May 13, 2015

Feminism in the Age of Ultron

via Radix

It’s getting harder to make blockbusters without incurring the wrath of the SJW sphere.

Case in point: the reaction to the “sexism” of Avengers: Age of Ultron.

Made by the self-declared feminist Joss Whedon, you’d expect this film to be kosher when it comes to gender politics and aware of the latest hot takes on women’s issues. Apparently not so.

One of the major gripes with the latest entry in the Avengers series is the role assigned to Black Widow—the supposed femme fatale played by Scarlett Johansson. Johansson loves to tout her feminist credentials and has lately become the go-to star for playing “badass hotties”—usurping the previous queen of Hollywood tough ladies Angelina Jolie.

Even though Black Widow gets to kick a fair amount of ass in Age of Ultron and the film goes to great lengths to portray her unbelievable martial skill, this wasn’t enough for the detractors. Their contention rests on the fact that Widow is abducted by the villain and serves for most of the movie as the despised damsel-in-distress archetype.
Even worse, the Black Widow, Natasha Romanoff, expresses intense guilt that she is unable to have children and feels like a monster for her forced sterilization. That set off feminists who think women (and really humans) shouldn’t be defined by reproduction and it’s simply a choice—like fashion styles and shopping habits.
To top it off, a male co-star described the fictional female as “kind of a slut.” You guessed it—that’s slut shaming. Add in her failure to appear in toys for young SWPL toddlers ready to pursue a career as Russian assassins and you have an all-around gender sensitivity shitstorm.

And the misdeeds committed against the lone female Avenger isn’t the film’s only sin—there’s also a “rape joke” uttered in the script. The line considered a rape joke comes from Robert Downey Jr.’s Iron Man. After accepting Thor’s challenge that he can rule Asgard if he’s capable of lifting Mjolnir, Iron Man boasts that he will institute prima nocta if he gets the hammer off the table. That, according to Slate, trivializes rape and should never be included in a film made in 2015. Prima nocta, like Iron Man, is fictional and the jest was intended to highlight Tony Stark’s cocky and not-so-flattering persona. But apparently he needs to keep his douchebaggery within the limits set by political correctness.

All of these microaggressions set off an intense Twitter flame campaign against Mr. Whedon and forced the director to depart from the social media service. Like a good male feminist, Whedon claimed the idea he dropped out due to feminists was “horseshit” and he just needed to take a break from all the noise. . .that was caused entirely by angry SJWs.

Even though left-leaning outlets are up in arms over the movie, the Avengers sequel is raking in the dough at the box office and is nearly matching the records set by its predecessor. So this uproar is having virtually no economic effect and the only real result has been the sackless Whedon deleting his Twitter account. Guess the masses really don’t care what Vox thinks about gender injustices.

But Hollywood is receptive to what the chatterers of New York and DC have to say about current issues. The controversy surrounding the Avengers flick shows just how much a movie has to conform to the prevalent orthodoxy to avoid attacks. It’s now all but assured that the Black Widow character will receive her own stand-alone film. Whether it will do well is up in the air, but that’s not the point.

The point is to have a female superhero on the big screen and to convey to young girls that they’re just as tough as boys. . .even though there’s another trend that disproves that notion.

That trend is the rise of the safe space and “trigger” awareness on college campus. Driven by young women, we’re now taught we can touch certain topics because they might trigger trauma for certain females. The idea you get is that a lot of women—as implied by the idea of a safe space—can’t handle the nitty-gritty aspects of life.

So while young women are being victimized by the writings of Ovid, we’re at the same time supposed to buy into the idea that a woman of the same class can be a world-saving badass. Not to read too much into the character of Black Widow, but she does oddly resemble the dark side of urban elf womanhood.

Many urban elf females imagine themselves as ass-kicking feminists who can take on anything life sends them. Cat-callers, sexist bosses, rude comments—they can take them on (and by take on, they mean call on men with guns to handle those issues.) They’re good-looking but tough, and they don’t need no man to help them out. And they especially don’t need to have children to feel their life has meaning—their respective careers fill that void.

Black Widow’s image is all of these things, yet she needs the rest of the Avengers to save her from Ultron. And she ultimately feels like a monster over the sterilization that allows her to be a successful assassin. This side of the fictional hero is probably unintentional, but it is interesting how a character feminists are so worked up about reflects the unstated downsides of living as a sheltered career woman in a cruel world.
I wonder if they’ll explore that in the stand-alone film.

Immigration: Is This the Breaking Point?

via American Renaissance

Peter Brimelow of addresses the 2015 American Renaissance conference. Mr. Brimelow says that those who look forward to a non-white America smell victory and for this reason must make every effort to suppress any sign of white racial consciousness. He argues whites could be at either of two “tipping points:” about to plunge into the Third-World or wake up and refuse to abolish their own country.

The Cult of Incompetence

via Alternative Right

Alternative Right Editor's Note: Émile Faguet was an important French writer and political philosopher. This extract, from his seminal work, "The Cult of Incompetence," was published in Aristokratia II, a journal of philosophy dedicated to the ideas of Nietzsche, Plato, Evola, Cioran, Aristotle, Socrates, and others. Aristokratia III: Hellas was recently published, and is highly recommended.


By Émile Faguet (Translated by Beatrice Barstow)

The question has often been asked, what is the animating principle of different forms of government, for each, it is assumed, has its own principle. In other words, what is the general idea which inspires each political system?

Montesquieu, for instance, proved that the principle of monarchy is honour, the principle of despotism fear, the principle of a republic virtue or patriotism, and he added with much justice that governments decline and fall as often by carrying their principle to excess, as by neglecting it altogether.

And this, though a paradox, is true. At first sight it may not be obvious how a despotism can fall by inspiring too much fear, or a constitutional monarchy by developing too highly the sentiment of honour, or a republic by having too much virtue. It is nevertheless true.

To make too common a use of fear is to destroy its efficacy. As Edgar Quinet happily puts it: "If we want to make use of fear we must be certain that we can use it always." We cannot have too much honour, but when we can appeal to this sentiment only and when distinctions, decorations, orders, ribbons—in a word honours—are multiplied, inasmuch as we cannot increase such things indefinitely, those who have none become as discontented as those who, having some, want more.

Finally we cannot, of course, have too much virtue, and naturally here governments will fall not by exaggerating but by abandoning their guiding principle. Yet is it not sometimes true that by demanding from citizens too great a devotion to their country, we end by exhausting human powers of endurance and sacrifice? This is what happened in the case of Napoleon, who, perhaps unwittingly, required too much from France, for the building up of a 'Greater France.'

But that, someone will object, was not a republic!

From the point of view of the sacrifices required from the citizen, it was a republic, similar to the Roman Republic and to the French Republic of 1792. All the talk was 'for the glory of our country,' 'heroism, heroism, nothing but heroism'! If too much is required of it, civic virtue can be exhausted.

It is, then, very true that governments perish just as much from an excess as from a neglect of their appropriate principle. Montesquieu without doubt borrowed his general idea from Aristotle, who remarks not without humour, "Those, who think that they have discovered the basis of good government, are apt to push the consequences of their new found principle too far. They do not remember that disproportion in such matters is fatal. They forget that a nose which varies slightly from the ideal line of beauty appropriate for noses, tending slightly towards becoming a hook or a snub, may still be of fair shape and not disagreeable to the eye, but if the excess be very great, all symmetry is lost, and the nose at last ceases to be a nose at all." This law of proportion holds good with regard to every form of government.

Starting from these general ideas, I have often wondered what principle democrats have adopted for the form of government which they favour, and it has not required a great effort on my part to arrive at the conclusion that the principle in question is the worship and cultivation, or, briefly 'the cult' of incompetence or inefficiency.

Let us examine any well-managed and successful business firm or factory. Every employee does the work he knows and does best, the skilled workman, the accountant, the manager and the secretary, each in his place. No one would dream of making the accountant change places with a commercial traveller or a mechanic.

Look too at the animal world. The higher we go in the scale of organic existence, the greater the division of labour, the more marked the specialisation of physiological function. One organ thinks, another acts, one digests, another breathes. Now is there such a thing as an animal with only one organ, or rather is there any animal, consisting of only one organ, which breathes and thinks and digests all at the same time? Yes, there is. It is called the amœba, and the amœba is the very lowest thing in the animal world, very inferior even to a vegetable.

In the same way, without doubt, in a well constituted society, each organ has its definite function, that is to say, administration is carried on by those who have learnt how to administer, legislation and the amendment of laws by those who have learnt how to legislate, justice by those who have studied jurisprudence, and the functions of a country postman are not given to a paralytic. Society should model itself on nature, whose plan is specialisation. "For," as Aristotle says, "she is not niggardly, like the Delphian smiths whose knives have to serve for many purposes, she makes each thing for a single purpose, and the best instrument is that which serves one and not many uses." Elsewhere he says, "At Carthage it is thought an honour to hold many offices, but a man only does one thing well. The legislator should see to this, and prevent the same man from being set to make shoes and play the flute." A well-constituted society, we may sum up, is one where every function is not confided to everyone, where the crowd itself, the whole body social, is not told: "It is your business to govern, to administer, to make the laws, &c." A society, where things are so arranged, is an amœbic society. 

That society, therefore, stands highest in the scale, where the division of labour is greatest, where specialisation is most definite, and where the distribution of functions according to efficiency is most thoroughly carried out.

Now democracies, far from sharing this view, are inclined to take the opposite view. At Athens there was a great tribunal composed of men learned in, and competent to interpret, the law. The people could not tolerate such an institution, so laboured to destroy it and to usurp its functions. The crowd reasoned thus. "We can interpret and carry out laws, because we make them." The conclusion was right, but the minor premise was disputable. The retort can be made: "True, you can interpret and carry out laws because you make them, but perhaps you have no business to be making laws." Be that as it may, the Athenian people not only interpreted and applied its own laws, but it insisted on being paid for so doing. The result was that the poorest citizens sat judging all day long, as all others were unwilling to sacrifice their whole time for a payment of six drachmas. This plebeian tribunal continued for many years. Its most celebrated feat was the judgment which condemned Socrates to death. This was perhaps matter for regret, but the great principle, the sovereignty of incompetence, was vindicated.

Athenian democracy, somewhat romanticized.

Modern democracies seem to have adopted the same principle, in form they are essentially amœbic. A democracy, well-known to us all, has been evolved in the following manner.

It began with this idea; king and people, democratic royalty, royal democracy. The people makes, the king carries out, the law; the people legislates, the king governs, retaining, however, a certain control over the law, for he can suspend the carrying out of a new law when he considers that it tends to obstruct the function of government. Here then was a sort of specialisation of functions. The same person, or collective body of persons, did not both legislate and govern.

This did not last long. The king was suppressed. Democracy remained, but a certain amount of respect for efficiency remained too. The people, the masses, did not, every single man of them, claim the right to govern and to legislate directly.

It did not even claim the right to nominate the legislature directly. It adopted indirect election, à deux degrés, that is, it nominated electors who in turn nominated the legislature. It thus left two aristocracies above itself, the first electors and the elected legislature. This was still far removed from democracy on the Athenian model which did everything itself.

This does not mean that much attention was paid to efficiency. The electors were not chosen because they were particularly fitted to elect a legislature, nor was the legislature itself elected with any reference to its legislative capacity. Still there was a certain pretence of a desire for efficiency, a double pseudo-efficiency. The crowd, or rather the constitution, assumed that legislators elected by the delegates of the crowd were more competent to make laws than the crowd itself.

This somewhat curious form of efficiency I have called compétence par collation, efficiency or competence conferred by this form of selection. There is absolutely nothing to show that so-and-so has the slightest legislative or juridical faculty, so I confer on him a certificate of efficiency by the confidence I repose in him when nominating him for the office, or rather I show my confidence in the electors and they confer a certificate of efficiency on those whom they nominate for the legislature.

This, of course, is devoid of all common sense, but appearances, and even something more, are in its favour.

It is not common sense for it involves something being made out of nothing, inefficiency producing efficiency and zero extracting 'one' out of itself. This form of selection, though it does not appeal to me under any circumstances, is legitimate enough when it is exercised by a competent body. A university can confer a degree upon a distinguished man because it can judge whether his degreeless condition is due to accident or not. It would, however, be highly ridiculous and paradoxical if the general public were to confer mathematical degrees. A degree of efficiency conferred by an inefficient body is contrary to common sense.

There is, however, some plausibility and indeed a little more than plausibility in favour of this plan. Degrees in literature and in dramatic art are conferred, given by 'collation,' by incompetent people, that is by the public. We can say to the public: "You know nothing of literary and dramatic art." It will retort: "True, I know nothing, but certain things move me and I confer the degree on those who evoke my emotions." In this it is not altogether wrong. In the same way the degree of doctor of political science is conferred by the people on those who stir its emotions and who express most forcibly its own passions. These doctors of political science are the empassioned representatives of its own passions.

—In other words, the worst legislators!—

Yes, very nearly so, but not quite. It is very useful that we should have an exponent of popular passion at the crest of the social wave, to tell us not indeed what the crowd is thinking, for the crowd never thinks, but what the crowd is feeling, in order that we may not cross it too violently or obey it too obsequiously. An engineer would call it the science of the strength of materials.

A medium assures me that he had a conversation with Louis XIV, who said to him: "Universal suffrage is an excellent thing in a monarchy. It is a source of information. When it recommends a certain course of action it shows us that this is a thing which we must not do. If I could have consulted it over the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, it would have given me a clear mandate for that Revocation and I should have known what to do, and that Edict would not have been revoked. I acted as I did, because I was advised by ministers whom I considered experienced statesmen. Had I been aware of the state of public opinion I should have known that France was tired of wars and new palaces and extravagance. But this was not an expression of passion and prejudice, but a cry of suffering. As far as passion and prejudice are concerned we must go right in the teeth of public opinion, and universal suffrage will tell you what that is. On the other hand we must pay heed, serious heed to every cry of pain, and here too universal suffrage will come to our aid. Universal suffrage is necessary to a monarchy as a source of information."

This, I am told, is Louis XIV's present opinion on the subject.

As far as legislation therefore is concerned, the attempt to secure competence by 'collation' is an absurdity. Yet it is an inverted sort of competence useful for indicating the state of a nation's temper. From this it follows that this system is as mischievous in a republic as it would be wholesome in a monarchy. It is not therefore altogether bad.

The Great Representative.
The democracy which we have in view, after having been governed by the representatives of its representatives for ten years, submitted for the next fifteen years to the rule of one representative and took no particular advantage therefrom.

Then for thirty years it adopted a scheme which aimed at a certain measure of efficiency. It assumed that the electors of the legislature ought not to be nominated, but marked out by their social position, that is their fortune. Those who possessed so many drachmas were to be electors.

What sort of a basis for efficiency is this? It is a basis but certainly a somewhat narrow one.

It is a basis, first, because a man who owns a certain fortune has a greater interest than others in a sound management of public business, and self-interest opens and quickens the eye; and again a man who has money and does not lose it cannot be altogether a fool.

On the other hand it is a narrow basis, because the possession of money is of itself no guarantee of political ability, and the system leads to the very questionable proposition that every rich man is a competent social reformer. It is, however, a sort of competence, but a competence very precariously established and on a very narrow basis.

This system disappeared and our democracy, after a short interregnum, repeated its previous experiment and submitted for eighteen years to the rule of one delegate with no great cause to congratulate itself on the result.

It then adopted democracy in a form almost pure and simple. I say almost, for the democratic system pure and simple involves the direct government of the people without any intervening representatives, by means of a continuous plebiscite. Our democracy then set up and still maintains a democratic system almost pure and simple, that is to say, it established government of the nation by delegates whom it itself elected and by these delegates strictly and exclusively. This time we have reached an apotheosis of incompetence that is well-nigh absolute.

This, our present system, purports to be the rule of efficiency chosen by the arbitrary form of selection which has been described. Just as the bishop in the story, addressing a haunch of venison, exclaimed: "I baptise thee carp," so the people says to its representatives: "I baptise you masters of law, I baptise you statesmen, I baptise you social reformers." We shall see later on that this baptism goes very much further than this.

Symbol of the Third Republic.
If the people were capable of judging of the legal and psychological knowledge possessed by those who present themselves for election, this form of selection need not be prohibitive of efficiency and might even be satisfactory; but in the first place, the electors are not capable of judging, and secondly, even if they were, nothing would be gained.

Nothing would be gained, because the people never places itself at this point of view. Emphatically never! It looks at the qualifications of the candidate not from a scientific but from a moral point of view.

—Well that surely is something, and, in a way, a guarantee of efficiency. The legislators are not capable of making laws, it is true; but at least they are honest men. This guarantee of moral efficiency, some critic will say, gives me much satisfaction.

Please be careful, I reply, we should never think of giving the management of a railway station to the most honest man, but to an honest man who, besides, understood thoroughly railway administration. So we must put into our laws not only honest intentions, but just principles of law, politics, and society.

Secondly, if the candidates are considered from the point of view of their moral worth it is in a peculiar fashion. High morality is imputed to those who share the dominant passions of the people and who express themselves thereon more violently than others. Ah! these are our honest men, it cries, and I do not say that the men of its choice are dishonest, I only say that by this criterion they are not infallibly marked out even as honest.

—Still, some one replies, they are probably disinterested, for they follow popular prejudices, and not their own particular, individual wishes.

Yes, that is just what the masses believe, while they forget that there is nothing easier than to simulate popular passion in order to win popular confidence and become a political personage. If disinterestedness is really so essential to the people, only those should be elected who oppose the popular will and who show thereby that they do not want to be elected. Or better still only those who do not stand for election should be elected, since not to stand is the undeniable sign of disinterestedness. But this is never done. That which should always be done is never done.

—But, someone will say, your public bodies which recruit their numbers by co-optation, Academies and learned societies, do not elect their members in this way.—

Quite so, and they are right. Such bodies do not want their members to be disinterested but scientific. They have no reason to prefer an unwilling member to one who is eager to be elected. Their point of view is entirely different. The people, which pretends to set store by high moral character, should exclude from power those who are ambitious of power, or at least those who covet it with a keenness that suggests other than disinterested motives.

These considerations show us what the crowd understands by the moral worth of a man. The moral worth of a man consists, as far as the crowd is concerned, in his entertaining or pretending to entertain the same sentiments as itself, and it is just for this reason that the representatives of the multitude are excellent as documents for information, but detestable, or at least, useless, and therefore detestable, as legislators.

Montesquieu, who is seldom wrong, errs in my opinion when he says, "The people is well-fitted to choose its own magistrates." He, it is true, did not live under a democracy. For consider, how could the people be fitted to choose its own magistrates and legislators, when Montesquieu himself, this time with ample justification, lays down as one of his principles that morals should correct climate, and that law should correct morals, and the people, as we know, only thinks of choosing as its delegates men who share, in every particular, its own manner of thinking? Climate can be partially resisted by the people; but if the law should correct morals, legislators should be chosen who have taken up an attitude of reaction against current morality. It would be very curious if such a choice were ever made, and not only is it never made but the contrary invariably happens.
To sum it all up, it is intellectual incompetence, nay moral incompetence which is sought instinctively in the people's choice.
If possible, it is more than this. The people favours incompetence, not only because it is no judge of intellectual competence and because it looks on moral competence from a wrong point of view, but because it desires before everything, as indeed is very natural, that its representatives should resemble itself. This it does for two reasons.

First, as a matter of sentiment, the people desires, as we have seen, that its representatives should share its feelings and prejudices. These representatives can share its prejudices and yet not absolutely resemble it in morals, habits, manners and appearance; but naturally the people never feels so certain that a man shares its prejudices and is not merely pretending to do so, as when the man resembles it feature by feature. It is a sign and a guarantee. The people is instinctively impelled therefore to elect men of the same habits, manners and even education as itself, or shall we say of an education slightly superior, the education of a man who can talk, but only superior in a very slight degree.

In addition to this sentimental reason, there is another, which is extremely important, for it goes to the very root of the democratic idea. What is the people's one desire, when once it has been stung by the democratic tarantula? It is that all men should be equal, and in consequence that all inequalities natural as well as artificial should disappear. It will not have artificial inequalities, nobility of birth, royal favours, inherited wealth, and so it is ready to abolish nobility, royalty, and inheritance.

Nor does it like natural inequalities, that is to say a man more intelligent, more active, more courageous, more skilful than his neighbours. It cannot destroy these inequalities, for they are natural, but it can neutralise them, strike them with impotence by excluding them from the employments under its control.

Democracy is thus led quite naturally, irresistibly one may say, to exclude the competent precisely because they are competent, or if the phrase pleases better and as the popular advocate would put it, not because they are competent but because they are unequal, or, as he would probably go on to say, if he wished to excuse such action, not because they are unequal, but because being unequal they are suspected of being opponents of equality. So it all comes to the same thing. This it is that made Aristotle say that where merit is despised, there is democracy. He does not say so in so many words, but he wrote: "Where merit is not esteemed before everything else, it is not possible to have a firmly established aristocracy," and that amounts to saying that where merit is not esteemed, we enter at once on a democratic regime and never escape from it.

The chance, then, of efficiency coming to the front in this state of affairs is indeed deplorable.

Paris liberated by the Germans from French incompetence.
First and last, democracy—and it is natural enough—wishes to do everything itself, it is the enemy of all specialisation of functions, particularly it wishes to govern, without delegates or intermediaries. Its ideal is direct government as it existed at Athens, its ideal is "democracy," in the terminology of Rousseau, who applied the word to direct government and to direct government only.

Forced by historical events and perhaps by necessity to govern by delegates, how could democracy still contrive to govern directly or nearly so, although continuing to govern through delegates?

Its first alternative is, perhaps, to impose on its delegates an imperative mandate. Delegates under this condition become mere agents of the people. They attend the legislative assembly to register the will of the people just as they receive it, and the people in reality governs directly. This is what is meant by the imperative mandate.

Democracy has often considered it, but never with persistence. Herein it shows good sense. It has a shrewd suspicion that the imperative mandate is never more than a snare and a delusion. Representatives of the people meet and discuss, the interests of party become defined. Henceforward they are the prey of the goddess Opportunity, the Greek ΚαιρὁςΚαιρὁς. Then it happens one day that to vote according to their mandate would be very unfavourable to the interest of their party. They are therefore obliged to be faithless to their party by reason of their fidelity to their mandate, or disobedient to their mandate by reason of their obedience to their party; and in any case to have betrayed their mandate with this very praiseworthy and excellent intention is a thing for which they can take credit or at least obtain excuse with the electors—and on such a matter it will be very difficult to refute them.

The imperative mandate is therefore a very clumsy instrument for work of a very delicate character. The democracy, instinctively, knows this very well, and sets no great store by the imperative mandate.

What other alternative is there for it? Something very much finer, the substance instead of the shadow. It can elect men who resemble it closely, who follow its sentiments closely, who are in fact so nearly identical with itself that they may be trusted to do surely, instinctively, almost mechanically that which it would itself do, if it were itself an immense legislative assembly. They would vote, without doubt, according to circumstances, but also as their electors would vote if they were governing directly. In this way democracy preserves its legislative power. It makes the law, and this is the only way it can make it.

Democracy, therefore, has the greatest inducement to elect representatives who are representative, who, in the first place, resemble it as closely as possible, who, in the second place, have no individuality of their own, who finally, having no fortune of their own, have no sort of independence.

We deplore that democracy surrenders itself to politicians, but from its own point of view, a point of view which it cannot avoid taking up, it is absolutely right. What is a politician? He is a man who, in respect of his personal opinions, is a nullity, in respect of education, a mediocrity, he shares the general sentiments and passions of the crowd, his sole occupation is politics, and if that career were closed to him, he would die of starvation.

He is precisely the thing of which the democracy has need.

He will never be led away by his education to develop ideas of his own; and having no ideas of his own, he will not allow them to enter into conflict with his prejudices. His prejudices will be, at first by a feeble sort of conviction, afterwards by reason of his own interest, identical with those of the crowd; and lastly, his poverty and the impossibility of his getting a living outside of politics make it certain that he will never break out of the narrow circle where his political employers have confined him; his imperative mandate is the material necessity which obliges him to obey; his imperative mandate is his inability to quarrel with his bread and butter.
Democracy obviously has need of politicians, has need of nothing else but politicians, and has need indeed that there shall be in politics nothing else but politicians.
Its enemy, or rather the man whom democracy dreads because he means to govern and does not intend to allow the mob to govern through him, is the man who succeeds in getting elected for some constituency or other, either by the influence of his wealth or by the prestige of his talent and notoriety. Such a man is not dependent on democracy. If a legislative assembly were entirely or by a majority composed of rich men, men of superior intelligence, men who had an interest in attending to the trades or professions in which they had succeeded rather than in playing at politics, they would vote according to their own ideas, and then—what would happen? Why then democracy would be simply suppressed. It would no longer legislate and govern; there would be, to speak exactly, an aristocracy, not very permanently established perhaps, but still an aristocracy which would eliminate the influence of the people from public affairs.

Clearly it is almost impossible for the democracy, if it means to survive, to encourage efficiency, nay it is almost impossible for it to refrain from attempting to destroy efficiency.

Thus, we may sum up, only those are elected as the representatives of the people, who are its exact counterparts and constant dependents.

Hellstorm: Exposing the Real Genocide of Nazi Germany

via YouTube

This documentary tells the tale that the victors still do not want you to know. Learn the terrible truth about the rape, torture, slavery, and mass murder inflicted upon the German people by the Allied victors of World Word II. This is the biggest cover-up in world history.

The Rise of the Shoah as the Official Religion of the French Republic

via The Occidental Observer

President Jacques Chirac (center-right) publicly
announcing France’s national guilt for the
deportation of Jews during World War II,
July 16, 1995
Translation by Guillaume Durocher.

Translator’s Note
: Éric Zemmour is a Sephardic Jewish French journalist and pundit, no doubt the “most nationalist” voice allowed on French television, all but telling people to vote for the Front National. I found his bestselling book Le suicide français, while sometimes false or circumspect, surprisingly frank on certain issues. The title is taken from the text. Given the length of the text, I have bolded admissions that are significant for a mainstream publication.

The following is taken from Éric Zemmour, Le Suicide français (Albin Michel: 2014), “De Gaulle raflé au Vél d’Hiv,” pp. 379-385:
[French President Jacques Chirac, July 16, 1996:] There are, in the life of a nation, moments which hurt the memory and the idea one has of one’s country. . . . France, the fatherland of the Enlightenment and of the rights of man, land of refuge and asylum, France, on that day, committed the irredeemable. Betraying her word, she delivered her wards to their tormentors . . .
It was Brutus, his adoptive son, who returned, according to the legend, to finish off Caesar, stabbed with dagger strikes; it was Jacques Chirac, the self-styled heir of Gaullism, whose role it was to destroy the Gaullian mystique. The latter was founded upon the distinction between a legal but illegitimate Vichy [regime], a de facto but not de jure authority, and Free France, incarnation of national legitimacy, of the only France, of the France which fights.

If France, on that day, that of the Vél’ d’Hiv roundup, July 16, 1942, “committed the irredeemable,” then France resides in Vichy, and not in London; [Marshal Philippe] Pétain is indeed the head of the French State and [General Charles] de Gaulle returns to being a rebel and seditionist general, sentenced to death in abstentia. . . . This Gaullian mystique had founded the General’s entire political œuvre. . . .

Chirac’s speech consecrated a new approach to the Second World War, seen solely as a battle against Nazism, a regime almost excluded from the human race, outside of Germany and even of history, very different from the struggles between nations for European and global hegemony. A convenient narrative which authorized future surrenders. Even though [the Socialist François] Mitterrand had been the President who had abolished entire areas of French sovereignty by signing the Treaty of Maastricht, he was repulsed by this symbolic renunciation: “Those who demand that France apologize do not love their country.”

Though weakened by sickness[1], Mitterrand had fought, without ever giving way. He had organized a “National Day Commemorating the Racist and Anti-Semitic Persecutions Under the De Facto Authority of Vichy (1940–1944)”, believing this concession would be enough. He had passionately justified this at length before [Sephardic journalist] Jean-Pierre Elkabbach following revelations by [journalist] Pierre Péan on his lasting friendship with René Bousquet, the organizer of the Vél d’Hiv roundup, and the publishing of the infamous photo — which General de Gaulle had declined to make public during the 1965 presidential campaign — where we discover a young Mitterrand receiving the francisque [one Vichy’s highest medals] from the hands of the old Marshal.

President François Mitterrand (Socialist) commemorating the persecutions committed by the Vichy Regime, amidst the hissing of Jewish activists, who felt his concessions did not go far enough, July 16, 1994

On July 16, 1994, Mitterrand endured the hisses of young Jewish activists without batting an eye, making [Jewish politician and President of the Constitutional Council] Robert Bandinter rage: “I am ashamed of you!”[i.e., the Jewish activists] The worst attacks would come from those whom he [Mitterrand] had promoted. [Socialist politician] Lionel Jospin, pressed to draft his “balance sheet,” would cast his small stone: “We would dream of a simpler and clearer itinerary for the person who had been the leader of the French left during the 70s and the 80s. What I cannot understand is the maintenance, into the 1980s, of ties with people like Bousquet, the organizer of the great roundups of Jews.”

Exhausted, on the day of his departure from the Élysée, Mitterrand fulminated still, in the ear of Jean d’Ormesson, against “the Jewish lobby” which had tormented him so.

The expression shocked, repulsed, provoked a thousand virulent attacks against the incorrigible anti-Semitism of President Mitterrand.

[“Nazi hunter”] Serge Klarsfeld was the target [of the comment]. Mitterrand accused him of having moved heaven and earth, French and American Jews, national and international pressure groups, to make him submit. Mitterrand had never given way; Chirac would never even try to resist. Klarsfeld was triumphant. It was the struggle of his life.

Chirac was acclaimed, celebrated by the media and an almost unanimous political class. The media and the left had already forgotten that they had condemned, four years earlier, the “xenophobic” and “racist” Chirac for his comments on “the noise and the odors” [of immigrants], which described the exasperation of the French worker who gets up early, and earns less than his African next-door neighbor does from various social benefits. During this same year of 1991, Chirac’s great rival, [Valéry] Giscard [d’Estaing] had raised the specter of “the [immigrant] invasion” to warn the country of the tragic destiny that awaited it — and to try to resurrect his approval ratings. But Chirac, elected in 1995, had defeated his longtime enemy and his demons. It was time to shed his old skin. They erased the distant traces of “Chirac the Fascist” to write the poetry of “Chirac the antiracist,” a connoisseur of exotic civilizations and primitive arts, the conciliator who did not hesitate to “look upon the history of France with its light and its shadows.”

Chirac, never forgetting petty politics, would overdo it, associating the suffering of the Jews sent to the camps with Jean-Marie Le Pen’s tasteless jokes (without naming him); he even concluded his sermon on the the conflicts tearing Yugoslavia apart with a human-rights-ist hodgepodge. But no one held it against him; this speech on the Vél’ d’Hiv would eternally be held to his credit, even among his fiercest opponents; it would endure as his masterpiece, his legacy to a grateful posterity, his abolition of the death penalty[2].

Serge Klarsfeld’s victory, and behind him, of all those who had expected the arrogant France of “the rights of man” to recognize — finally — her crimes, was total; but it was a Pyrrhic victory.

After Mitterrand’s long resistance, this French atonement was experienced by some as the dazzling proof of overwhelming and insolent Jewish domination, capable of forcing the submission of the leader of the “the fifth-greatest power in the world.” Over many years, the slow elevation of the “Shoah” as the crime of crimes, and of the Jews as absolute victims, had already greatly irritated the survivors and heirs of other historical massacres. Already in 1976, Charles Aznavour, of Armenian origin, had declared, commenting on his song “Ils sont tombés”[3]: “He who does not recognize all genocides does not recognize any.”[4]

The ultimate provocation: Dieudonné awards the “Pariah-hood Prize”
(Prix de l’Infréquentabilité) to revisionist historian Robert Faurisson

The Caribbean Blacks would increasingly take offense at what they felt to be a “double standard.” The victimhood competition of memories, which [historian] Alain Besançon once termed “historical amnesia and hypermnesia,” was the inevitable consequence of this rise of the Shoah as the official religion of the French Republic. The comedian Dieudonné, [Jewish comedian] Élie Semoun’s former partner, was furious at not having found the necessary financing for a film he wanted to make dedicated to [Jean-Baptiste] Colbert’s Code noir,[5] and would become the leading figure of this victimhood competition. With a talented desanctifying earthiness, Dieudonné would accumulate distinctions and provocations, such as the “Pariah-hood Prize” which he had awarded to the Holocaust-denier Robert Faurisson by an actor wearing the striped pajamas of a deportee. The Jewish institutions complained, retaliated, got him sentenced in court, hounded the comedian from television, the radio stations, and even managed to shut the doors of performance halls to him. Dieudonné and his admirers, more and more numerous, in particular among young Arabs and Blacks of the banlieues, were convinced of the irresistible and sectarian power of the “Community”; all the more fearsome in that one did not have the right — like the God of the Old Testament — to pronounce his  [the Jewish community’s] name.

The Dieudonné brushfire was contained for a while; but, thanks to the Internet, his success went on.

President Chirac, however, had to take the frustration of Black activists into account. They, too, got their commemorative day on the Black slave trade, and their memorial law. The slippery slope proved to be diabolical. A law on the Armenian genocide was voted; and the colonial conquests were condemned.

Every “community” demanded its own memorial law and its own commemorative day, its own crime against humanity, its own genocide. Every “community” demanded that the French state repay its debt towards them. France was no longer this venerated lady whose epic deeds were celebrated, but a hated stepmother who had accumulated crimes and injustices which supercilious creditors maintained a fastidious and vindictive accounting. We abandoned the glorious days of those who “died for France” to enter into the bitter days those who “died because of France.”

Everyone dreamed of becoming a victim, of acquiring the power — both real and imagined — which this victimhood had granted the Jews.

A historian was threatened with a trial because he did not want to recognize the “genocidal” character of the Black slave trade; even though he rightly argued that “the slave had to be maintained alive to be profitable.” The most renowned historians defended their young colleague. Finally, the politicians were touched. The historian André Kaspi was charged with examining the question of commemorations in France; he proposed the possible removal of annual national commemorative days. “It is not healthy that the number of commemorations has doubled over the course of half a century. It is unacceptable that the Nation surrender to ethnic interests and that we multiply the days of atonement to appease victims’ group.”

After these strong words, nothing was done. Days of commemoration are now a legal acquis in the name of “the reconciliation of memories.” A splendid anti-sentence.

On July 16, 2012, to celebrate with éclat his recent entry to the Élysée, and to contrast with his predecessor who had thought it good to denigrate repentance, François Hollande denounced “the crime committed in France and by France” [at the Vél’ d’Hiv]. In one sentence, the new President showed the full meaning of his Corrèzian friend’s [Chirac] transgression; he had erased the handful of verbal disclaimers that Chirac had still peppered his speech with. Hollande had eliminated any reference to Germany, to the Nazis, to the war, to the defeat, as if the exterminationist will of the Hitlers, Himmlers, and Eichmanns had been negligible, as if any historical contextualization was superfluous. . . . The survival of three-quarters of the Jews of France was entirely credited to those [few] French, those “anonymous heroes” [as opposed to French society as a whole], the Righteous Ones, thus accepting the materially impossible theory of Serge Klarsfeld. France was this inherently guilty nation for ever and ever. For all eternity.

President François Hollande asserting French national guilt for the deportation of Jews during World War II

[1]Prostate cancer.
[2]One of Mitterrand’s signature left-wing reforms.
[3]“They fell.”
[4] “Qui ne fait pas siens tous les génocides, n’en fait sien aucun.”
[5] The Code Noir was a 1685 decree governing the rules for slavery in the colonies. It incidentally also demanded that “be chased out of our islands all the Jews who have established their residency there, to whom, as with all declared enemies of the Christian name, we command that they leave within three months.”

On Pan-Arab Nationalism, Part 3: Lesson for Europeans

via TradYouth

Despite its failures, Ba’athism does offer European nationalists some positive ideas to apply and perhaps even more importantly, it provides us a fascistic model to follow that is not from 1930s Europe.

Most likely, the various European peoples in North America and a goodly portion of Europe are going to become occupied by the Third World demographic changes. Whites in places such as Colorado, Oregon, Andalusia and Marseille, for example, are going to find themselves living as white minorities in their own county, not unlike whites in South Africa and Rhodesia.

Politically, socially and economically, the reservation lifestyle could become a normal way of life for Europeans. Europeans are therefore going to need an ideology of liberation that breaks them out of post-modern thinking that lead to their subjugation in the place. It is just short of insanity for Europeans to keep seeking answers in the figures, movements and writings of the 1930s in Spain, Germany and Italy or even worse, Dixie in the 1860s.

Ba’athism though, does provide a communitarian framework of sorts, for Europeans to begin the process of liberation. Fascism, Falangism and National Socialism are ideologies of external conquest, whereas Ba’athism is an ideology of internal spiritual awakening that forges an identity, and then can be projected outward. Primarily in the coming resistance to occupation, the ideology must be a shield and sword; a defense against false ideas and a means to liberate from the oppressed. More specifically, a resistance against liberalism and capitalism and a strategic means to bring about a revival of European identity that is separated from liberal Americanization.

Despite the rejection of liberalism that is coming by the Right, certain words and symbols that relate to classical liberalism, such as “liberty,” “freedom,” and “rights” are not going away. They are perhaps permanently ingrained in out psyche now as Europeans, no different than using Arabic script for numbers is a part of our normal daily routine.

Fortunately, Ba’athism’s model does allow for these words and symbols to be used in a positive manner for the liberation of our people from the yoke of bankers, Hispanicization and/or Islamicization. Freedom from, in the Ba’athist sense, will mean liberation from foreign occupation and the corollary being that these lands (Europe and North America) are our lands and not the occupiers.

It should be clarified though that any adoption of Ba’athist principles must come in essence not substance—this is not a cause of Arab liberation in North America or Europe, but rather European liberation with the hope of building a collective European identity and purpose in the 21st Century and beyond. Europeans should not be running around Amsterdam, Seattle, or Perth waving Egyptian or Syrian nationalist flags as a means of Dutch, northwest or Australian liberation, only rather it is time that Europeans educate themselves with and learn to use a new lexicon of ideas that prepares us to break free from the bonds of foreign occupation of financial and demographic control.

White nationalists often cry havoc that whites are going to be exterminated. That is a little overzealous. Whites are always going to be here. They are still living in long lost ancient places such as the Caucuses, Assyria, far western China and the Himalayas. But just because they exist, does not mean they are going to be living in the same manner that they once were, even if it were in their own lands.

The WN movement has been utterly ineffective in the post-World War II world, because it has been zealously committed to reviving the destroyed reichs of the past, whether it was German, Italian, Spanish, Southern or trying to convert Argentina into a Francoist style regime. By realigning our mindset to an ideology of liberation, rather than external conquest, Europeans can actually play into a paradigm of us versus them that is positively predisposed to our benefit, rather than benefiting off the backs of others, as imperialistic thinking demands.

A Critical Look at Pamela Gellar's Well-Funded Subversive Agenda

via The Realist Report

Zionist & "Counter-Jihadist" Pamela Gellar
The Jewish Daily Forward recently published an article about the controversial and well-funded Jewish neocon propagandist Pamela Geller, who is at the center of the alleged "shooting" over the weekend by "radical Islamic extremists" with purported ties to ISIS in Garland, Texas.

Geller, a hysterical and quite vitriolic critic of Islam and the alleged "threat" it poses to Western "Judeo-Christian" civilization, was one of the main organizers and promoters of a cartoon contest that revolved around caricaturing the Islamic prophet Muhammad. The Islam-bashing event was reportedly attacked by radical Muslim gunmen this past Sunday. Unsurprisingly, Geller is also a staunch supporter of the Jewish state of Israel.

The Forward reports:

Pamela Geller has long been written off by mainstream critics as an Islamophobic crackpot.

But Geller, whose anti-Islam event in Garland, Texas, was attacked by gunmen May 3, has had wide-ranging impact, galvanizing opposition to a proposed Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero in Manhattan and forcing city transport agencies to run inflammatory ads denouncing Muslims with a broad brush.

These actions by the American Freedom Defense Initiative, which Geller co-founded five years ago and which organized the Garland event, are winning increasing sums from financial backers.

The AFDI received almost $960,000 in donations in 2013, according to the group’s most recently available tax return. That’s up from $160,000 the year before and $19,000 the previous year, when the group was launched.

The steep increase in donations allowed AFDI to spend almost $400,000 in 2013 countering what it describes in tax filings as acts of “treason” committed by federal and state governments, the mainstream media and others “in their capitulation to the global jihad and Islamic supremacism…and the rapidly moving attempts to impose socialism and Marxism upon the American people.”

That same year, for the first time, the group was able to pay Geller a salary of almost $200,000.

Geller, who is Jewish, did not respond to questions from the Forward asking the identity of the AFDI’s major funders.

The Forward did locate $100,000 of funding to AFDI given anonymously via a Jewish charity. The donation, received in 2013 and 2014 from a private donor or donors, was sent through the Jewish Communal Fund, a donor-advised charity that allows the original funding source to direct where it wants its donation to go while masking its identity.

Geller, who is a wealthy, divorced mother of four from Long Island, has come a long way since she launched a blog, Atlas Shrugs, in 2005, in response to the 9/11 terror attacks. The website’s name is a tribute to libertarian ideologue Ayn Rand, whose novel, “Atlas Shrugged,” warned of the dangers of a regulatory government.

Geller has been at the forefront of campaigns against an Arabic-language school in Brooklyn and against the proposed Park51 Islamic Center that was to be located two blocks from Ground Zero in Manhattan.

But it is her writing and speaking, on her blog, in books, media appearances, and at events, that have been most effective — and incendiary.

For more than 10 years Atlas Shrugs has been a clearinghouse for the vilification of Islam. In it Geller depicts Western society as ever on the brink of collapse. Judeo-Christian civilization is under constant attack from radical Islam. The imposition of Sharia law in Europe and America is never far away.

She and AFDI co-founder Robert Spencer were barred from entering the United Kingdom in 2013 and branded by the British Home Office as leaders of “anti-Muslim hate groups.”

Before the Garland shootings, the AFDI was probably best known for running controversial ads on public transportation systems in cities such as New York, Boston, and Philadelphia with messages like “Islamic Jew-Hatred: It’s in the Quran” or “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.”

Many city authorities rejected the ads. But with the help of an anti-Islamic lawyer, David Yerushalmi, the AFDI prevailed on free speech grounds and forced city transportation agencies to run its ads. [...]

Geller is an outspoken free-speech advocate. Ten years ago, she republished on her blog controversial cartoons of the prophet Mohammed, which were originally published in a Danish newspaper sparking violent protests and death threats. She staged this month’s event in Garland partly in response to the deadly terrorist attack by Muslim extremists on the offices of the satirical French newspaper Charlie Hebdo, which had also published images of Mohammed.

The AFDI event, held on the evening of May 3 at the Curtis Culwell Center, was an exhibit of entries to an AFDI-organized Mohammad cartoons contest. The group spent $10,000 on security for the sold-out crowd of more than 200 people.

Geller, Spencer and Geert Wilders, a Dutch anti-Islam campaigner who addressed the crowd, were unaware of the brief gun battle that raged outside during an assault by two attackers armed with assault rifles, until a private security guard told attendees they were on lockdown. The two gunmen, Elton Simpson of Phoenix and Nadir Soofi, were shot dead by police before they could enter the building. A security guard was shot in the ankle.
As indicated by The Forward's report, Geller is an extremely well-funded, influential, and quite subversive propagandist. She is one of the leading promoters of anti-Islamic sentiment, which is designed to reinforce and perpetuate the false "Global War on Terror" narrative and hype the alleged "threat" Islam poses to the Western world.

It must be noted that while Islam itself does not pose a threat to the Western world, millions of non-White Muslims flooding into Western Europe and America as "refugees" and "political asylum seekers" most certainly do. (See here for just one horrifying example.)

Westerners are propagandized by individuals such as Geller, and the Jewish media generally, to literally hate Islam and Muslims, to blindly send their sons and daughters thousands of miles from their homes to fight a faceless, largely manufactured enemy commonly referred to as "radical Islam". Mysterious groups, who often have ties to Western and Israeli intelligence agencies and other front organizations, such as al-Qaeda and more recently ISIS, are endlessly hyped and demonized in the media, perpetuating the never-ending, truly Orwellian "Global War on Terror," in which Israel's geopolitical adversaries in the Middle East - Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Muammar Gaddafi's Libya, and now Bashar al-Assad's Syria - are systematically dismantled and destroyed using the military, economic, and human capital of the West, paving the way for Zionist hegemony in the region.

While Americans specifically and Westerners generally are expected to despise Islam and the Muslim world, they are at the same time expected to welcome these very same people their governments and militaries are brutally murdering and occupying in the Middle East as refugees and "persecuted minorities" in the West. If this isn't the definition of insanity, I do not know what is.

Additionally, and needless to say, Geller's writings, speeches, and overall worldview, which reach millions of Americans and others in the Western world, also reinforce and perpetuate the official conspiracy theory explaining the events of 9/11.

Of course, serious investigators, journalists, professional scholars, and architects have debunked virtually every single aspect of the official conspiracy theory explaining 9/11, which is repeatedly promoted by the mainstream mass media, political establishment, and subversive propagandists like Pamela Geller. It has now been conclusively established that "radical Muslim terrorists" connected to Osama bin Laden did not carry out the 9/11 attacks.

Indeed, there is absolutely no proof Muslims did 9/11. All evidence and logic points to 9/11 being carried out by the Jewish state of Israel working in conjunction with Jewish criminals operating at the highest levels of the United States federal government and mainstream mass media. In short, Jews did 9/11, not Muslims.

Pamela Geller and her network of high profile anti-Islamic activists, spokesmen and politicians effectively function as official propagandists for the Jewish concocted "Global War on Terror," a paradigm of American foreign policy that has been officially sanctioned and codified as a result of 9/11 by successive presidential administrations. This obvious conclusion should be drawn by any rational, objective investigator critically looking at Pamela Geller's well-funded and entirely subversive political agenda, one which is designed to support and advance the interests of Jewish neocons operating in the United States.

Interview with Jack Sen, Part 1

via The Occidental Observer

The Occidental Observer Editor's Note: Jack Sen ran for a seat in Parliament representing West Lancashire. Until less than a week before the election, he was running under the banner of UKIP, but he was suspended from UKIP for an interview he gave a South African organization, the European Knights Project (posted on April 12), and for tweets received by Luciana Berger, a Jewish woman who is a Labour MP.  He has kindly agreed to respond to written questions.


UKIP is obviously struggling to not be seen as “racist” in order to be acceptable to the establishment and to White voters who fear and loathe multicultural UK but are unwilling to vote for a party labeled “racist” in the media. Is there a disconnect between White voters likely to vote for UKIP and the UKIP leadership?

Firstly, I’d like to sincerely thank you for giving me an opportunity to speak to your audience. You do very important work.

There is definitely an enormous disconnect between people on the ground — parliamentary candidates like myself and unpaid volunteers that support us with our campaigns — and the people running the party.

There’s no denying that the vast majority of the noble people supporting our efforts are salt of the earth, red blooded Englishmen that want real change and to see a return to the Britain we all knew and loved. That’s evident from the sorts of conversations I’ve had at local meetings and convention dinners. The average UKIP supporter recognises the catastrophic damage Cultural Marxism has had on our homeland and supports us — even offers up his time and money — in the hope we (UKIP) can make a difference. They might not recognise the Jewish element to Cultural Marxism, however they certainly recognise the impact liberalism has had on our society. From the intentional breakdown of the traditional family, to the pushing of alternative lifestyle choices on our youth, Leftists like Ed Miliband have reshaped British society from the council estates to the countryside.

Much like the Labour Party, UKIP relies upon societal discord to peddle its policies and candidates. Although people on the ground, with a genuine love of country, are buying into the ‘Take Back Britain’ message UKIP is peddling, I am not convinced the people running the party care one bit about this country.

If UKIP were to come to power, they’d push a domestic agenda similar to Margaret Thatcher’s, highlighted by deregulation, privatisation, crony capitalism, and the implementation of policies that for all intents and purposes prey upon the disenfranchised, albeit nostalgically portrayed working man. I recognized that quite early on and it’s part of why I started to have issues with the party.

UKIP’s intentions to privatize the National Health Service, frack our beloved English countryside, sell us out to their cronies in the City (equivalent of Wall Street), cut taxes for the wealthiest Britons, kill ‘mansion’ and inheritance taxes while reducing public sector expenditure, never sat right with me. This is even before I recognised how cosy with Jewish organisations UKIP were.

I suppose a fair comparison would be to your Republican party, who appeal to working class Whites to get elected but systematically oppose their interests once in office.

I merely think of Ted Cruz — a man that I believe is being groomed to be the Republican Party’s presidential candidate by Jewish special interest groups. This is the sort of scoundrel that would do well in UKIP. His slightly ethnic face, nationalistic façade, and, most of all, his big business pedigree would propel him to the top in my party was well.

Where the Republican party and UKIP differ is on foreign policy. There is certainly a perversion of patriotism and true ethno-nationalist sentiment in both parties, but UKIP still has a more isolationist foreign policy than your Republican party, which appears to rely on Jingoism and the demonisation of the Islamic world to push its Zionist agenda. From what I know about American politics, and how Jewish special interest groups have infiltrated a Republican Party once highly distrusting of Jews, I’m concerned that it won’t be long until we see the same sort of agenda in UKIP. Someone like Paul Nuttall — UKIP’s second in command — would sell his soul for much less than what the Zionist lobby handed the Reagan Administration.

With Jewish-owned newspapers like the Daily Express already cosying up to UKIP, I think it is only a matter of time before we see the same sort of impact this side of the pond as well.

There are many White voters who fear and loathe multiculturalism because they realize that these policies are against their interest. Nevertheless, they are afraid to explicitly identify as a White person who has interests as a White person because of media pressure and other types of social pressure, such as loss of job. We call such people implicitly, but not explicitly, White. Do you think it’s fair that Jews, Muslims, and other minorities are free to organize and attempt to explicitly advocate their interests while explicit mentions of the interests of the traditional people of the UK are banned from the mainstream media?

Not only is it unfair that indigenous English people can not fight for their interests; I say English as it’s become perfectly acceptable for Scots to fight for theirs north of the border, it’s downright destructive.

I recall the former leader of the British National Party (BNP), Nick Griffin, being invited on BBC’s Question Time simply so the Leftist audience and the program’s Leftist and non-white pundits could have a go at him. During the hour-long program, Griffin referred to the indigenous English population’s interests. As soon as he uttered the term indigenous the audience attacked.

Griffin asked the predominantly White pathologically liberal audience why they didn’t think that White English people should have their rights protected and interests served, and what was wrong with referring to English people like my mother, as indigenous. He was heckled, shouted down and made to feel truly unwelcome. It was quite upsetting to be honest with you.

The shouts of racism and anti-Semitism from the predominantly White upper-middle-class audience, were quite alarming. His suggestion that it was unfair that there were no organisations representing indigenous English interests was met with extreme hostility, in spite of the fact that he was right. Although I don’t agree with all of Griffin’s views, I certainly feel that the indigenous population that have inhabited the British Isles for thousands of years are being sold out, need a voice and their rights protected.

Sadly, UKIP, regardless of what we’d like to believe, does not offer that voice. In fact it is also why UKIP explicitly bans any contact with the BNP and any other ‘nationalist groups’.

When you enter the party you have to state for the record that you’ve never been a member of the BNP. You are then grilled quite hard about your past political involvement when you go for your parliamentary candidate assessment. Prospective members of Parliament like myself would be immediately banned from the party if it was discovered we attended BNP meetings in our youth.

Although UKIP claims that this is due to the stigma attached to the BNP I am not convinced. I personally don’t think UKIP cares about ethnic interests. From the sorts of chaps I see at the events and drivel emanating form their mouths, it’s quite apparent that UKIP’s agenda starts and ends with big business.

Politicians must necessarily be concerned about winning elections, not necessarily saying what they really think. A recent survey found that 25% of British adults would like all immigrants repatriated.  Do you believe that even though UKIP leaders have moderated their tone on many issues (e.g., advocating a points-based immigration system rather than one that explicitly favors the interests of the traditional people of the UK), that their true opinions are more radical and that in power they would in fact attempt to put into place policies that would favor the interests of the traditional peoples of the UK?

People on the ground are certainly quite hard line on immigration. It is in fact the reason why UKIP has seen such a massive increase in popularity. In my constituency, and in the north of England generally, there are areas that are 100% Muslim, others that are predominantly Polish, and the average Brit feels marginalised and a stranger in his homeland.

A few months back, one of my constituents in fact walked into a housing estate that had been taken over by immigrants from an Eastern bloc nation and literally started hacking random strangers with a katana sword. His reason? He was tired of seeing foreign flags hanging out the windows of the former English estate, and listening to people shouting in a foreign tongue in town. Those were in fact the reasons he gave the magistrate if I recall correctly.

And it’s far worse in areas where Muslims have taken over. Islamic immigrants from the Middle East and Pakistan have no desire whatsoever to assimilate, and have all but teamed up with the Labour party to destroy Britain from within. Many of my supporters are cognisant of the fact that I am staunchly anti-mass immigration and have pledged their support for my candidacy due to my hardline approach.

Although I would say that the average UKIP supporter would love to see unruly, ungrateful, and unassimilable members of our immigrant population repatriated, the same can not be said for party leaders I’ve had conversations with. In fact I regularly received complaints from HQ that my local UKIP West Lancs website was too focused on immigration and critical of foreign-born people. I was even accused of anti-Semitism from a prospective member of Parliament because I dared ask if we’d be permitted to live in Israel or Saudi Arabia if we chose not to abide by their nation’s laws. Quite remarkably I was asked to remove ‘Israel’ from that sentence as it was ‘anti-Semitic’. Although at the time I thought nothing of the exchange, I now realise it was a sign of what would ultimately define my candidacy.

With that said, UKIP is still more critical of our immigrant newcomers than all the other political parties; just for the wrong reasons.

I recently wrote an article arguing that in some parts of the U.S. it would be a good tactic for a candidate to be explicit about White interests. Do you think that might be possible now or in the near future in the UK? That is, could a candidate talk explicitly about the costs and dangers to White Britain and still be elected in certain districts?

Although it certainly seems logical, that’s not on the cards at the moment in this country. One need only look at the fall of the BNP to know that although some elements of Britain’s population do think in this manner, English law all but prohibits race-based discussions taking place on a political level — unless you’re a minority, of course. The BNP, the sort of party that would advocate repatriation, was literally wiped out at the polls, receiving a measly 1,667 votes in all 650 constituencies at the general election. That was down 99.7% from 2010.

Unlike in the US, where you are protected by free speech laws, we simply aren’t allowed to express our opinions freely. Criticising Jews for example can literally get you locked up. In your country the Ku Klux Klan and Black Panther Party are permitted to stand on the street corner and canvass with messages based purely on racial animus. Although people are persecuted for criticising Jewry, you’re still legally allowed to do so under your First Amendment protections. In Britain, making an off-colour Facebook post with the word Jew in it might land you in prison. In fact a few years ago some local agitators decided to have a go at Liverpool Labour MP, Luciana Berger, and she had them locked up for what amounted to a little ‘trolling’.

In Britain, we aren’t allowed to criticise people based on race, even if it’s in a genteel manner and for the common good.

Besides, most of our society has been reprogrammed to such an extent we would rather allow our daughters to be raped by Muslim grooming gangs, our sons beaten to death by groups of Black ‘youths’ menacing our inner cities than be perceived as being racist. The fear of being branded homophobic is even more intense.

Jewish media influence at home and in Hollywood, and the Leftist educators behind the indoctrination of our children, are behind this madness.

To be perfectly honest, we Brits are almost pathologically politically correct. Not to the extent a nation like Sweden is, but nevertheless we are quite useless when it comes to discussing the importance of race as a determinant of anything.

To answer your question, there is a segment of the population that would certainly support policies that promote indigenous English interests, but based on the decline in numbers the BNP have see this past decade, I’m not so sure people are ready for it just yet.

They might talk about wanting the country back, but supporting a party that discusses race would be a bit much for most people to support openly.

Relevant to the last point, I am very happy that you are continuing your election campaign despite being suspended from the party. Do you think that voters in your district will be put off by the controversy surrounding you? Will you lose votes or gain votes? Can you tell our audience a little more about the incident that resulted in your suspension?

Thanks for your kind words Kevin. I never entertained the idea of dropping out of the election even after my suspension. Although I immediately recognised that my campaign had been ruined and UKIP wanted me out, I was not about to allow a vile woman like Luciana Berger, who has ruined a lot of lives over the years, do me in.

I was lucky in the fact that it was after nominations were closed and UKIP were unable to remove me from the ballot. Although I wasn’t 100% certain at the time I’d still be on the ballot, I knew if I was, I’d press on.

Regarding the reason for my suspension: I was removed for insinuating on Twitter that a local Labour MP Lucy Berger of Jewish origin had dual loyalties between England and Israel, and because I dared to address the genocide of Western European people in the Old and New Worlds. I was also informed that an interview I gave the European Knights Project, where I hinted at the Jewish nature of Marxism and other destructive anti-Western movements, had something to do with their decision.

Although the Tweets were relatively innocuous, within minutes of the story breaking, UKIP suspended me. The story took on a life of its own, and within an hour or so my name was on every news channel in Britain. My mother rang me hysterically from more than 400 miles away informing me that news of my ‘anti-Semitism’ and subsequent suspension had been on the BBC ticker, and I was out the party and election. I myself only found out when a BBC reporter rang me, as my own party didn’t have the decency to ring me. (They still haven’t.)

Nigel Farage even took time out of his busy schedule to shame me on the national news. That’s how much pull these people have.

The Jewish News, the site that I believe first released the story, wrote:
Following calls for swift action from community leaders, A UKIP spokesperson told Jewish News: ‘Jack Sen, a UKIP candidate, has expressed views that in no way reflect the views of the Party and any other of our hard working dedicated candidates. In the light of these and other comments Mr Sen has been suspended from UKIP with immediate effect.’
From running a pretty successful campaign to being dumped for a pretty harmless Tweet was quite a shocker. To say that it sent me reeling would be an understatement of the grandest proportion.

Making matters worse was the fact that I’d merely stated what most of Liverpool also thought about Berger — that she was not an ‘authentic Labour’ candidate due to the fact that she had been parachuted into Liverpool by the Labour Party elite, was born and raised in wealthy West London, educated at an all-girls boarding school in Hertfordshire and groomed for the job by Lord Greville Janner, the Zionist Jewish peer who has been investigated for paedophilia on numerous occasions. Berger having “divided loyalties” stemmed from the fact that she had professionally lobbied for our money to be sent overseas while serving as the Director of Labour Friends of Israel.

Everything I said was based on truth. The only mention of Berger’s Jewishness came from a Wikipedia quote, pulled from the internet.

I am certain even Berger, who has an uncanny ability to feign moral outrage over any criticism directed her way, knows the Tweets were fair, but decided to use them to her advantage, as she has in the past. I’m not the first person she has gone after for non-existent anti-Semitism, and I am certain I won’t be the last. By now I’m certain Ms Berger has the Jewish News and groups like ‘Hope not Hate‘ on bloody speed dial.

Regarding my chances: the polls actually closed about 45 minutes ago. I am actually working on this interview while waiting for the results to come in. I thought it would be good to finish the interview before my views were skewed by the results of the election.

Although my area is staunchly Labour, and based on my analysis, about 40% of my electorate realize that I am no longer representing UKIP, I still think I have a chance to get a good result. In 2010 the UKIP West Lancs candidate finished with only 3% of the vote. I expect I will get between three and five times that. Because people do tend to vote along party lines in Britain I expect I will lose a few thousand votes as a result of the suspension.

(Update: I received 12% of the vote,taking in more votes than UKIP MEP’s Paul Nuttall and Steven Woolfe, both of whom were high-profile prospective members of Parliament who also stood in northern England.)

Being suspended as unceremoniously and publicly as I’ve been definitely impacted my chances negatively. I was in the midst of a highly co-ordinated campaign that was making incredible gains. My goal of reaching 20% is now impossible due to the fact that many people think a vote for me is a wasted vote — sentiments expressed by many people I meet on my travels and who write to me via my website.

I’ve encountered scores of people that believe that if they vote for me their vote won’t count, so it’s been tough.

I had no idea whether I’d even be on the ballot or that I could campaign during the home stretch due to the fact that no one from head office would respond to my emails since my being suspended. I was blocked by my advisers on social media and literally shut down during the last week — the most important week, of the campaign. The only emails I received from HQ were ones accusing me of being anti-Semitic and informing me that I had been suspended.

I was literally attacked in every major newspaper. Nigel Farage held a press conference to tell the nation how much of an embarrassment to the party I was. Paul Nuttal, UKIP’s deputy, immediately gave a speech in which he ripped me to shreds, claiming extremists like myself had no place in the party and UKIP would stomp on people like me. The buffoon used a whole lot of hyperbolic language — never revealing what I’d said, just that it was anti-Semitic.

Being betrayed in this manner because of Jewish pressure has been a bitter pill to swallow. Nigel was in fact the reason why I became involved in UKIP, and for Paul, the local MEP for the northwest — someone that I have socialised with on several occasions — to attack me publicly as he did, tells me the people running UKIP are immoral and unethical … and not for me.

Another result of the suspension has been the hatred I have received from local Leftists, who feel that because I have been suspended for ‘racism’ from ‘racist’ UKIP that they have the go-ahead to attack me.

This past week our chairman received several hate-filled letters, one of which included my postal leaflet in it. Some miscreant decided to scrawl a Hitler moustache on my face, drop an SS officer’s cap on my head and scribble in the names of Himmler, Goebbels and other well known Reich officials below the faces of my council candidates.

I believe that the menacing letter was only sent because I was publicly reprimanded for criticisng Jewish hegemony over this country and our way of life, and other off limits topics.

Then there’s the impact it has had on my ability to campaign.

This past weekend I was accosted by a group of Labour campaigners demanding that I leave the market square as I was a “racist, an “anti Semite” and “Nazi”. They engaged me in an aggressive manner waving their fingers in my face. Although I was out-numbered— I was only with my wife and baby daughter, I stood my ground and the cowards scurried off back to their holes before things got out of hand. Some lovely elderly ladies that happened to support my message, helped defuse the situation.

A man with a conspicuously strong Scouse (Liverpool) accent — the region where the aforementioned Luciana Berger represents — attempted to drown out my legal right to canvass by shouting the word “anti-Semite” at me each time I attempted to engage people in Ormskirk (the regional seat).

It is my belief many of these people were paid by Ms Berger’s office to attack me during my scheduled street surgeries as their being at my events was too convenient. The fact that it never happened prior to the Berger Tweets tells me all I need to know.
Let’s just say that it’s been a tough go since Berger manufactured claims of anti-Semitism.

People often ask me why I was suspended for what amounts to a jibe at a rep from another party.

UKIP simply decided that it was better business sense to appease an influential Jewish group that funds them in London, than stand by their parliamentary candidates.