May 11, 2015

The Truth about Baltimore, Black Crime, and Police Brutality

via Radix

Radix Editor's Note: This is an edited version of a speech delivered to a small group of peers by a resisting, 17-year-old high school student in the Baltimore City Public School System.

I'm sure you've all heard of the esteemed and convicted heroin dealer Mr. Freddie Gray, and his recent mortality. I'm sure you've all heard the Marxist narrative of a vast conspiratorial epidemic of state violence against "unarmed" black men. There is an epidemic of violence against Black men, not from the state, but from other Black men. It is likely that no more than a few readers of the Baltimore crime wire would have known of Mr. Gray's death, if he was killed by fellow heroin dealers; a far more common occurrence than the supposed epidemic of police brutality. In fact, when police brutality occurs it is more likely to occur to Whites. At least 2,151 Whites were killed by police, as compared to 1,130 Blacks, in the last decade. You are likely never to hear any of their names in the mainstream media or elsewhere.

What is the purpose of this deception? Nothing but the dispossession of the White race.

You will hear this everywhere the Marxist discourse dominates: "they" are responsible for the urban decay in Black neighborhoods, that "they" are responsible for the epidemic of Black-on-Black violence, that "they" are responsible for the invisible but apparently all-encompassing "racism" that somehow prevents the success of Black communities. No matter what we do, Whites are marked with the original sin of succeeding where others have failed—and merely existing.

What is Baltimore, or any other depressed urban zone? Formerly White majority towns, formerly prosperous. The devastated neighborhoods you see today were built, maintained, loved by Whites. Many were immigrants from central, eastern, and southern Europe escaping squalid conditions in their own nations. Whites built something great but abandoned it sensibly after the mass violence that was the 1968 riots. These beautiful neighborhoods were handed over completely to Blacks, who proceeded to neglect them. This is no fault but their own, yet they blame it on the "Man", on "them", on "whitey." They demand more government assistance programs and more affirmative action for their own failure. They want South Africa 2.0. All they desire is the seizure of what we have created to spread it among themselves. They have not produced anything of value in return. They have nothing to exchange with us in equal trade. This is the definition of parasitism and it must be called out for what it is. It is Racial Marxism, pure and simple.

What must we do? We must RESIST. Resist the cynical dialogues. Resist the ethno-masochism and self-flagellation of your fellow Whites. Resist the spreaders of lies and disinformation. Resist those who would make you hate yourself and your people. We're a great culture in a malaise, but I believe we can recover—provided we RESIST!

The Heretics' Hour: Nick Kollerstrom, Author of 'Breaking the Spell'

via Carolyn Yeager

Carolyn interviews London-based Nicholas Kollerstrom on his new book Breaking the Spell: Holocaust Myth & Reality.

After being thrown out of his British university, where he had spent 15 years as a science historian, for daring to publish 3 simple research papers on how Zyklon was used in WWII, including in the German labor camps, Nick had nowhere to turn except into the Revisionist movement. Lucky for us!
Subjects from the book under discussion:
  • The non-existence of homicidal gas chambers, and the science behind that claim;
  • "Holocaust" as the new world religion featuring 6 million martyrs put to death in fiery furnaces;
  • Bletchley Park Decrypts: How cracking the Enigma code may have helped the British win the war, but undermines the extermination camp narrative;
  • The Reinhardt camps controversy - David Irving, the Korherr Report and Höfle Telegram;
  • Appendix IV: Know Your Rights when it comes to "holocaust denial," "hate speech" and "inciting the public";
  • and much more.
Kollerstrom is an engaging personality who also authored Terror on the Tube (2009) on the London 7/7 subway bombings. His website is

The Cause of Rising Inequality Is Liberalism

via Amerika

The left operates like a bad codependent relationship, constantly generating new crusades to keep its membership base together. Like a fish without active gills, it must keep moving forward in order to stay afloat.

Of the most recent crusades, the most interesting is the War on Inequality. It has not yet begun, but is waiting in the wings especially in the USA were an out-of-the-closet socialist, Bernie Sanders, is running for President. Right now, we have the early stages of the war, which is the victimhood narrative requirement of mourning and self-questioning over “rising inequality.”

Assuming that we take these figures at face value — and we should not, since the liberal method is to choose anecdotal examples, cherry-pick data to avoid contrary viewpoints, and then declare broad conclusions from a tiny sample size — America is becoming a place where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

More interestingly, the middle class appears to be eroding.


Many will point out that, since liberals are the party of egalitarianism and conservatives the party of results, the two will differ. Indeed, both care about inequality, but conservatives see it as a Darwinistic method while liberals see it as The Enemy, as this article discusses:
Inequality is the major theme of the American political debate because inequality is the major theme of the policy debate between the two major parties. The conservative economic agenda at the federal level is built around reducing the portions of the tax code that fall most heavily on the rich and spending that flows most heavily to the poor, and at the state level, to shift the financing structure of government onto the most regressive tax base. The liberal agenda has pushed in the opposite direction.
It is true that liberals talk explicitly about inequality much more than conservatives do. But to conclude that inequality is simply an issue that liberals care about far more than conservatives do (like greenhouse gas emissions, say) is mistaken. The agenda of both American parties is centered on firm beliefs about inequality. The main difference is that Democrats are more prone to frame their inequality-reducing policies as such, while Republicans (understandably) prefer not to frame their inequality-increasing policies in those terms.
Ignoring the obvious fallacy — that allowing a natural process to occur by not instituting “progressive” taxation is not increasing inequality but revealing its actuality — the summation is roughly correct. Liberals want wealth transfer to create equality, conservatives do not.

As said earlier in the article:
In 1972, the neoconservative intellectual Irving Kristol defended existing income inequality on the ground that it simply reflected the natural distribution of human ability. “Human talents and abilities, as measured, do tend to distribute themselves along a bell-shaped curve, with most people clustered around the middle, and with much smaller percentages at the lower and higher ends …” he argued. “This explains one of the most extraordinary (and little-noticed) features of 20th-century societies: how relatively invulnerable the distribution of income is to the efforts of politicians and ideologues to manipulate it. In all the Western nations — the United States, Sweden, the United Kingdom, France, Germany — despite the varieties of social and economic policies of their governments, the distribution of income is strikingly similar.” This was a comforting story for the right. The level of inequality in the United States happened to be a perfectly optimal reflection of the talent of the populace.
In other words, because our media no longer uses complex terms, Social Darwinism: the idea that income should reflect ability and the best should rise, and that others will do better — a broad tide will raise all boats — if power, wealth and culture are in the hands of the more competent. This idea offends liberals to their core because it points out the contradiction in egalitarianism, which is that there will always be disparate results because there are differing abilities, and thus that attempts to create “equality” amount to parasitism on the more competent in order to subsidize the less, in reversal of evolution itself.

Now that we see where the different sides stand, let us look at the two questions before us, namely whether inequality is rising and whether the middle class is disappearing. As with all writings on this site, I will use a combination of pure logic and unfiltered history. Pure logic means that we analyze a situation by its causes and effects alone, using what we know of logic to point out where some preclude others. Unfiltered history means that we remove the politicized conclusions from the events of the past and look at what actions caused what results. The two, pure logic and unfiltered history, work in parallel because they use essentially the same method, which is the scientific method outside of the linearizing analysis of a laboratory which looks at a single factor of thousands and invents reasons why it should ignore the rest of that context, thus rendering itself fallacious for social, political and cultural discussions.

To an observer a thousand years from now, it will be clear that “rising inequality” is a case of focusing on a detail and missing the background. What has happened in the United States is not that inequality has risen, but that the population has changed in two ways. First, it has shifted from majority Western European (“WASP” in the vernacular) toward majority third world and fringe European under liberal immigration policy, and second, it has been altered by liberal social policy, which has changed focus from a K-strategy focused on strong families to an r-strategy focused on third-world style mass subsidy and absence of stable family, religion and culture.

Since the end of the second World War, which completed the arc of European wars beginning with the French Revolution and ensuing Napoleonic wars, the West has turned down an increasingly liberal path. Unlike previous liberal incarnations however, its liberalism has been of an economic rather than ideological nature, meaning that it follows a financial guideline instead of a purely moral one. Thus unlike the Soviets it does not dive into pure socialism, but funds socialism through capitalism, and unlike the French it does not regulate social mores directly, but relies on the free market media industry to make conservative notions taboo. This is probably what Francis Fukuyama called “the end of history” simply because it is the most effective form of authoritarianism ever created.

During the French Revolution, one of the cries of the Revolutionaries was for “internationalism,” or the idea that all workers worldwide were in solidarity by social class and not national origin, so national boundaries should be abolished. This idea lives on as multiculturalism, diversity and other synonyms for what is essentially racial pluralism. It appeals because it tears down social standards, and for no other reason. Revolutionaries always destroy social standards because their goal is to replace multi-tiered hierarchy with a giant mob following ideology and a strong leader to keep that mob pointed in the right path. There is no other term for what they do than “breakdown,” and liberals spend most of their time denying that (for the purposes of this article, “liberal” and “leftist” mean the same thing, just as Communist and Socialist are differences of degree not different philosophies — a Communist is merely a Socialist who recognizes that in order for People’s Utopia to come about, it must have strong authoritarian power).

In the United States, starting with the Hart-Cellar act in 1965, immigration has shifted toward third world populations. These are different from first-world populations not in “skin color,” as the popular media alleges, but culture and biological abilities. If the third world could have produced what the first world did, it would have done so, and colonized the first world instead. This is pure logic: every species struggles for supremacy, and every population aims to be as powerful as possible, with those who cannot do so being ground down under their wheels, part of the process we call “evolution” or “Darwinism.” There was no lack of trying in the third world to reach military supremacy, as the Mongol invasions and Muslim raids that provoked the Crusades show us. The West achieved stability of society and higher average IQs and beat them out, despite being severely threatened by them, especially by the Mongol raids which may have several centuries later provoked colonialism as a means of avoiding a repeat of those brutal years.

The people coming into the United States now are almost all already of mixed-race as most third-world populations are, and generally of lower IQ. Not surprisingly, IQs in the West have dropped 14 points in the last century. Those figures do not tell us when IQs fell, but a logical inference is that recent immigration has something to do with it. That alone explains inequality, which is that if you take a thriving first-world population and import a third-world population which lacks the ability to achieve what that first world population did, the third-world population will remain poor and thus statistically inequality will rise. Factor into that cultures based on endurance of dysfunction rather than fixing it, and you see a society where only a few will have any wealth but they will have many customers for whom what they do is witchcraft or magic.

Leaving that aside, as it is politically taboo to mention, it is worth mentioning what has happened since 1965 under liberal social programs. Casual sex has become the norm; stable families the rarity. This means that people are more neurotic, less able to commit and less likely to be stable themselves. In other words: they are more dysfunctional (or “less functional”). This also explains inequality. Add to this the rising tax burden to support Great Society and New Deal programs which like zombies rise from the dead because it is seen as gauche, ignorant and uncultured to vote against them, and we can see where the situation has broadened. Even worse is what we have done to education, which is taking it from “competitive” to “participative,” such that any degree except a graduate or professional school degree is officially worthless. To have a $70k job now the average person must be extraordinarily lucky, or put down $200k for schooling through age 27.

Let us also mention rising costs. As social disorder increases, the comfortable middle class subdivisions of the past vanish. Instead, one must buy into a gated community. In the past, people could simply buy homes; now they must buy luxury homes to escape the roiling violence of the permanent social underclasses. In the past, grocery store food was safe and local; now you must go to Whole Foods to get eggs that taste like eggs or bread with fewer than 1500 ingredients. Water was once safe, but now it is Mexico City water, so you must buy filters. Living as a normal human being has become more expensive than middle class salaries can afford, which explains the second question being asked here, which is whether “rising inequality” is a cover story for elimination of the middle class by dysfunctional liberal programs.

I rest my case. The distinction remains obvious: we are engaged in a war of narratives. The left argues we are victims of some external force, whether the shadowy the RichTM or favorite scapegoats like The Jews or The Racists, but on the right, we see the problem as degeneration or the breakdown of our culture, people and individual abilities. This is the real inequality occurring: we are converting the West into another third-world remnant of a once-great civilization, and therefore, the few competent and realistic people are becoming radically wealthy, along with the corrupt of course. The rest are just trying to hang on and are being eliminated by replacement DNA and lifestyles which reward idiotic obedience in order to afford escape from the rising third-world society within our society, which will eliminate them, leaving a vast horde of low-IQ people ruled by a handful of smart plutocrats, as is the case in almost every third-world society. Eventually, the herd will rise up and eliminate even those, leaving only a vast equal mass of mid-80s average IQ and no prospects beyond living in filth, corruption and dysfunction.

Counter-Currents Radio: Spend Yourself, Save the World

via Counter-Currents

Listen Now

Sometime in 2003, I was feeling tired and thinking of knocking off work on a movement-related project. It was 2:30 a.m., and I had not been sleeping well for a while. But then a question occurred to me: “What are you saving yourself for?” Did I really need my beauty sleep? Everything we save has to be spent eventually, because death will take it away in the end. And we will not save the world by saving ourselves. We will save it only by spending ourselves.

So I put in another 90 minutes, then slept soundly and got up the next day with renewed energy and eagerness. For I discovered that sometimes when we ask more of ourselves, we find that we have more to give — more than we ever suspected.

A perennial question debated by American Rightists is why does politics continually drift to the Left. An important factor is simply that the Left is morally stronger than the Right, which gives them a systematic advantage.

Moral strength has two dimensions.

First, Leftists are on average more dedicated, idealistic, and altruistic than Rightists. Meaning that they are willing to work harder and sacrifice more to bring about their ideals.

Second, Leftists and mainstream Rightists both share the same basic egalitarian individualist outlook, but Leftists are truer to their ideals, whereas Rightists are more willing to compromise their ideals out of timidity, greed, and inertia. But other things being equal, a principled man is morally stronger than a hypocrite, so the Leftists always wrangle the Right around in the end.

Many racial nationalists reject egalitarian individualism. We think that individualism and equality are not entirely without value. But they are not the highest values of a society. The highest value is the common good: the preservation and flourishing of our people. When equality or individualism conflict with that, the common good must always win out.

But although we reject the moral premises of the Left, destroying one of their moral advantages at the root, we have not yet equaled the Left’s other moral advantage: their superior idealism, commitment, and self-sacrifice. And other things being equal, the team that can muster these to a greater degree will win.

In this area, the main stumbling block of the Right is bourgeois morality. As I define it, the bourgeois ethic holds that the highest good is a long, comfortable, secure life. This is in contradistinction to the aristocratic ethos that holds honor as the highest value, to which the aristocrat is willing to sacrifice both his life and his wealth. (Bourgeois man, by contrast, is all too willing to sacrifice his honor to pursue wealth and extend his life.) The bourgeois ethic is also opposed to the willingness of idealists to die for principles, whether religious, political, or philosophical.

The bourgeois ethos was articulated by early modern philosophers like Hobbes, Locke, and Hume, who heap scorn on the “pride and vainglory” of aristocrats and the “superstition and enthusiasm” of fanatics, for these values make men “contentious and quarrelsome,” which interferes with the peaceful pursuit of happiness by the “industrious and rational.”

In terms of Plato’s tripartition of the soul between reason, spirit (thumos), and desire, the fanatic is ruled by reason since his highest values are matters of principle; the aristocrat is ruled by spirit since his highest value is honor; and the bourgeois man is ruled by desire, since his highest value is a long, peaceful, and prosperous life.

The bourgeois pursuit of happiness basically reduces human motives to greed and fear: greed for more life, more property, more security — and fear of death, insecurity, and material loss. Over time, the very possibility of other motives — idealism and self-sacrifice — have receded from the bourgeois understanding of psychology.

That pretty much sums up the mentality of American bourgeois conservatives, whose entire ethic is devoted to saving themselves and accumulating wealth rather than expending them on higher values. When he encounters people with higher concerns, bourgeois man either argues that they are merely acting out of a disguised form of egoism, or, when this fails, he clucks disapprovingly about the inscrutable wellsprings and evil consequences of human fanaticism.

The Left mobilizes greater dedication, idealism, and self-sacrifice than the Right simply because it disdains bourgeois man’s selfishness and anti-intellectualism. Even Marxism, which has an entirely materialistic value system, in effect “backs into” idealism and self-sacrifice merely by negating the bourgeois ethos. White Nationalism desperately needs to do the same.

Unfortunately, the American White Nationalist movement is thoroughly bourgeois. We have a culture of excuse-making and failure, a “Can’t do” attitude. I have sat through far too many meetings in which weary old sellouts persuade young idealists to follow the bourgeois path: keep their heads down, keep their mouths shut, pursue their careers, and accumulate money, until . . . Well, that is never made clear. But the answer is: (1) until they die with their fortunes and mainstream reputations intact, without accomplishing a fraction of what they could have done with a different ethic, or (2) until men who don’t take such advice create a movement worth following.

The European movement is far healthier than the North American one, primarily because the United States and Canada are entirely bourgeois societies, whereas Europe still has remnants of a pre-bourgeois ethos. North America was largely peopled by those who preferred the pursuit of economic opportunities over ties to their homeland, whereas those who remained behind faced the same choice and elected to stay. Such preferences continue to matter today.

Even American White Nationalists who reject conservatism still think in entirely bourgeois psychological terms and cannot fathom motives other than greed and fear. But they can’t beat our enemies if they can’t understand them or ourselves.

There are White Nationalists who deny that morality plays any role in politics at all, since people are entirely motivated by greed and fear. They are unaware that this concept of human motivation is itself a moral code, namely the bourgeois one, and that there are other moral codes that disdain such mean motives.

There are White Nationalists who claim that altruism or idealism are merely masks for purely selfish motives. But they do not explain why, if everyone is really just selfish, so many people bother faking a morality that they claim is practiced by nobody at all.

In biological terms, altruism is any act that decreases the fitness of the actor while increasing the fitness of related individuals, which also helps promote the actor’s own genes in those whom he benefits. Parasitism is when an actor works to benefit genetically unrelated individuals, such as when a bird incubates the eggs and feeds the chicks of a brood parasite species.

White dispossession, including white self-destruction or racial suicide, is taking place because our biological altruism has been transformed into biological parasitism. Regardless of who is promoting and benefiting from such behavior, it would not have been possible if whites did not have a predisposition to moral universalism and impartiality, which makes it possible for us to conceive of even dramatically unrelated people as members of a common moral community. It would also not be possible if our sense of high-mindedness did not include a willingness to make moral gestures toward strangers — even at the risk they will not be reciprocated — in the hope of expanding our moral community, and to persist in these gestures again and again, even when they are rebuffed or exploited. A crucial task of White Nationalists is to combat such self-destructive moralism, and to scale our altruism back within biologically functional bounds.

But if the Left is too altruistic, the bourgeois Right is not altruistic enough. Prizing one’s individual life above the race is a silly thing. Higher values are objective and persistent, not subjective and fleeting. The individual dies, but the race can live on — if it finds the right defenders. Bourgeois individualists tend to lose sight of the purpose of wealth and reputation, which only make a difference if spent, not saved, and are wasted if death takes them intact.

As a movement, we need to cultivate idealists who take principles seriously and warriors who are willing to fight and, if necessary, die for our people. Only these people have the moral strength to begin pulling the political spectrum back towards the Right. Our impact on the world is based on what we spend, not what we save. We have to spend ourselves to save the world.

Psychological Warfare vs. Building a Movement: How to Fight White Genocide

via BUGS

Most pro-Whites think ONLY in terms of BUILDING A MOVEMENT.

This is a very difficult thing to do when your people have been conquered not by force of arms, but by a huge psy-op program that has made their minds unable to even understand that they have been conquered.

It’s as if when Germany occupied and ruled part of France during WWII, the French had been psy-opped to not even know that the Germans were there, and to regard as the soul of evil anyone who told them that Germans were there and were ruling them.

A counter pys-op operation to undo some of the French population’s mental conditioning would have been a necessary prelude or at least a necessary accompaniment to forming any kind of effective French resistance.

Today we drive the terms “anti-white” and “White Genocide” and the other Mantra STOP WHITE GENOCIDE memes into White minds and into public discourse as a counter psy-op to release White minds and release public discourse from decades of anti-white conditioning.

BUGS is not trying to directly build a movement. BUGS is shifting the Zeitgeist so that a movement can be built.

Many pro-Whites reject the BUGS methods because they view them only in terms of their immediate return or lack of return in building a movement.

That’s why many pro-Whites see no purpose to holding up banners to public view (which television news clips often spread much further) that say “Diversity is a code word for White Genocide,” or “Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white,” or “‘Diversity’ means chasing down Whites,” etc. etc.

They see no purpose to that because they aren’t thinking in terms of a unified, worldwide White counter psy-op program to undo anti-white conditioning and open up public discourse to pro-Whites. They are thinking in immediate terms of building a movement.

They plan to build a movement by educating, but as one of our number has said, “You can’t educate the masses when you’re in the middle of psychological warfare.”

You can educate one-by-one, but White Genocide will be completed before that slow process has built an effective movement.

But even though very few pro-whites will be persuaded by any argument at all to do other than what they’ve been doing, just by exposure we have most of them using the terms “anti-white” and “White Genocide” now, and it’s by exposure that we’ll have mainstream Whites using those terms also.

Syria Needs a Surge: Eurasianism’s First Test Case

via TradYouth

Over the past decade, Russia and Iran have performed an incredible job of building an effective response to Atlanticist hegemony. Their investments in Russia Today, PressTV, and a variety of alternative media projects have achieved tremendous leverage, throwing the Western media monopoly off balance with well-funded and persuasive research and reporting to challenge the multinational corporations and Organized Jewish organizations which have been spinning and framing the news unchallenged and unanswered for decades.

Alexander Dugin has led an entire movement of public intellectuals who’ve arrived at a compelling challenge to the Western “liberal” metapolitical vision, offering hope and solidarity to traditional cultures and identities the world over. A lighthouse beacon has been shown for national leladers who don’t wish for their countries to be stripped down and turned into strip malls by Western financiers have a safe harbor.

It’s working and it’s attracting support around the globe, but Russia’s insistence on framing its actions in Ukraine at least partially in terms of anachronistic themes (Ukrainians are Nazis!) and parochial realpolitik was an unforced error. Support for the ethnic independence movements in the Ukraine could have as easily been framed in identitarian and traditionalist terms from the beginning, but it wasn’t…at least not consistently. Gradually, the Kremlin is gravitating toward those talking points because they’re more compelling, but the opening was left for the Western oligarchs to persuasively frame Russia’s involvement in the Ukraine as crass bullying of its neighbors, leaving much of global reaction ambivalent about or opposed to the ethnic and religious revolutionaries against the liberal Atlanticist Ukrainian puppet state.

Meanwhile, Syria presents an ideal test case for the Eurasianist geopolitical alliance. Assad’s a popular, charismatic, and democratically elected statesman who stands for traditional Arab values across religious and sectarian lines. His opponents couldn’t possibly be any more blatantly a mash-up of mercantile mercenary puppets of NATO agitators and cartoonishly villainous Al Qaeda and ISIS extremists. Even the majority of Americans who remain largely under the influence of Western media sources haven’t been convinced to oppose Assad, and America’s support for the mercenaries and jihadists set against him is largely clandestine and covert owing to the project’s lack of popularity back home.

Political theories are great and necessary, and a persuasive one is coalescing which has the power to challenge the global hegemony of cannibal capitalist “liberalism.” But just as in the first Cold War, the ideas are impotent when insufficient power is projected to undergird them.

Naturally, there’s some calculation which must be made when considering when, where, and how much support a superpower ought to invest in its satellites. After all, there are regimes which will inevitably topple. There are causes which are pretty much lost. There are would-be “partners” who don’t offer enough strategic value to excuse the investment. Despite rapid improvements in the past decade, Russia and Iran remain somewhat cash-strapped relative to the West, and geopolitics, like the game of RISK, requires uncomfortable zero-sum calculations which invariably involve coming up short somewhere else that investment is needful.

But if Assad’s Syria, located smack dab in the heart of the Middle East, isn’t strategically valuable, then what country is? If Assad’s campaign to push back naked corporate mercenaries and ISIS in favor of traditional local rule isn’t the optimal fight to get behind, then what fight is? If Assad’s stability and strategic acumen in the face of boggling odds doesn’t meet the standard, then how high must the standard be? If Russia and Iran can’t even check the Western-backed Arab Spring process in this optimal test case, then why bother challenging Western influence in the Middle East at all?

The leading nations of the nascent Eurasianist project have already invested a tremendous amount in Assad’s Syria in the past several years, and I don’t discount that. But a surge of support is necessary to finally and definitively break the morale and will of the exhausted and disorganized gaggle of foreign mercenaries bedeviling Syria. Protecting this defiant Arab nation which is being politically, religiously, and economically ravaged by Western multinational and Zionist interests–the fanatical jihadis are largely an opportunistic infection–is not only the morally righteous and metapolitically coherent thing to do; it’s also of paramount geopolitical importance.

The whole world is watching and waiting to see if standing with the Eurasian vision is a viable response to Atlanticist aggression which offers genuine hope of liberation from capitalist excess, liberal degeneracy, and fanatical religious extremism. While the Ukraine is naturally closer to Russia’s heart both geographically and psychologically, the Syrian conflict and its outcome is of far greater long-term consequence for Russia’s overarching geopolitical vision. It’s the first real test of the Eurasian vision, and it must be passed. Invest in a Syrian surge and show the world that standing up against American imperialism isn’t hopeless after all.

Fear and Loathing and Treason, Part 2

via Age of Treason

Part 1

Listen Now (to part 2)

‘Swedes will compare this to the Holocaust’, The Local, 20 April 2015.

What’s wrong with the Swedes — and so many other Whites?, by Kevin MacDonald, 25 April 2015.

Sweden’s asylum offer to refugees from Syria, BBC News, 23 October 2013.

Kent Ekeroth, Wikipedia.

The Psychological Mechanism of White Dispossession, Kevin MacDonald, YouTube.

Swedish Journalist Blamed Jews for anti-Semitism, Israeli Ambassador Wins the Day, The Jewish Press, 18 February 2015.

Nigel Farage says only middle-class white people think UKIP is racist, Daily Mail Online, 24 April 2015.

Green candidate in hot water over tweets suggesting Nigel Farage ‘emulates’ Hitler, Manchester Evening News, 25 March 2015.

Conservative candidate makes vile Jewish racist slur against Ed Miliband, Mirror Online, 26 April 2015.

Ed Miliband uses Holocaust Memorial Day to call for vigilance against the terrible roots of prejudice, Mirror Online, 27 January 2015.

The Realist Report: Top Jewish leader claims entire Western world culpable for “Holocaust”, John Friend, 26 April 2015.

The Jewish and Muslim Questions

via The Occidental Observer

I ended my last article in The Occidental Observer focused on the current campaign against the “Jewification of Britain” and on some similarities between Islam and Judaism as well as between Muslim and Jewish communities living in the West. Nevertheless the Jewish and Muslim questions have very different repercussions for Whites, and this topic has been regularly and repeatedly discussed.

How in my opinion these two questions should be treated is the subject of this article.

I have observed a regular divergence of opinion on it. There is a spectrum of positions, at one extreme are those who think that Muslims are the real and sole problem, while at the other extreme end are those who believe that Muslims are innocent and only used as scapegoats.

In my view neither claim is entirely right or entirely wrong.

Muslims are a real problem, although they have been scapegoated.

Islam is at war with the West, it’s always been, there’s no denying it. Islam indeed is at war with the rest of the world.

Islam divides the world into two parts: Dar al-Islam (which in Arabic means “house/abode of Islam”, also called Dar as-Salam, “house/abode of Peace”); and Dar al-Harb (in Arabic “house of war”, also referred to as Dar al-Garb, “house of the West” in later Ottoman sources), which is applied to the whole part of the globe where Islam has not yet triumphed and Islamic law is not in force.

The word ‘Islam’ means ‘submission’.

The language is clear, the doctrine behind it even clearer: where Islamic rule has been imposed through whatever means, there is peace — but bear in mind that practically every single population and nation in the world that is Muslim now has become so through initial military conquest and subjugation. Where Islam has not yet been imposed, there will be war.

Islam is at war with us, whether we like it or not.

Furthermore, even a cursory glance at the violent history of Islam, characterised by wars of conquest and conflicts with its non-Muslim neighbours, will show that this doctrine has been constantly put into practice. Look at a map of the world and you’ll see that the borders around the Islamic part of it are in a state of continuous hostility and warfare with its neighbouring infidels.

As James Murray describes:
My Spanish ancestors fought for 700 years to free Spain of Muslim (and Jewish) rule. In that struggle, the first great Holocaust in history, the mass murder of Mozarabs (Spanish Catholics culturally assimilated by Islam) in Spain was undertaken by Muslims: One third of the Spanish nation was exterminated. (In the last thousand years, only the Qing extermination of the Dzhugarians was more complete.) The reconquest of Spain for Christendom secured it for half a millennium, a period of security that has ended with the collapse of Christendom and the triumph of the ideology of Cultural Marxism known as Multiculturalism, everywhere in the West.
So, to talk about Muslims as just innocent victims of Jewish power and nothing else doesn’t hold water; such talk is not supported by empirical evidence.

On the other hand, Islam, although it has the potential of being extremely violent and dangerous for non-Muslims (and for Muslims too), was sleeping before the last few decades of the 20th century, undergoing a relatively peaceful period in its history; many parts of the Islamic world had even become relatively moderate and more secular — which, in the case of Islam, means less intransigent and aggressive.

A major event and a major process have shaken Islam and awakened it from its slumber. The event is the birth of the state of Israel, which was the result of violence and dispossession against Palestinian Muslims as well as (often forgotten) Christians. The process is the series of wars, invasions and aggressions against Muslim countries that followed America’s declaration of “War on Terror” after 9/11, and which we have every reason to believe were only fought in the interest of Israel, living a precarious life surrounded by enemies and people with a justified grievance towards it.

To all this we have to add the process of mass immigration from the Third World to the West, that has been populating Europe with Muslims from Asia and Africa in vast, unprecedented numbers, which paradoxically, while generously offering them opportunities they previously couldn’t even have dreamt of, has also ungratefully “radicalised” them, due (among other reasons) to the sheer contact with the decadent, degenerate West which Muslim culture has always despised.

Unwanted immigration, more correctly called “invasion,” has in this way imported the Muslim problem — which could have remained confined to the Islamic parts of the world with their unfortunate, innocent Christian victims living in those hellholes — to Western shores, therefore making it impossible for Whites not to deal with it.

All this doesn’t alter the fact that Israel and Jewish interests have made use of false flag strategies to make Western powers wrongly believe that Muslims were guilty of acts of aggression or terror orchestrated by themselves to scapegoat Muslims, or failing to provide U.S. with forewarning of 9/11.

But here we come to another problem. Europe’s Muslim immigrants are sometimes described as a powerless, disenfranchised, non-privileged minority, and attacking such dispossessed people, for example through the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, is claimed to be therefore unethical, the lowest limit of moral behaviour. Typically, people who say this don’t utter a word about the “disenfranchised” Christians of Western Europe, odiously vilified and venomously offended by the same little pornographic rag.

The reality is that Europe’s Muslim minority is not powerless. Europe’s Muslims have protectors and supporters in high places: just ask the survivors among the thousands and thousands of British White girls who have been abused, raped and even murdered in the last 20 years. These crimes have been overlooked by police, social services, media and politicians (except the BNP’s Nick Griffin, one of the first to raise the alarm but his claims were ignored, and he was even prosecuted for his efforts because he’s “racist”). The perpetrators were let off the hook exactly owing to the fact that they were Muslim paedophile rings and nobody in the UK wants to be called “Islamophobic.” Have we all forgotten the power of victimhood in our societies?

And a “disenfranchised minority” that is prepared to kill for a series of cartoons? Wouldn’t that be a murderous minority, rather?

You have to consider the things that Muslims want to do to our countries and our people. One of them is to silence us — another similarity they have with the Jewish lobby. Muslims in Europe — where they have much more power than in America — don’t want to stop only Muhammad cartoons; they want to stop any rational discussion and criticism of Islam, impose their dress code in every circumstance, make polygamy part of the law, enforce halal meat as well as many other aspects of sharia law, and much more. They are an aggressive, bullying, uncompromising minority. Many of Europe’s Muslims — especially women — don’t even learn the language of the country they live in.

Christian and other non-Muslim children are regularly forced to eat halal meat at school; but, if some pork is found in the meal of a Muslim pupil, the dinner lady responsible is immediately sacked, even if it was just a mistake on her part. Is this a powerless minority?

There is a clear divide between North American and European Whites, as the two groups experience a different situation vis-à-vis these non-Whites and non-Christians: in the US Muslims are not very influential while Jews hold an enormous power, whereas in Western Europe something close to the reverse is true, with Muslims’ numbers high and increasing and their power growing, while Jewish power (although strong) is much less visible than in America.

I disagree with the position of those who say that to criticise Islam and Muslims is inappropriate because it increases support for Jews and their wars.

You cannot lie to the people about the nature of Islam and its threat just because it could theoretically benefit the Jewish and Israel lobbies. Our task is to make people aware of both menaces from two hostile groups. I also suspect that some people who take the above position are not aware of what Islam really is and their view is not based on Islam’s objective reality as much as on the way they see it as a force opposing Jews.

Even if we decided to ally ourselves with Muslims, we should be well aware of who our allies are, not blind to it.

I have even read comments that postulate a similarity between Christianity and Islam, which undoubtedly reveal profound ignorance of one, the other, or both, as they stand for diametrically opposite views of everything important, from human nature to ethical goals, from concepts of freedom to what salvation means.

You can see the enormous differences between these two religions from the results they’ve produced. It is no coincidence that only the part of the world that became Christian has made gigantic progress when compared to the rest of the globe, including the nations populated by races with higher average IQs.

In addition, we Whites of different continents are in this together, should form an alliance and find a common ground. Americans would also be wise to see the Muslim danger in Europe as a sign of things probably to come for them too, a warning for their own future.

There is already in Western countries — especially in Europe — a widespread dislike for Islam. It may not be mainstream, but it involves significant numbers of people.

What is true is that, when problems associated with mass immigration and different, conflictual ethnic communities (in the UK for instance) are discussed, Jews are hardly ever mentioned — while Muslims loom very large, under the common assumption that Jews are not really an ethnic group and that they are undistinguishable from native Whites.

While in Europe there is a growing awareness that Muslims mean trouble, that they don’t belong in Western or indeed any modern society, and even that they are bound, due to the supremacism in-built in their doctrine, to be in constant conflict with any other group they happen to live with, a substantial — if not overwhelming — majority of British and European natives in general consider Jews as not different from themselves, part of the social fabric of their continent. They think of Jews as a group with fundamentally the same interests as the rest of the community rather than a group that has consistently pursued interests that conflict with the traditional peoples of Europe. In short: not alien, not foreign, not ghettoised, not hostile, not dangerous.

In fact this impression is mistaken even at a superficial level: ultra-Orthodox Jews like the Hasidim can cause problems for the community they live in, described in my previous article. Besides, over 1 in 10 of Jews living in Britain are ultra-Orthodox, and they have large average families of 6-7 children, thus representing the future Jewry of Europe.

The overcrowding created by them puts them in conflict with all other local residents, due to building in violation of planning regulations. Ultra-Orthodox Jews, like Muslims and other Third World immigrants, are also overrepresented among welfare claimants.

However, since Jews in Europe, partly because their small number, do not produce the highly visible problems caused in certain areas by the ever-multiplying, relatively impoverished, uneducated Muslims, they constitute a challenge that goes largely unrecognised.

Anyone with eyes, ears and a modicum of brain can see the Muslim threat. Granted, sometimes — as possibly in the case of 9/11 — the threat is not genuine and Muslims are the designated scapegoat. But at other times it is.

But to be able to spot the way in which Jewish organisations and intellectual movements have managed to transform our civilisation, culture, consciousness, way of thinking, laws and institutions to the point of devastating them and turning them upside down to suit their own community’s perceived needs, to discern all that requires much more acumen, power of observation, ability to see links and connect the dots, capability for independent thinking, and then work and research, not to mention courage.

In a way, to see Islam as an enemy is the direct result of what we’ve been led to believe.

Make no mistake, though. It is an enemy, although innocent on particular occasions.
That’s why, if we could show the public that behind 9/11 there was someone very different from Al-Qaeda, many other pieces of the puzzle would start falling into place for many people.

The reason why in Britain the so-called counterjihad movement, whose main force has been the English Defence League (EDL), has achieved practically nothing, despite having had a certain following, is twofold.

The first element is that it doesn’t have long-term goals, a vision. It’s not enough to be against something, you need to propose a positive solution. And in my view Christianity is the answer.

The second aspect is that the West’s Muslim presence and Islamisation are only the last link of a long chain, the most visible symptom of an underlying, profound disease. What the EDL has not understood is this disease, and how it is interrelated to the Jewish question which I briefly summarized above, and which is at the root of all the current problems.

The Notion of an Elite

via Gornahoor

Due to the nature of blog posts, you may feel like someone watching a movie starting from the middle. Nevertheless, there is an architectonic plan as summarized:
  • Thesis: Tradition is the normal state for human spiritual well-being.
  • Hypothesis: The Western world is in crisis due to its forgetting of Tradition.
  • Antithesis: The proper response, then, is to revolt against the modern world
  • Synthesis: Some few men will undertake the effort to restore Tradition
Rene Guenon’s The Crisis of the Modern World is the fundamental text that proves the hypothesis. Julius Evola’s Revolt Against the Modern World is the text of the antithesis. By understanding the thesis, hypothesis and antithesis, work can begin on the synthesis.

What follows can only be an outline, since all of the topics have been developed in full in other posts. The quotes are from Guenon’s book.

Since we are concerned primarily about the West, that is where the focus will be. Moreover, we agree with Evola that Guenon is the master of the 20th century. If you have any objections to Gornahoor, most likely they begin with an objection to Guenon. If you disagree with the thesis, there is nothing much here for you; there is no desire to convert anyone. You are part of the anti-Tradition, which most people today consider sane and normal.

The more insidious movements are the counter-tradition. They claim to be part of Tradition, or “influenced” by Tradition as it is usually put. People gravitate to it since they are still under the sway of the modern world, while pretending to be in revolt. Or else, the “revolt” is strictly on the material plane. There is no “influence”; you have to decide to go “all in” or not at all.

The Western Tradition

Both Guenon and Evola postulate a polar or Hyperborean origin of our Tradition. If you prefer, you can presume this to refer to a “spiritual north”. It began with a Primordial Solar Monotheism. From there, the next step was the religion that developed around the Vedas in India, then the paganisms in Europe, and finally the Catholicism of the Middle Ages. As St Augustine wrote, “there is but one Tradition, which is now called Catholicism.” As Guenon wrote:
It is moreover quite certain that it is in Catholicism alone that all that may still remain of the traditional spirit in the West has been preserved.
Hence, that is where we start to begin the synthesis. Guenon confirms that:
The least fantastic venture, in fact the only one that does not come up against immediate impossibilities, would therefore be an attempt to restore something comparable to what existed in the Middle Ages, with the differences demanded by modifications in the circumstances
The counter-tradition rejects that in favor of some imaginary past or future paganism. This is hardly necessary, since all that is valuable in paganism has been preserved, as we have repeatedly demonstrated. These are some highlights:
  • The Church Fathers regarded Christianity as the esoteric aspect of Greek philosophy
  • Evola, no friend of Christianity, conceded that the Middle Ages preserved essential pagan elements.
  • Pope Benedict XVI made the point that once the Logos was admitted into the Gospel, the whole of Greek philosophy came along with it.
We can rightly extend that idea. Once Greek philosophy is becomes a part of Western Tradition, then we are justified to also pull in the Vedic Tradition. We have been justifying that point. Moreover, Guenon claims it is a necessary step:
If the [Catholic Church] could thus be brought into touch with representatives of the Eastern traditions, it would be a preliminary step.
We have taken that step, and several others, relying on the likes of Bede Griffiths and Guido De Giorgio. Anyone still interested in debating “paganism vs Christianity” is wasting your time and has nothing to say in regard to the proposed synthesis.

Types of Religion

Any discussion of the religions of the West needs to take into account three degrees of its manifestation, which correspond to Evola’s three stages:
  • Folk religion
  • Exoteric religion
  • Esoteric religion
The folk stage is tied up with superstition, the desire for material protection, unusual phenomena, and so on. The exoteric stage is roughly what is called “organized religion”. Beyond doctrine, there is a lot of focus on “churchy” news and so on. We are not concerned with that here, while not rejecting it. A fortiori, we don’t identify a Tradition solely with those in whom it is entrusted. What some bishop does or does not do or say is not relevant to the synthesis.

We don’t need to dwell on the esoteric aspect here, since it has been covered many times. So, if someone wants to reject the Western tradition and replace it with some “neo-paganism”, the obvious question, is which form? They deny the pagan folk religion with its belief in bodily gods and so on. They can try to convince a population to adopt some new exoteric form, but for what end? Ultimately, they need to deal with the esoteric aspect and, in that, no such replacement is possible. Perhaps a development or a deepening, but that can be accomplished more easily with the forms that currently exist.

The entire concept is pointless. As a personal example, there are two Indian colleagues with whom I have frequent conversations. When we discuss meditation, witnessing thoughts, staying watchful, and so on, there is mutual understanding, despite our different exoteric commitments.

Race and Tradition

We can say a word about this, based on the interest in recent posts. First of all, the task is the return to Tradition. It is not to “save” some ill-defined “Western civilization”, nor especially is the goal to “save the white race”, assuming that is even necessary. Since Evola wrote more on this than did Guenon, we can fill in some details as he saw them.

Based on Bachofen’s studies, Evola accepted the early existence of gynocratic and matriarchal societies in remote history or pre-history. However, the Hyperborean peoples never went through that stage. He attributed that to the masculine spirit of the Hyperboreans and their branches. However, even within the Hyperboreans, the feminine race has more in common with the gynocratic societies. The Hyperborean branches decline when they start adopting the feminine perspective. You can read his descriptions and decide if they match what you see.

One of the hallmarks is the lack of a sense of differentiation. For example, those who call for a united “white race” lack that sense. It simply is not a “possibility of manifestation” in Guenon’s phrase. Were it a real possibility, it would have happened by now. The desire for unity on the material plane is a feminine trait, suitable for women or those beings with a man’s body but a feminine spirit.

Men understand differentiation, since there are many kinds of people and ways of being in the world. There are various castes, for example, or “races of the spirit” as Evola calls them, and so on. There may be little in common between them, despite outward racial characteristics. For our purposes, especially, this brings up Guenon’s ideal of the “elite”, which is the greatest differentiation.

Intellectuality and the Elite

Guenon is emphatic that Tradition can only be restored by an “intellectual elite”. By necessity, an intellectual understanding is possible only for a few. Guenon writes:
This is why a true understanding can come only from above and not from below; and this should be taken in a twofold sense: the work must begin from what is highest, that is, from principles, and descend gradually to the various orders of application, always keeping rigorously to the hierarchical dependence that exists between them; and it must also of necessity be the work of an elite in the truest and most complete meaning of this word: by this we mean exclusively an intellectual elite, and in reality, there can be no other.
Hence, the synthesis must begin with an understanding of principles, not from political concerns and most definitely not from biological concerns. Unfortunately, I cannot just tell you what such an elite would think. There are certainly texts and the best place to start is with your own Tradition. We have convincingly demonstrated that the Western tradition is still alive and viable.

As Guenon points out, such an elite is beyond all forms, so it doesn’t help to look for another organization or formal order. Rather they will arise as needed. Meanwhile, there are certainly some things to do to prepare or to be able to recognize an elite. The first requirement is an intellectual conversion which represents the return to the center. For this, a sane and normal way of life, in its traditional understanding, is a prerequisite. Then, the practice of one’s exoteric religion, for reasons that we’ve discussed many times.

If you choose to ignore opportunities in your life that come up, ask yourself where your life is headed. I watched a few episodes of a TV show called Dig, based on its premise. I once thought it may be worth reviewing, but that won’t happen. However, there was one incident that raised this thought.

One of the characters is a boy who was being groomed to be the next High Priest of Jerusalem. One of his handlers, a prole woman and former junky, got it into her mind to rescue the boy from that, so she kidnapped him. It got me to wonder. On the one hand, he is on a high spiritual path (speaking figuratively, not that I am endorsing the specifics of the show). But what is she offering him against that, except a life of TV, video games, pop tarts, and so on?

One thing for certain is that the end of this world is a possibility of manifestation. Where will you be?

Refugee Nation: How Refugee Resettlement Is Used to Destroy White Communities

via Radix

The resettlement of refugees is an overlooked and underreported issue in America.

Thankfully, one woman in Maryland has dedicated herself to raising awareness on this issue and has made an informative video outlining the unnoticed crisis brewing in the country's heartland.

The most interesting part: the organizations promoting the resettlement of refugees and leaving taxpayers with the bill.

Watch and learn.

Grasping Neutrality

via traditionalRight

When I agree with someone on a political issue and I see him getting a bit carried away with his rhetoric, it’s easy to overlook. But when I disagree with someone on an issue, especially when we have essentially opposite opinions on a heated emotional issue, excesses of rhetoric really rub me the wrong way. After a while of dealing with it, poor argumentation starts to grate. Rational adults should be able to discuss an issue reasonably and dispassionately without resorting to illogic and ad hominem.

I consider myself very conservative, therefore I generally agree with my fellow conservatives. When I disagree with them it is often over degree, not direction. However, I have long been a noninterventionist conservative on foreign policy, and thus I frequently find myself at odds with my fellow conservatives when it comes to geopolitics. For the record, I don’t concede that there is anything conservative about interventionism, but that is for a different essay.

This has definitely been the case of late with the rise of ISIS, the negotiations with Iran, and the Netanyahu visit. For now, I’ll confine my observations to Iran, about which I have recently found myself engaged in several heated exchanges in various venues with people I likely generally agree with on most issues.

It is one thing to have a difference of opinion on a matter. It is also possible for people to disagree about the facts related to an issue, or to have a different take on facts that are agreed upon. It is another thing, however, to engage in bad argumentation. An argument is wrong when it gets the facts wrong, is inaccurate, or incorrect. An argument that employs bad argumentation is a bad argument, regardless of all else.
So, for example, I believe the U.S. should be neutral on the question of Irish unification. It’s not our problem. It’s not our concern. That does not, however, mean that I must hate Irish Catholics or that I am a shill for the Brits. As a Protestant I have certain sympathies, but I don’t think my sympathies should translate into official U.S. policy. But outside of certain circles, my advocacy of neutrality on the matter of Irish unification would not provoke those sorts of inflammatory charges. That the US should be neutral on a matter that is between two other countries likely strikes most people as common sense.

Take, however, the very analogous situation of Israel and the Palestinians and the broader relation of Israel to her Middle East neighbors. There my fellow noninterventionists and I also recommend the common sense position of US neutrality and disengagement, but the mere suggestion of this in the ongoing debate over Iran is very likely to brings immediate charges that the advocate of neutrality must hate Israel, love “Muzzies”, and is probably an “anti-Semite”. This is flawed logic. The conclusion is unwarranted because the premise is flawed. Of course someone recommending neutrality could in fact hate Israel, love Muslims, and be an anti-Semite, but these conclusions are not necessarily true and cannot be drawn simply from the advocacy of a particular policy position.

Daily I see on Facebook, or in my inbox, or in headlines at supposedly conservative websites that Obama must be a closeted Muslim who hates Israel and the U.S. and wants to see both destroyed because he is trying to reach a deal with Iran. I am no apologist for Obama who has been way too interventionist for my taste, and I don’t concede the legitimacy of the negotiations to begin with. I’m not sure how one sovereign nation with nuclear weapons and nuclear energy gets to tell another sovereign nation that they can’t have either, nor do I have any desire for the U.S. to play the role of global gun controller. That said, it is conceivable that Obama really thinks a deal with Iran is in the best interests of the U.S., as do most respondents to opinion surveys, and that he isn’t really a secret Muslim who hates Israel. These absurdly over-the-top declarations are unworthy of rational adults and mark the people who repeat them as intellectually unserious. I sure hope my fellow conservatives aren’t equally as irrational when they argue for tax and spending cuts, on which we agree.

No self-respecting conservative would tolerate without objection the charge from politically correct liberals that advocating the abolition of affirmative action and quotas means one hates minorities and must be a racist. Nor would they tolerate without objection the similar charge from like quarters that disputing the often repeated statistics with regard to sexual assaults on campus must mean one supports “rape culture”. But in both cases the liberal is making the same logically flawed argument that interventionists make when they definitively ascribe a certain mindset to a political or cultural opinion. If they can’t see this, they are either dense or aren’t thinking about it hard enough.

The hysteria related to the call for U.S. neutrality in the Middle East vs. the lack of hysteria related to the call for neutrality on Irish reunification (outside certain small circles) is clearly a reflection of the emotional investment of said hysterics in maintaining our current posture that is anything but neutral, rational, objective analysis of the issue. Interventionists should cite facts, challenge assertions, and dispute opinions. This is what debate is. But please spare me the flawed logic and ad hominem that so characterizes the debate today. It does not reflect well on your side.

The Corruption & Debasement of the UK's Electoral System

via Western Spring

Yesterday I wrote about some of the shortcomings of our political system here in the UK and in doing so, I referred to “the inadequacies of our electoral system, by the mendacity of our media moguls and the corruption of our politicians”, and today I would like to focus attention on the ‘inadequacies’, or perhaps I should have said the ‘iniquities’ of our electoral system.

Political pundits will often blame the anomalies within our ‘first-past-the-post’ electoral system for the disparities that so often are a feature of our general election results. For example, the fact that in 2005, the Labour Party under Tony Blair won a general election with an overall Commons majority of 33 MPs in an election in which only 21% of the public actually voted Labour, and while the ‘first-past-the-post’ system is to some extent to blame for such anomalies, there are other issues that need to be addressed.

One such iniquity is that immigrants to Britain are given the right to vote immediately they set foot on British soil if they hold British, Irish or Commonwealth citizenship or have been granted ‘leave to remain’ under our immigration system.

When one considers that according to Labour Party insider, Andrew Neather, in an article in the Evening Standard in October 2009, a conspiracy existed within the Labour Party during the early 2000s to deliberately flood Britain with immigrants in order to irrevocably change the racial and ethnic composition of the British people and to create a permanent pro- Labour majority among the electorate, this aspect of the Representation of the People’s Act needs to be urgently reformed.

Without such reform, pro-multiracial parties when in government will continue to debase our electoral system in this way. The fact that Labour’s machinations have not yet progressed to the point at which their aims have been achieved, does not alter the fact that the self-determination of the indigenous British people has been permanently  compromised by the policies of the Labour Party. Furthermore, it is worth noting that immigration under the Conservative Party led coalition government has continued at the same high levels achieved by Labour and the debasement of our electoral system through uncontrolled immigration continues and this situation becomes worse with every passing month.

uk-mass-immigrationThe tragic irony of our situation will become fully apparent should at some future date ‘hot-head’, British patriots take matters into their own hands in frustration at this continual cynical debasement of our electoral system and the presence of an immigrant block vote preventing the indigenous British from ever regaining our national self-determination. I can foresee a po-faced future government spokesperson following some heinous act of terrorism, spewing forth a sickeningly hypocritical denunciation of those responsible, declaring disingenuously that ‘by showing no regard for our electoral system, they have put themselves outside the law’. This would of course be technically correct, but in moral terms, we cannot expect others to respect the electoral system if we continually debase it so scandalously.

As the final results of the current general election are recorded, it is evident that the Conservatives have been very successful and so too have the Scottish National Party (SNP). The success of the Conservatives can be attributed to many factors, not the least of which however has been the bourgeoning support for the SNP north of the boarder. The Conservatives have been able to coerce the English public into voting for them, using fear of an SNP ‘tail’, wagging a Labour ‘dog’ if the electorate did not vote to ensure an overall Conservative majority.

The success of the SNP and the great impact of their popularity in Scotland upon British politics as a whole has its roots in a long-standing ploy by past Conservative and Labour governments to gerrymander our electoral system by making Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish constituencies much smaller in terms of the number of electors within each constituency. With the support of relatively few electors in these relatively sparsely inhabited parts of the British Isles therefore, it has been possible for successive Conservative and Labour governments to gain disproportionately great Commons majorities relative to their support amongst the electorate.

Up until the late 1980s for example, the Conservatives held twenty constituencies in Scotland and held on to ten of these until 1997, eventually losing them to the LibDems and the SNP. Similarly Labour held many seats in Scotland, right up until this latest general election in which there has been an SNP landslide.

If we look at the number of seats won so far by both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party (as of 12:00 Midday 08/05/15), we find that between them, they have won a total of 554 seats, based upon the electoral support of 20,399,431 electors – i.e. it takes on average the support of 36,822 electors to win each parliamentary seat. If we compare this with the SNP however, we find that with the electoral support of just 1,454,436 electors, they have secured 56 parliamentary seats, an average of just 25,972 electors per seat.

If we compare the Green Party with the SNP we see the Greens attracting the support of almost as many electors nationally, 1,138,445 as opposed to 1,454,436, but the Greens have only secured the election of one MP, compared to 56 for the SNP!

Even worse, UKIP have secured the electoral support of 3,830,029 voters and yet only have one MP elected, and Nigel Farage was quite correct when he spoke about the election results this morning, there needs to be an urgent review of our electoral system. The ‘first-past-the –post’ system needs to be replaced by a system of proportional representation and there also need to be constituency boundary changes made so that each constituency is composed of roughly the same number of electors and any other. It is outrageous that the SNP will be sending 56 MPs to Westminster while UKIP, with more than twice the electoral support will have just one!

Lastly, there need to be an urgent review of political party funding. If we look at the General Election of 2010, the Conservatives were able to spend approximately £17million on their general election campaign; Labour – £8million; the LibDems – £5million; and everyone else put together, just £2million. There can be little wonder therefore that the Conservative managed to get the largest number of MPs elected.

Money - Coins 2If we compare 2010 with the General election before that, we find that in 2005: the Conservatives spent approximately £18million, which was matched by Labour, who also spent £18million. The LibDems spent just over £4million and everyone else put together, just £2million again. In this election, Labour, who were the biggest spenders, won the election. There is therefore, a clear correlation between campaign spending and success at the polls and it is not just ‘honours’ that wealthy donors are buying when they donate large sums to our government parties. The cash for questions scandal and the cash for influence scandals of recent times have demonstrated that political parties are only too ready to trade privileged information and privileged influence in return for cash or campaign funding.

If our elections are to be fair, we need a way of ensuring that the amounts political parties have to spend are not based upon the degree to which they are prepared to prostitute themselves before wealthy donors, and we cannot continue with a system that allows wealthy donors to ‘buy’ the general election result that suits them.

The answer is a form of public funding and yet it is noticeable that whenever the subject of public funding is suggested, the political parties currently in government and who benefit from the tainted largesse of wealthy donors do not seem to be able to agree on something that should be quite simple to arrange, and in doing so, they perpetuate the system that so benefits them and their paymasters.

There is an old adage, that ‘he who pays the piper, calls the tune’, and if we are to have government that benefits the broad mass of our people, the political parties who vie for government must be ‘paid’ by the broad mass of our people. It would be a simple matter for a small part of the income tax or the state benefits or tax credits that we are individually due, to be applied to political party funding, and we could simply allow individuals to make an election as to which political party should receive their support under this system.

The amount donated under this system could simply be worth £5 per person, per annum, and based upon an electorate of 45million, this would provide political parties with £225million per annum in total to cover all of their operational and campaign costs. A political party commanding the support of 5million electors would therefore receive £5million per annum to fund their operational and campaign costs, whereas a party that can only command the support of 1 million electors would only get one fifth of that figure.  This would provide a strong incentive, as is only right, that political parties should tailor their policies to benefit the majority of the electorate, rather than tailor their policies to suit the needs of wealthy vested interest groups, as happens at present.

Lastly, the integrity our electoral system is shot full of holes, in terms of the mechanics by which it operates.

Ballot papers are printed in books of numbered ballot papers, in much the same way that numbered cheques are printed in cheque books. Just as with a cheque book, each ballot paper is attached to a correspondingly numbered counterfoil stub that forms the spine of each book.

When electors go to vote, they are given a numbered ballot paper, which is torn from the correspondingly numbered counterfoil stub and the elector’s electoral number is recorded on the counterfoil stub and retained by the staff of the polling station in question.  Clearly therefore, it is possible for the electoral authorities to cross reference ballot papers after the count with the retained counterfoil stubs in order to ascertain how every individual has voted. This makes a nonsense of the supposed ‘secret ballot’ and it is the means by which, people with much to lose are deterred from voting for minority, ‘dissident’ parties, and intimidated into voting for establishment parties instead. This is an abuse of the fundamental rights and protections afforded under the Representation of the Peoples Act and the system employed needs reform.

Marked ballot papers should be placed into a sealed ballot box so that it is not possible for anyone to tamper with the ballot papers once votes are cast. However, my experience is that most ballot boxes are not sealed. That is, they do not bear the marked seals of the political party polling agents in the way that was originally intended and that is necessary to demonstrate the integrity of the system.

Just before polling stations open, the polling agents of the various candidates participating in the election should be afforded the opportunity to examine the ballot boxes used to ensure that they are empty at the beginning of polling. Once checked, the ballot boxes should be sealed by the polling station staff and the polling agents of the candidates should be allowed to attach their own distinctively marked seals to ensure that polling station staff are not able to open the boxes unauthorised. My experience again is that polling agents are not always offered the opportunity to check and seal the boxes in the prescribed manner. I have seen staff at polling stations leave ballot boxes unsealed and periodically open the boxes on the pretext of spreading out and compressing the ballot papers in order to make more room in the box. While such violations of the rules may have been committed innocently, such occurrences could just have easily been allowed ballot papers to be illegally interfered with.

democracy2At the close of polling, the ballot boxes should be transported to the count in a manner that prevents them from being interfered with. In the past, ballot boxes were always transported by police car, in the days when the police were not politicised as they are today.

Today, ballot boxes are taken to the count by individual members of the polling station staff (local authority employees) in the boots of their private cars. Unless these cars are followed by polling agents for the various candidates, no checks are possible to prevent the ballot boxes being interfered with or indeed switched en route.

Ballot boxes when delivered to the count should not be opened until the candidates or the agents are present and have had the opportunity to check that the seals on the boxes have not been broken. My experience however, is that this rule is rarely complied with and when candidates and their agents arrive at the count, they are presented with a whole mass ballot boxes already opened and no sign of any seals that may have been attached.

The checking that ballot boxes are empty at the beginning of the day; the attachment of individual political party seals; the secure transport of ballot boxes from the polling stations to the count; and the checking of seals on the still sealed ballot boxes before they are opened, are all measures designed to ensure the integrity of our polling system and the lack of enforcement of the rules is a flagrant disregard of the protections afforded candidates under the Representation of the Peoples Act.

The lack of adherence to the rules creates the potential for marked ballot papers to be fraudulently placed in ballot boxes at the beginning of the day; creates the potential for ballot boxes to be opened and interfered with, and/or stuffed with fraudulently completed ballot papers during polling; creates the potential for ballot boxes to be opened and interfered with or switched for a substitute ballot box stuffed with fraudulently completed ballot papers en route to the count; and it creates the potential for the contents of the boxes to be interfered with at the count and prior to the admission of candidates and their agents. The rules exist because all of these abuses have been committed at some time in the past and in order to prevent them.

There is tremendous scope for ballot boxes and ballot papers to be interfered with under the system as currently, sloppily operated, especially when ballot papers and boxes are stored overnight, ostensibly ‘securely’, as often happens with local council elections that coincide with general elections. Postal voting provides even greater scope for electoral fraud to take place and there have in recent years been a number of instances of electoral fraud being exposed and this via a system that is as I have said earlier, ‘shot full of holes’.

There needs to be a route and branch review of electoral security procedures so the public can have confidence in the integrity of the system upon which our government is predicated. As already established, there also needs to be a number of reforms to ensure that our electoral system is fairly conducted, not gerrymandered, not corrupted and that our electorate is not debased. Without such reforms, we cannot have confidence in our electoral system, but as reform requires the co-operation and consent of a government which has profited and secured election under this flawed and corrupted system, I don’t expect reforms to be introduced anytime soon!