal comes divine aid, which is surely something the European people need. We have lived so long without miracles, because we have been too long in the pigsties of negro worship. 

(1) It should be noted that the FBI gave orders to shoot to kill in the case of Randy Weaver’s wife, who was standing in her own doorway with her baby in her arms. Yet the police in Baltimore refused to shoot any of the black rioters, who had rocks, not babies, in their hands.

The riot wasn’t about Freddie Gray; the negroes couldn’t care less about Freddie Gray. Had he lived a few months longer he would have met his death at the hands of one of the ‘sainted’ rock-throwing black thugs. The Baltimore riots are the Western world in miniature. Whites retreat before black barbarism, because they don’t believe they have a moral right to defend themselves. In fact they don’t believe they have a moral right to exist.

The Miliband Masquerade

via Alternative Right

Democratic politics always has had an ugly side, both in the types of personalities it attracts and the devious behaviour it encourages. The main reason for this is that it allows the broad masses to vote, lowering the audience IQ to a level that incentivizes the low-grade deceptions of unscrupulous politicians.

Ugly as it is, it certainly didn’t get any more aesthetically pleasing when Ed Miliband was elected leader of the Labour Party in 2010. With his robotic style and rubbery face, he evokes Mr. Bean possessed by the last of the Body Snatchers, or a piece of “Wallace and Gromit” claymation gone wrong.

For the present general election campaign, which will end on May 7th, a long, hard effort has gone into making “Ed” seem warm and personable – he was actually fitted out with a (rather ugly) wife shortly after becoming leader and was also designated as the father of her two children, although they clearly resemble their mother much more than their supposed father.

In an attempt to 'humanize' this unlikely leadership material he was also carefully coached on body language, facial gestures, voice, and positioning. The process has some similarities to a necrophile heating up the inamorata with which he has just eloped from the local mortuary.

One of the main problems with Ed is not his Jewishness (because British people, like all good people everywhere, have been taught and constantly reminded that anti-Semitism is a no-no), but rather his swarthiness.

This would be less of a problem in the Conservative Party, which famously had a Prime Minister in the Victorian era who was almost a spitting image of the popular Happy Merchant meme but it is definitely a problem for the Labour Party, which has increasingly become a sump hole for the non-White vote. Having Ed as leader makes the party look a bit too ethnic, something that has a subtle but powerful ethnicizing effect on British politics.

This is just one factor in the phenomenal rise of the SNP in Scotland, where it has displaced Labour. There is also a slow fuse burning in the North of England. Here the Labour vote is still holding up, but it must be remembered that this is the party that over the last two decades, oversaw the mass rape of the children of its bedrock Northern White constituents, with its only concern being the fear that somebody might think a nasty “racist” thought.

Who's the daddy?

Despite his enormous flaws and limitations, “Awkward Ed” has a fighting chance because his main opponent, David Cameron, is viewed negatively as (a) the lackey of the rich in a time of austerity, (b) a gay-marriage-promoting betrayer of ordinary conservative values, and (c) a useless bulwark against the power of the EU.

The fallout of all this is that this is the first election in which neither of the two main parties of government has a realistic chance of securing a clear majority. Yes, we are headed for a period of unstable coalition government and possibly several general elections within the next few months.

Both the main parties, Labour and Conservative, have benefited and still benefit from an electoral system that favours nationwide parties with support slanted in one half of the country more than the other. The Lib Dems, whose support has no real pattern of concentration, fare much worse. UKIP also fit into this Lib Dem pattern of lots of popular support but very few MPs.

Back in the 1980s, when the Lib Dems (then an alliance between the old Liberal Party and the new Social Democratic Party) had a surge of support, it ended up going nowhere, as they couldn’t translate their support into a comparable number of seats. Something similar happened in 2010, when the Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg came over best in several TV debates and boosted his party’s support on polling day to an impressive 23%, but ended up actually losing seats.

The Wrong Trousers.
But although there is a strong incumbency factor that serves the interests of the two main parties of government, there is also a perception that both parties have become increasingly hollowed out, with falling membership and lukewarm support. They now struggle to motivate their base and attract floating voters, and those who vote for them usually do so for purely negative reasons, because they loathe the alternative even more.

The challenge to the two main parties is embodied in the rise of UKIP and the SNP. While Conservative and Labour ostensibly campaign against each other, focusing as usual on contesting a number of key marginal swing constituencies that could go either way, they also have one eye over their shoulders at their potential nemeses.

While UKIP threatens the Conservatives, the SNP threatens Labour, but there are also important differences in both threats. The UKIP threat to the Conservatives is wider but more diffused. The SNP threat to Labour is narrower but more concentrated. At this election, the SNP threat will have more success. In Scotland there is a reasonable possibility of them winning all 59 constituencies (there are a total of 650 in the UK), wiping out 41 Labour MPs, 11 Lib Dems, and one Conservative.

"Look, I'm just like Nigel Farage."
A strong showing for UKIP will have a less dramatic impact. Because of the nature of the electoral system and the fact that their vote is spread too widely, they are unlikely to win more than a handful of seats. Instead they are more likely to simply draw votes away from the Conservative Party and weaken it in the swing constituencies it needs to win against Labour.

The tactics of the big two are identical. They have concentrated on talking down both the 'upstart' parties that are challenging them, saying that they can only play a spoiler role, and that any votes for them will be wasted votes.

Cameron tells English voters that a vote for UKIP will weaken the Tories and thus strengthen Labour. This is actually quite true, but, given the fact that the Conservative Party and the Labour Party are nearly identical on most of the main issues that concern UKIP supporters, like mass immigration, gay marriage, and subservience to the EU, this is essentially meaningless. Nevertheless, many UKIP-leaning voters are likely to reconsider their vote in the light of this, concluding that this time a vote for UKIP would be a wasted one.

Miliband says something similar about the SNP, but here he has a much harder sell. The SNP is now so far ahead of Labour in Scotland that there are very few seats where Labour votes have even a chance of counting. Scottish voters know that a vote for the SNP weakens Labour, but it does not directly benefit the Conservatives in the way that a vote for UKIP in England benefits Labour.

With time running out, Miliband and his deputy in Scotland, Jim Murphy, continue to push the idea that a vote for the SNP will be a wasted vote, implying that they should return to Labour if they want to influence the type of government the UK will have. The projections however simply don’t support this narrative, so now Labour have resorted to stating that they won’t under any circumstances do a coalition deal with the SNP.

This may seem to be the equivalent to a mugger pointing a gun at his head and threatening to shoot himself if you don’t give him the money. Either he does it and you don’t care, or more likely he is bluffing – as why would anybody do anything so stupid?

The reason why voters are skeptical about this is that Labour and the SNP are both left-of-centre parties, with a great deal in common. Indeed, the reason the SNP does so well in Scotland is because it is actually better at being Labour than Labour is! In strict policy and ideological terms, both parties seem much more natural coalition partners than the previous coalition partners of the Conservatives and Lib Dems.

Surging Sturgeon: feisty SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon.

But the main reason Milliband has to put on this show of refusing to contemplate a deal with the SNP is not to persuade SNP voters to return to Labour before May 7th – that is not going to happen on any significant scale – but instead to mollify English voters.

Because of the high statistical probability that Labour will need to do a deal with the SNP to secure power, many English voters are starting to see Labour as a party that will be held to ransom by the SNP. The Conservative have seized on this and have been using it to attack Labour. If Labour can be depicted as the dog that will be wagged by the SNP tail, then the Conservatives might be able to win enough MPs to form another coalition with the Lib Dems, or perhaps the Ulster Unionists, UKIP, or any combination of these parties.

But is Miliband simply electioneering when he rules out a deal with the SNP? Possibly, and people have every right to doubt such claims. But at a deeper level, the SNP is a very real existential threat to Labour in the way that its traditional opponents are not.

This is because, even though technically a civic nationalist party that goes out of its way to field ethnic candidates, the SNP represents the underlying trend of the ethnicization of British politics. Never mind the ripples and the waves, this is the way the tide of UK politics is flowing.

As shown above, the loss of Scotland to Labour represents a net loss of 40 MPs by Labour vis-a-vis the Conservative Party. When you are seeking 326 MPs in a multiparty democracy to have a majority this is a considerable set back. But there is another significant effect that the destruction of Labour in Scotland will have – it will make the Labour Party suddenly appear to be a much less White Party. In 2010, Labour won 68% of the ethnic vote to the Conservatives 16%. With the defection of its Scottish voters to the SNP, this perception will be strengthened, pushing it well beyond the tipping point where working class Whites in racially divided Northern towns like Rotherham and Bradford simply decide that it is no longer their party.

Flag Day in Labour-controlled Rochdale,
If Labour does a deal with the SNP, it will only confirm the value of the SNP for Scottish voters and make their return to the Labour fold ever more unlikely. It will be seen as the party subservient to the Scots, but even more negatively it will also be seen as the non-White party and the party of the Rotherham rapists.

In an England that is struggling to come to some sense of its own identity, that would likely prove fatal and prepare the way for UKIP to make the kind of inroads that the BNP once threatened to make in Northern Labour strongholds.

For these reasons, Miliband’s threats to spurn an SNP alliance may be more than a mere masquerade. Rather than opting for the easy convenience of a Labour-SNP coalition (assuming both parties get enough MPs), he may well wish to have another throw of the dice and return to the polls in the hope that Scottish voters will either return to Labour and help it to victory or else blame the SNP for any Conservative victory.

Miliband's maneuverings have all the characteristics of a man fighting a battle on the wrong side of history, attempting to stand against the rising tide of ethnopolitics that threatens to tear the Labour Party into competing ethnic blocs.