Jun 8, 2015

'“Refugee' Invasion Is European Suicide: Europeans Have a Choice -- Wake-up or Die

via American Renaissance

American Renaissance editor Jared Taylor explains how African boat people exploit the humanitarianism of Europeans. He concludes that Europeans have a choice: "Wake up or die."

Moral Fraud

via Age of Treason

Listen Now

Concerning elementary morality and the moral inversion by which the active promotion of jewish interests is regarded as right and good for everyone, including the Whites jews demonize, while any expression of White interests is treated as wrong and evil for everyone, including Whites themselves.

This moral fraud is driven more or less directly by jews for the benefit of jews. It both enables and is enabled by jewish power, flowing from the highest levels of government and mainstream corporate media outward.

The jew-driven anti-White guilt-trip harms Whites, causing confusion and even psychological problems. To the extent White “pathological altruism” (see the two previous podcasts) plays any role it is clear that jews are the racial aliens whom White leader-traitors treat most obsequiously. The most poisonous policies (e.g. welcoming invaders and punishing “holocaust denial”) are enacted to satisfy the jews, in spite of the desires of the majority of Whites.

Multiculturalism “moral duty” for Germans, Fria Tider (“Free Times”, nationalist media), 4 May 2015 (automated translation from Swedish):
Germany has a moral obligation to accept more immigrants from the third world than any other country. The reason is the German people’s “barbaric” past, according to the Jewish Central Council President Josef Schuster.
It was during a ceremony commemorating the 70th anniversary of the liberation of the Dachau concentration camp as Schuster declared his harsh judgment upon the German people.
- Germany has spent so much evil to the world. We are deeply indebted to so many countries – we are the last country that can afford to reject refugees and persecuted, he said, according to Junge Freiheit.
Germany is currently the country in the EU, alongside Sweden, currently receives by far the most asylum seekers. The massive inflow has aroused strong protests – which among other things has manifested itself in the Islam-critical demonstrations organized by People’s Movement Pegida.
Josef Schuster took the opportunity during his address to go to the furious attack against Islam critics, which he says makes him “feel bad”.
- When I see that at least 10,000 people in Dresden cheering for an Islam-haters and right populists like Geert Wilders, so I feel bad.
The Jewish leader also emphasized that prisoners who sat in Dachau had to watch how a “supposedly civilized people” as the Germans could turn into a “people of the barbarians”. That “certain citizens” now speak ill of asylum seekers and Jews makes you forced to question how it really stands out with respect for “human dignity” among the German people, he noted. Schuster rounded off by demanding that the government spend more money on fighting right-wing extremism.
German Embassy on Twitter: “In 2015, we are celebrating 50 yrs of GER-Israeli ties. More about this important partnership: http://t.co/6CCrY4asfO http://t.co/YMW7l9BcN8″, 7 May 2015.

German Missions in the United States – German-Israeli Relations:
Germany is profoundly aware of the special responsibility it bears toward the Jewish community and toward the State of Israel as a result of the crimes of the Nazi regime. This responsibility, a cornerstone of German policy, requires remembrance, reconciliation and ongoing vigilance – now and in the future.
Graffiti was evil and beyond mere mischief, Derby Telegraph, 8 May 2015:
Mr Fisher, the father of two mixed-race children, put up street adverts. The nursery logo shows three children, two white and one of mixed race, holding hands together.
What could be more innocent or warming than that, you might think?
But to one or more people, it seems that it was so incendiary that they slapped on stickers announcing that “multiculturalism is genocide”.
Just to add to the menacing effect, a skull and crossbones was also featured.
Who are these people? There can be no question this was an impromptu act. These stickers had been printed, a calculated act to spread whatever perverted message the offenders want to portray.
And what is the message that they want us to accept? That allowing children of different coloured skins to mix together at nursery is a practice which will lead to death and destruction of our civilisation?
Genocide – the word has such horrors, ironically being brought into play as we mark the 70th anniversary of VE Day and victory over a Nazi regime which practised it.
German Left Haunted by the Holocaust — Split Over Israel, Forward.com, 10 May 2015:
Growing up in reunified Germany, Eva Meyer remembers being overwhelmed by the Holocaust studies that were part of each school year. Meyer and her classmates were assigned to read books about the Holocaust. They heard personal stories from Holocaust survivors. They had to write essays about the Holocaust, too.
Learning so intensively about the horrors committed by Germans left her feeling shame and guilt, Meyer said. But that same education communicated something else:
“There is Israel, and that’s the solution,” Meyer said, describing the role that was assigned to the Jewish state in her education. “That’s the salvation. It makes you feel better. All the shame and guilt is not that bad, because there is Israel and everything is fine now. And whatever Israel wants — give it to them. And whatever a Jewish person wants — don’t ask, just give it. That’s what I learned about it.”
Even as Germany’s conservative Christian Democratic government reaffirms its historic commitment to a special relationship with Israel, public opinion polls show that 62% of Germans overall view Israel negatively. A 2012 survey by the German magazine Stern found that 59% of Germans described Israel as “aggressive.” Seventy percent agreed that Israel pursues its interests without consideration for other nations.
Presidential Proclamation –Jewish American Heritage Month, 2015 | The White House
As we celebrate the rich heritage of the Jewish American community, it is impossible to separate their accomplishments from the struggles of Jewish people around the world. American Jews have worked to strengthen the promise of religious freedom because their ancestors were tested from the moment they came together and professed their faith. Today, they continue to teach us empathy and compassion, inspired by the lessons of their parents and grandparents who knew how it felt to be a stranger, and to stand up for a more perfect Union for all — relentlessly pursuing tikkun olam — because they have always understood that we must recognize ourselves in the struggles of our fellow man.
This year, Jewish American Heritage Month begins as the world commemorates the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Dachau by American soldiers, and we are once again reminded that the vibrant culture of the Jewish people has not always been embraced. As tragic events show us all too often, Jewish communities continue to confront hostility and bigotry, including in America. Our Nation shares an obligation to condemn and combat anti-Semitism and hatred wherever it exists, and we remain committed to standing against the ugly tide of anti-Semitism in all its forms, including in the denial or trivialization of the Holocaust.
Jewish American Heritage Month 2015:
Even those Jewish soldiers and sailors who were serving elsewhere in World War II understood that defeating the Axis would be a defeat for blind hatred of any ethnic group or nationality.
Blind hatred better describes the behavior of the White Allies in that war. The jews, in contrast, were far more conscious of exactly who they hated and why. They were enraged that the Germans recognized them as racial aliens and had rebelled against their rule.

Counter-Currents Radio: Greg Johnson interviews Richard Edmonds is well worth a listen. Edmonds describes the hostility of the contemporary (judaized) British establishment and the BBC toward the native Britons. He traces it back before WWII. He describes how they deceived Britons on immigration, how the Tory (torah) party leaders repeatedly “played the race card”, intimating they’d stop immigration only to increase it once in office. He notes the moral tone of the establishment’s post-war narrative being typified by (jew) Studs Terkel’s The Good War.

This is the moral fraud. That war was good for the jews. For Whites it was an unmitigated disaster.

American Capital's Love Affair with Soviet Communism

via Radix

Soviet Communism has not been fashionable in elite media and academic circles since 1992. Stalinists are now more often depicted as “conservatives” than leftists, and Communism is seen as a symptom of “nationalism.” A BBC documentary on North Korea declared that country to be a “fascist dictatorship,” on the “right of the political spectrum.” Apparently, if we are to condemn something in the modern world, it must be right-wing. 

From a historical perspective, Communism was never really viewed as the enemy by American policymakers. Nationalism was. It has been difficult to discern this, since the true nature and motivations of U.S. policy-making have been shrouded by the myth of the Cold War—the notion that the U.S. and Soviet Union were engaged in an all-or-nothing battle between Freedom and Socialism, with the soul of the world hanging in the balance. In reality, the U.S. and Western Europe invested billions of dollars in the Soviet economy. And at critical times, the USSR was bailed out by cheap grain sales from Archer-Daniels-Midland and other conglomerates.

There was a Cold War of sorts, but it had little to do with “fear of Communism,” which policymakers did not fear nor properly understand. The real antagonism arose when the East sought to create a large, powerful trading bloc outside Western control. Then—and only then—would chatter about “tyranny” and the “Red Menace” be heard. Even in those exceptional times, corporate America continued to invest in “building socialism.”

So it is not entirely surprising to read that President Ford refused to meet with Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, so as not to “prejudice” Brezhnev at a summit held later. Reagan did the same, only meeting with liberal dissidents like Andrei Sakharov. Both Presidents, ostensible “anti-Communists,” were willing to work with Soviets and liberals—but never Russian nationalists.

Sanctions have been put on Putin's Russia that would never have been advocated at the height of the GULAG system. Indeed, the President of Russia has been the target of what scholar Stephen Cohen calls “ongoing, extraordinary, irrational, and nonfactual demonization” from the West. No Soviet dictator was treated so harshly. While Washington was never close to an armed conflict with the Soviet Union, today, a shooting war with Russia is a very real possibility.

The West is deeply indebted, bereft of leadership, and slowly falling into poverty. Yet Washington’s main foreign-policy objectives are to overthrow pro-Russian governments in Uzbekistan, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, and Armenia. At a low point in American legitimacy, Washington is willing to risk a nuclear war.

In such a context, antiwar protests have been conspicuously absent, mainly because the corporate behemoths that financed them during the Cold War are no longer engaged. There is no peace movement calling for negotiation with Russia, just like there is no peace movement protesting the absurd Afghan war. The U.S. engages in provocative war games in Ukraine and Bulgaria with little domestic protest. This would have been unimaginable during the Cold War. The “no nukes” groups no longer exist, precisely at the time where nuclear war is actually possible.

The U.S. defends the “integrity” of Ukraine today, but demanded her independence during the Soviet era. The U.S. sends agents into Ukraine to overthrow the government, but refused to countenance the idea in 1956 or 1968. The U.S. military is lauded, by Left and Right alike, as heroic, superhuman, and morally spotless. Yet soldiers coming home from Vietnam were attacked physically by protesters at the behest of major media. Apparently, for the official Left, we can peacefully coexist with the USSR; however, nationalist (and non-Communist) Russia is a threat to us all.

To understand this mentality, one must turn to the untold story of the Cold War.

The Greatest Open Secret

On December 17, 2014, the Obama administration rescinded the “trade embargo” on Cuba. Many jumped to the conclusion that Cuba was the last front of Washington’s battle against socialism and Marxism. Nothing can be further from the truth. The West built socialism, not only in the early stages but throughout the Soviet period. (Cuba was exceptional, owing mostly to its geography.)

Bolshevik and early Soviet leaders were open about their desire to bring Russia up to speed with the industrialized West and their willingness to collaborate with European and American firms. In turn, Western capitalists envisioned the Revolution and development of Socialism as an opportunity for Russia to enter the global market. Jacob Schiff—of Kuhn Loeb and Company and the founder of the American Jewish Committee—is probably the most notorious Western capitalist who financed Socialism. According to his grandson, Schiff donated some $20 million to Trotsky to finance world revolution, which would amount to a quarter of a billion in today’s dollars.[1] While Schiff was eager to overthrow regimes (such as Tsarist Russia) that he viewed as threats to the Jewish people worldwide, other American capitalist saw Bolshevik Russia as an investment opportunity.

A key to understanding this relationship between Big Business and Communism is the Congressional Overmann Commission of 1919, a document that is universally ignored by standard texts on the Cold War. The Overmann Commission was called, in large part, to gauge the opinions of American capitalists regarding the USSR. The consensus was that it was quite positive.

One who testified was Roger Simmons, from Hagarstown, Maryland, who was in a Commerce Department Mission in the USSR as Trade Commissioner with the Red State. He was there for 11 months in the transitional period. His entire purpose was to help build the Soviet Union through grants and raw materials from the U.S. He attended a huge business consortium taking place in Grand Rapids, Michigan, where about 800 businessmen were deciding how best to begin investing in the USSR. He spoke of their “misinformed” admiration for the Soviet Union and the potential for profit there. [2]
George A. Simons, the head of the Methodist Mission to Petrograd, noted, “I have a firm conviction that this thing is Yiddish, and one of its bases is in Brooklyn, NY” [3]. (It’s worth noting that Simons said this even though he publicly disavowed anti-Semitism.)

Raymond Robbins, who was part of the Red Cross in Petrograd and elsewhere from 1917-1918, described the work of William Thompson, a wealthy banker negotiating loans for the Soviet government, who used the Petrograd branch of the National City Bank to funnel about 12,000,000 rubles to the revolutionaries (not merely the Bolsheviks), which was, in 1918, about $1 million. Moreover, he was speaking to the Red Cross about coordinating an infrastructure for an entire set of new newspapers supporting the revolutionaries.

What becomes clear in the testimony is that even the most motivated Americans had no idea who was who. There was a sense that there were leftist “revolutionaries,” and that's where the bulk of foreign money went. The Red Cross was granted about $3 million monthly, from both private and state sources in America, to “interpret the revolutionary groups to the army and to peasant villages of how absolutely indispensable to save the revolution to keep the front and defeat the German militarist autocracy.”[4]

This dirty secret of western economics is rarely mentioned, let alone analyzed, by major historians. One of the few is TW Luke writes, who studied Soviet technology.
The Bolsheviks stressed to Soviet workers, managers, and intellectuals the centrality of industry over agriculture in the NEP of 1921. Trotsky notes, 'We [the Soviet Union] are in a process of becoming a part, a very particular part, but nonetheless an integral part of the world market . . . Foreign capital must be mobilized for those sectors of [Soviet] industry that are most backward.' . . . These technological imports were to be limited because the Bolsheviks recognized the dangers of dependencies on the core, especially technological dependence. For example, resolutions of the 14th Party Congress in 1925 stressed the 'whole series of new dangers' in Western trade and advocated domestic technical development to prevent the USSR from becoming, in Parrot's words, 'an appendage of the capitalist world-economy'. Still, as Sutton notes 'the penetration of early Soviet industry was remarkable, Western technical directions, consulting engineers and independent entrepreneurs were common in the Soviet Union.' Even so, throughout the 1920s the Soviet state tightly regulated foreign access to suit its technological needs.[5]
Not only did the U.S. and Western Europe build the USSR, but did so as their own populations were struggling. The West was so involved in the development of the USSR that the 14th Party Congress, mentioned above, was concerned about the loss of Soviet independence.

Luke continues,
The impact of imported technologies differed from industry to industry and from region to region. In the oil industry, for example, they were vital. Petroleum exports in 1926-1927 doubled 1913 exports. Alone, they provided 20 percent of Soviet foreign exchange earnings: 'the importation of foreign oil-field technology and administration, either directly or by concession, was the single factor of consequence in this development (Sutton, 1968:43). While the overall imports of expertise and technology dropped in value from the 1893-1913 levels, the Bolsheviks' bureaucratically planned economy stressed the need for post-1918 imports to be directed toward cost-efficient and economically necessary production to fit the planned industrial program of the regime. [6]
In no other war (“cold” or otherwise) did combatants feverishly invest in building up their opponent.

Had the West not subsidized the USSR, Communism would likely not have survived. Stalin himself admitted that two-thirds of early Soviet industrial products and development were of American origin.[7] Trade and aid to the USSR were constant and often included the most advanced technology available. There were no meaningful sanctions on the USSR throughout most of its history. Hence, the Cuban embargo or the Vietnam War had little to do with Marxism or the USSR. The fact is that the infrastructure of Castro and Ho Chi Minh was largely produced in the US.

The propulsion systems for much of the Soviet Navy and, significantly, at Haiphong Harbor were from American firms. Nixon and Johnson actively went out of their way to stop any move to stifle trade with the USSR, even in the midst of the Vietnam War. The Gorki Truck plant was shipping hundreds of vehicles a month to North Vietnam, with the full blessing of the State Department. It was, of course, a Ford Motors plant, and it was largely staffed by Americans. Henry Ford created the Soviet automotive industry, especially in the development of trucks. His Gorki plant was also making rockets and other military equipment for the USSR, without comment from Washington. Soviet rockets were fired on Ford GAZ-69 chassis.[8]

In 1968, Fiat motors created the world's largest automotive plant in the world at Volgograd. ZIL was created by New Britain Machine Company. In 1972, Nixon personally approved the Kama truck plant deal, the creation of an automotive and trucking plant manufacturing 100,000 vehicles per year, which at the time was more than all U.S. automakers combined. The plant itself came to occupy 36 square miles, every inch created by the U.S.[9]

In Korea, the North Korean Army and China were using trucks made by Ford and tractors by Caterpillar. Soviet fighters were equipped with Rolls Royce engines sent to Stalin by the British automaker. As Anthony Sutton explains, it was the elite, including Maurice Stans, Peter G. Peterson, Peter Flanigan, Averell Harriman, and Robert McNamara, that created the infrastructure for constant and lucrative trade with the “enemy.”[10] The Ural Steel complex that served as the heart of Soviet industrialization was “100% American.” The McKee Corporation built the world's largest steel and iron plant in the world in the USSR:
Organization methods and most of the machinery are either German or American. The steel mill “Morning” near Moscow, is said to be one of the most modern establishments of its kind in the world. Constructed, organized and started by highly paid American specialists, it employs 17,000 workers and produces steel used by motor plants, naval shipyards and arms factories. [11]
The 1932 KHEMZ plant in eastern Ukraine was created by GE, and was 250 percent larger than anything GE had in the U.S.

Anthony Sutton writes:
Major new units built from 1936 to 1940 were again planned and constructed by Western companies. Petroleum-cracking, particularly for aviation gasoline, as well as all the refineries in the Second Baku and elsewhere were built by Universal Oil Products, Badger Corporation, Lummus Company, Petroleum Engineering Corporation, Alco Products, McKee Corporation, and Kellogg Company.[12]
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York sent $1 billion in aid to Trotsky and the Red Army.[13] The First Five year plan had all of its military equipment built by American firms. Sergei Nemetz of Stone and Webber, along with Zara Witkin, supervised most of the military construction for the first two Five-Year Plans, using American capital desperately needed at home. Carp Exports, based in New York City, supplied the Soviet Union with all its high-tech military parts. Electric Boat Company of Groton, Connecticut built the Soviet submarine fleet with express permission of the State Department in 1939. Skoda Armaments of Czechoslovakia was a subsidiary of the Simmons Machine Tool Corporation of Albany, New York. Ball bearings were built in the USSR by Bryant Chucking Grinder Company of Springfield, Vermont.

All told, 90 percent of all Soviet industry was created in the U.S. or Western Europe.
What such a history reveals is that capital does not require markets in order to be profitable. The Western financial elite saw the Soviet system as a perfected version of itself: a totally centralized economy run by experts from one source. Capital looked upon Gosplan—the USSR’s central planning committee—with envy; and it was so similar in its powers to the small group of financial conglomerates that governs the U.S. economy in 2015. The Gosplan board approved investments, set targets, measured economic growth, dictated the amount of money in circulation, manipulated statistics—down to the last detail. This system is little different, institutionally or ideologically, from the American financial elite and the Federal Reserve Board, which organizing the American economy, with remarkable freedom from markets and the influence of politicians.

Once one rejects the formulaic division of the world into “Soviet” and “American” camps, all of 20th-century history appears differently.

One of the most telling quotations is from a Russian-language work, The Political History of the Russian Emigration, written by SA Alexander:
Despite the growing popularity of the right wing in the émigré environment, it is only the leftists that found a response in Western governments. Most significantly, the leftists in exile were feted by the financial and industrial sector interested in trade with the Soviet Union. The “All Emigre Russian Unity” conference was called at the behest of American capital, and the Soviet financial elite were invited. Conferences subsequent to this were called by capital in Cannes, Genoa, The Hague and Lausanne.[14]
Apparently, U.S. capitalists rarely feared Soviet advances.
As an ally of the victorious capitalist core powers, the USSR gained many unexpected technological windfalls in the aftermath of World War II. New technical inputs in weaponry, electronics, nuclear power, aircraft, and chemicals were expropriated from Germany and other Axis powers from 1945 to 1950. Allied Lend-Lease equipment, especially heavy bombers and airplane engines, was also 'reverse engineered' from 1942 to 1953. The USSR dismantled and shipped home 25 percent of the industrial plants in the Western zones of Germany, along with additional industrial equipment constituting 65 percent of all motor vehicle production, 75 percent of all rubber tire capacity, and 40 percent of all paper and cardboard-producing capacity in eastern Germany.[15]
This is extremely significant in that these patents were at least in part financed by American firms. They represent decades of research and millions of dollars in grants. Yet, Stalin brought them home without a peep from the West.

The Vietnam Era

Between 1965 and 1985, the Soviet Union, Cuba, Vietnam and the rest of the Soviet Bloc was given tremendous boosts by American firms. Alcoa built Soviet aluminum. American Chain and Cable created the machine-tool industry. Ingersoll Rand built much of the heavy-duty transport infrastructure (under Automatic Production Systems, a shell company). Betchell created the construction industry. Boeing was heavily invested in Soviet aviation, while, at the same time, building the bulk of the American Air Force. Dow Chemicals, DuPont, and Dresser industries were competing to see who would build the more advanced Soviet chemical plants. IBM helped create the modern computer industry, while Gulf General Atomic was helping put nuclear missiles together for the USSR.

Much of this was made easier in the 1980s by the U.S.-USSR Trade and Economic Council, a pet project of then-Vice President George H.W. Bush and Commerce Secretary Malcolm Baldrige. Just a partial list of members include Abbott Laboratories, Allen Bradley Gleason Corporation, Allied Analytical Systems, Ingersoll Rand, International Harvester, Kodak, American Express, Archer Daniels Midland, Armco Steel, Monsanto, Cargill, Occidental Petroleum, Caterpillar, Chase Manhattan, Pepsi Co., Chemical Bank, Phibro-Salomon, Coca Cola, Ralston, Continental Grain Seagram, Dow Chemical, and Union Carbide. All members of this Council had substantial investments in the “Soviet enemy” and, through their philanthropic organizations, created the “peace movement.”[16]

In 1985, the San Jose Mercury News reported confirmation from State and Commerce Departments that “[t]he most sensitive, state-of-the-art semiconductor manufacturing equipment went to the Soviet Union after first being shipped to Switzerland.
Creed [spokesman for Commerce] said the material shipped to Cuba, and additional equipment the Cubans were unable to obtain, would have given them the capability to produce semiconductors and integrated circuits. The report stated that such trade was “illegal.”[17]
The State Committee of the Council of Ministers of the USSR sealed a huge deal with Data Control in 1973. While openly denying it in public, Norris and the Department of Commerce squashed all inquiries into the investment and aid project. The Soviets stated that Data Control will “[b]uild a plant for manufacturing mass storage devices based on removable magnetic disk packs with up to 100 million byte capacity per each pack.”

The brunt of the Soviet computer industry was created by American firms. In 1959, the Model-802 system was sold to the USSR from Elliot Automation ltd., an English firm. This was part of General Electric, one of the major offenders in this category. European branches of US firms were selling advanced computer equipment to the USSR at roughly $40 million per year.

During the Vietnam War, giants such as Union Carbide, General Electric, Armco Steel, Bryant Chucking Grinder, and Control Data were just the wealthiest of American capitalists with regular deals in building Soviet industry. This was in 1973, and every bit of it was approved by Johnson and Nixon during the war.


By the 1950s, the Soviets had educated enough of their own in Western methods of production such that they achieved a great deal of independence in most every sector of the economy. Regardless, the USSR was fed on a constant stream of food from American capitalists; American universities praised the USSR as a matter of course (or some form of socialism); and all major capitalists enterprises were invested in the USSR and satellite states. Both before and after Stalin's Great Purges, the U.S. was contributing massively to the Soviet industrialization drive and the creation of its “experimental” economy. When the Cold War got hot, such as during the Vietnam conflict, Washington was never motivated by “anti-Communism” but the fear in the breasts of American business that if China and Russia were to combine forces, the U.S. might become superfluous.


  1. New York Journal—American, February 3, 1949.
  2. Overmann, Congressional Record, 294, 304; all pages come from the Report itself.
  3. Ibid., p. 112.
  4. Ibid., 777.
  5. Luke, TW (1983), “The Proletarian Ethic and Soviet Industrialization,” American Political Science Review 77 (3): 588-601, drawing from Antony Sutton, The Best Enemy Money Can Buy (Montana: Liberty House Press, 1986, Dauphin Publications, 1991),
  6. Ibid., 339-340, also drawing on Sutton.
  7. Chase-Dunn, C, “Socialist States in the Capitalist World Economy,” Social Problems 27(5), 1980: 505-525.
  8. See Sutton, The Best Enemy Money Can Buy.
  9. See Berliner, The Innovation Decision in Soviet Industry (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1976).
  10. All evidence from the State or Commerce Departments has not been declassified. Only through insistent demands have these documents been granted to the public. It is highly likely that the unclassified papers from 70 years ago are largely detailed agreements between American capital and the Soviet Union.
  11. U.S. State Dept. Decimal File, 861.5017, Living Conditions/456, Report No. 665, Helsingfors, April 2, 1932
  12. Sutton, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development: 1945–1965, Chapter 4 (Stanford, CA: The Hoover Institution, 1973).
  13. Washington Post, Feb. 2, 1918.
  14. S. A. Aleksandrov, Politicheskaia istoriia zarubezhnoi Rossii, http://www.rovs.atropos.spb.ru/index.php?view=publication&mode=text&id=17, translation by the author.
  15. Luke, “The Proletarian Ethic and Soviet Industrialization,” American Political Science Review 77 (3), 1983: 588-601.
  16. Erikson, 1991.
  17. There is no evidence that any law against such a practice existed. Even if it did, it would have made little difference, since the technology would have already been transferred.

My Journey to Race Realism: Reformers’ Search to Close 'the Gap'

via The Occidental Observer

TOO Editor's Note: The following is the second of two excerpts from an article, “My journey to race realism,” to appear in the Summer issue of The Occidental Quarterly. Prof. Ray Wolters is Thomas Muncy Keith Professor Emeritus of History at the University of Delaware.

First Excerpt: The Burden of Brown

Before 2010, I was aware of evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology.  As mentioned, during the 1990s I began to read American Renaissance, and about the same time one of my chums from grade school and high school, a bank examiner named Gene Stelzer, bent my ear with comments about Darwinism.  Gene was also the first person to call my attention to The Occidental Quarterly, a journal I later came to regard as an indispensable guide to understanding White racial consciousness.  At the University of Delaware, education professor Bob Hampel kept me informed about some of the best recent books in his field, and social scientist Linda Gottfredson told me about gene-culture co-evolution.  But from mainstream historians I heard and read nothing about Darwinism or the interaction of culture and genes, and my own written work was still based primarily on archival research.  It was not until 2010, when I was laid low by lung failure and could no longer rummage through archives that I began to read deeply and to think seriously about evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology.  As it happened, at this time I was also thinking about the modern school reform movement, which since about 1990 had become, above all else, an effort to close the achievement gaps that show American Blacks and Latinos lagging behind Whites and Asians on standardized achievement tests.

In some ways, the reformers’ concern with test scores is surprising.  In recent international comparisons, African Americans have done better on standardized tests than Blacks in Africa or the Caribbean.  Hispanic Americans have done better than Hispanics in Latin America.  White Americans are doing better than students in other predominantly-White nations (except Finland).  And Asian-American students have done as well as most students in Asia — and better than those in Korea or Japan.  These results were achieved, moreover, at a time when an increasing proportion of American students were being reared in single-parent families and a growing proportion of parents did not speak English.

One might have expected much praise for America’s schools, but this was not the case. Instead of praising schools for America’s strong showing on international comparisons, school reformers blamed the schools for failing to eliminate differences in the average academic achievement of America’s different racial and ethnic groups.  Reformers lamented that on most tests the racial and ethnic achievement gaps were almost as large as they had been in 1954, when the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its landmark decision on school desegregation, Brown v. Topeka Board of Education.  Eighty-five percent of Black students, and 75 per cent of Latinos, still scored below the median for white students.  And because of this, reformers insisted that American schools and teachers had failed.[1]

To overcome this failure, reformers initially insisted that more money should be spent for public schools that enrolled large numbers of Black or Latino students.  But the gaps persisted despite the equalization of funding.  In fact, the gaps persisted even in areas where the expenditure for Black and Latino students was larger than the expenditure for White and Asian students.  In predominantly Black Kansas City, where the expenditure per student was increased spectacularly, scores on standard achievement tests actually declined.[2]

When that happened, reformers blamed teachers for the persistence of racial and ethnic achievement gaps.  Instead of acknowledging that even capable teachers would fail if students were not motivated or lacked an aptitude for school work, reformers insisted that things would be better if the American educational system were re-fashioned. Reformers maintained that racial and ethnic achievement gaps could be closed if there were better teachers, and the best way to get better teachers was to fire the teachers whose students made low scores on standardized tests, to hire replacements on probationary contracts, and to keep only those teachers who excel in raising the test scores of their students.[3]

As they moved from one proposal to another, school reformers insisted that there were no important racial differences.  They said race was “only skin deep.”  And when “better teachers” failed to close the gaps, reformers adjusted once again and demanded that more government funds be spent on child care, on early childhood education, on pre-Kindergarten programs.  They believed, as Professor Robert Weissberg has noted, that racial and ethnic achievement gaps could be closed, if only reformers could monitor the ways that Black and Latino parents interacted with their two-, three- and four-year olds.   Steve Sailer concluded that many reformers believed that Black children should be “kept away from their families and raised by Whites and middle-class Blacks.”[4]

Race realists and evolutionists, on the other hand, did not think that racial disparities in education could be eliminated.  They believed, rather, that the disparities were, as John Derbyshire put it, “facts in the natural world, like the orbits of planets.  They can’t be eliminated by social or political action.”[5]

By the end of the twentieth century, a gulf separated race realists, evolutionary theorists, and most genomic scientists from school reformers, mainstream historians, the major media, and most social scientists and public leaders.  Leading evolutionists and genomic scientists believed in the biological reality of race and also thought that racial and ethnic achievement gaps were inevitable products of evolutionary adaptations.  These evolutionists and genomic scientists were, in John Derbyshire’s phrase, “Biologians.”  On the other hand, most school reformers, public leaders, and mainstream writers were “Culturists.”  They said human evolution stopped when our species emerged from Africa to populate the rest of the world.  They maintained that the accidents of history and climate, culture and geography, account for any variation in the distribution of human characteristics.  They said that, with the right sort of social reforms, ethnic and racial achievement gaps could be abolished.[6]

I lack the scientific expertise to decide definitively in favor of either the Biologians or the Culturists, but I think the weight of the evidence favors the Biologians.  One decisive factor for me is that Culturists insist that environmental factors — not just the above mentioned accidents of history and climate, culture and geography, but also poverty, family traditions, marital instability, discrimination, and White and Asian privilege — are entirely responsible for the racial and ethnic gaps in academic achievement. Culturists reject the idea of gene-culture co-evolution.  They say that IQ and other inherent qualities are not in any way responsible for the gaps.  Culturists are absolutists.  Biologians, on the other hand, are “50-50 people.”  Culturists think that culture is “everything.”    Biologians concede that culture matters but insist that evolution and heredity also count.

The Biologian approach impresses me as more sensible, although as noted I do not have the scientific knowledge to decide this question.  What I do have is an interest in telling stories that are based on research.  With that in mind, I have written a history of school reform, The Long Crusade: Profiles in Education Reform (2015).  Three of my chapters describe leading progressive reformers: Jonathan Kozol, Howard Gardner, and Theodore Sizer; three more chapters describe the work of educators who favor “back-to-basics” approaches: Chris Whittle, Robert Slavin, and E. D. Hirsch; another three chapters focus on reformers who are associated with Teach for America and its progeny; and the final chapters describe three critics of school reform, Diane Ravitch, John Derbyshire, and Robert Weissberg.  Without exception, the reformers are Culturists, while one of the three critics (Derbyshire) is a Biologian and another (Weissbeg) leans that way[7]

The reformers have differed with one another in many respects.  For all their differences, however, the progressive, traditional, and new-wave school reformers have one thing in common.  They have failed to close, or even to significantly narrow, the racial and ethnic achievement gaps.  As noted, at the time of Brown v. Topeka Board of Education (1954), about 85 per cent of Black students, and 75 percent of Hispanics, scored below the median for White and Asian students.  And in the twenty-first century, the disparities are just as great.  The one exception is among Black and Hispanic students who attend highly structured elementary and middle schools operated by the Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) and some KIPP clones.  I believe this outstanding achievement is due, at least in part, to the fact that KIPP and the KIPP clones enroll students who are not representative of the generality of students in their neighborhoods.  In general, the story of school reform is a story of many failures.  One is reminded of Thomas Edison’s unsuccessful efforts to make synthetic rubber in his laboratory.  After many, many botched efforts, Edison refused to admit he had failed.  Instead, Edison said he had discovered “99 ways not to make synthetic rubber.”  Eventually, synthetic rubber was produced, and it’s possible that our desperate gap closers will also succeed someday.  But I doubt it.[8]


[1] The best known of the many tests are the NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) and the PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment).  For discussion of these tests, see Paul E. Peterson Saving Schools (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010), 271 and passim; and Raymond Wolters, The Long Crusade: Profiles in Education Reform (Arlington, VA: Washington Summit Publishers, 2015) 428–437 and passim.
[2] Joshua M. Dunn, Complex Justice: The Case of Missouri v. Jenkins (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2008).
[3] For extended discussion of this point, see my new book, The Long Crusade: Profiles in Education Reform, 1967-2014 (Arlington: Washington Summit Publishers, 2015).
[4] Ibid.; Robert Weissberg, “Why Biology is a Friend of Liberty,” Vdare.com, January 27, 2011; Steve Sailer, “Obama’s Universal Preschool Push,” iSteve.blogspot.com (May 11, 2009); Sailer, “The Test Score Gap,” Vdare.com, 7 October 2012.
[5] Raymond Wolters, The Long Crusade, passim; John Derbyshire, “Remarks at a Panel Discussion.”
[6] For more on “biologians” and “culturists,” see John Derbyshire, We Are Doomed (New York: Three Rivers Press, 2009), Chapter 7.
[7] Raymond Wolters, The Long Crusade: Profiles in Educational Reform (Arlington, VA: Washington Summit Publishers, 2015).
[8] Statement of Thomas Edison, quoted by Jack Perkins in his documentary film, Thomas Edison: Father of Invention (released August 5, 1996).

Racism and Sexism Viewed as Aristotlian Virtues

via Alternative Right

Aristotle: the original shitlord
For Aristotle there were always two vices for every virtue. This was because of his belief in the “Golden Mean.” For example, the virtue Courage existed between a vice of deficiency (Cowardice) and a vice of excess (Rashness).

To emphasize the metapoint: Aristotle saw all vices as existing on a continuum with all virtues, with no wall between them. This is very different from the Manichean morality that later poisoned the West through Judaic theology. What happens, however, if we apply this Aristotelian analysis to the major “vices” of the modern day, namely “Racism” and “Sexism”?

Of course the liberal left, with its agenda of deconstructing all elements of identity above the atomistic individual, seeks to impose its totalitarian will through a variation on this Judaic Manichaeism called “political correctness.” The sins of “Racism” and “Sexism” are accordingly seen as evil essence that must be expunged from society and all intellectual discourse through a no-platform, knee-jerk, quarantine, point-and-sputter approach. Despite its crudity and lack of sophistication, this approach has been highly successful at imposing liberal extremism on the West. But it is clearly an approach that is at odds with an Aristotelian viewpoint, not to mention intellectualism and reason themselves.

Aristotle, were he alive today, could easily have slotted these supposed vices into his system. The only problem would be whether these supposed vices – or degrees of them – were vices of excess, vices of deficiency, or actually virtues.

One problem with the Judaic, Manichaeistic, all-or-nothing approach is it does away with gradations, degrees, balance, and context, which are at the heart of the Aristotelian system. But if “Racism” is seen as part of a continuum of vice-virtue-vice, then the question arises of how much of whatever Racism is is good?

Some idea could be derived from considering Aristotle’s other virtues – Courage, for example. It is clear that Aristotle is taking a functional view of these virtues and that Courage is preferred because it is more likely to achieve optimum results than either its paired vices, Rashness or Cowardice. On occasion, however, Rashness and Cowardice may in fact have higher functionality than courage. What was Thermopylae but a heroic act of Rashness that served to galvanize other Greeks, while Pericles’s wise policy of avoiding land battles with the Spartans and sticking to naval battles could be seem as an example of sensible Cowardice. Rather than the crude and primitive moral “essences” that the Left prefers, the Aristotelian approach to virtue requires constant analysis, contextualization, and validation through results. Aristotelian morality is rationalist morality.

Functionality is the defining aspect of these virtues. Courage exists because battles need to be won, enemies defeated, threats defied, oppression challenged, etc. This raises the question, then, of what is the functionality of the vice-virtue-vice continuums on which Racism and Sexism exist?

Sexism is the easiest to start with as it pertains to the relationship between men and women. We can easily conceive of what a healthy relationship between the sexes looks like, and while many of the details – such as who wears the apron – could be open to debate, the most unquestionable aspect would simply be healthy reproduction rates relative to environment.

This picture so triggered a liberal that it had to put a cross over it.
Sexism that did not achieve this would obviously be vicious, while Sexism that treated the woman as a mere baby-factory-until-death, "fuck bucket," possession, or working drudge would also be obviously vicious. Socio-economic and environmental factors could, of course, impact on this equation to a significant degree. In earlier societies women would have to be treated as drudges and baby factories to a certain extent, as that was the necessity of the times.

This means that vice and virtue have historical aspects. But, from our modern Western point of view, with our women having less than replacement birthrates, we can unequivocally say that we are suffering from a marked deficiency of Sexism that we can label "Feminism," and that what is required is clearly more Sexism, i.e. forcing or encouraging women to take up a more traditional role as mothers.

If this is taken too far, to the point where we treat our women the same way that they are treated in backward Muslim and African countries, then we would be involved in a vice of excess, that we could term "Hyper-Sexism." This would be an ill fit with our ideal of a technologically and culturally advanced, high-nurturing society; although it may actually have a certain rationale in those backward Muslim and African countries, as well as in parts of the welfarized West.

The functionality of Racism is not too difficult to elucidate either. It could be defined as maintaining and protecting the security and identity of the racial or ethnic group in question, without provoking undue enmity. In this respect it becomes abundantly clear that the modern West has a major racism problem in that it does not have enough racism. In 1965, Whites were 90% of the US population. They are projected to become a minority within less than a hundred years from that date. Western Europe faces a similar threat.

These facts on their own imply a serious lack of Racism among Whites, although part of the problem is also a deficiency of Sexism. This vice of deficiency of Racism can best be called Anti-Racism (as Race Blindness is a psychological impossibility). There is some question of what the vice of excess would look like in this case, but perhaps this could be defined as an attitude that creates a general sense of opprobrium for the group concerned that threatens its power, position, and survival in the wider world.

Black Hyper-Racism feeding on past White 
Hyper-Racism and present White Anti-Racism.
Historically, given the way subsequent events turned out, 1930s Nazism and 1980s Apartheid South Africa could be seen as examples of the vice of excess Racism (Hyper-Racism). If Nazism had adopted a less confrontational and more gradualist approach to solving its Jewish problem and revanchist claims, it could have perhaps avoided the vice of Hyper-Racism and its historical consequences. In the case of 1980s South Africa, given the global moral climate at the time, a more acceptable form of White power would have been partition into racially discrete states. Apartheid actually pushed in this direction in a very limited form with the creation of token Bantustans, when what it should have been doing was defining a White homeland with defensible boundaries. That would have provided a much more virtuous form of Racism and a much smaller target for the enemies of the White race to attack.

While Whites in America constantly suffer from a lack of virtuous Racism, American Blacks on the other hand provide a good example of an excess. Nowadays Blacks have little to fear from Whites, unless directly confronting a police officer (who happens to be White), nevertheless, as a group, they blame Whites for everything that is wrong with their lives, with zero gratitude for the fact that most of their handouts are paid for by White taxpayers.

Some might say that historically Whites treated Blacks with excessive Racism, for example Segregation and Slavery, but even that is questionable. Seen in their true historical contexts, both Segregation and Slavery benefitted the Blacks in question. From a racial rather than economic point of view, Slavery was essentially the relocation of Africa’s excess population, which would not have survived otherwise, to new lands that Africans were incapable of colonizing themselves. As for Segregation, it is clear that it did much to impose a degree of discipline on Blacks so that they could function reasonably well within the majority White society. Since its dismantling, Black communities have practically disintegrated.

By definition, Hyper-Racism needs to harm the group practising it, either by destructive external effects or destructive internal effects. The former case works by bringing the state or group in question into such a degree of opprobrium that other groups feel incensed or justified enough to attack it. This is essentially what happened to the slave states that made up the Confederacy in the American Civil War, although it is possible to detect additional motives for that increase in Federal power. American Blacks today, however, are an example of the destructive internal effects of Hyper-Racism. This is because White Anti-Racism for the time being prevents negative negative external consequences.

American Blacks clearly suffer from an excess of Racism. This limits their ability to function in the wider society they find themselves in and predisposes them to welfarism, amoralism, alienation, and criminality, factors that can only harm them in the long-term. The best proof of this is that Blacks who overcome or control their Hyper-Racism and practice simple Racism, tend to become reasonably successful in modern America.

It may be impossible for all Americans to achieve a Golden Mean of Racism, but, if it is possible, it would probably involve Whites being more racist than they now are and Blacks being a lot less racist.

Moral Particularism and the Imbalance of Nature

via Western Spring

In this modern age of concern for environmental issues, many people and even some naturalists who should know better, often talk of the ‘balance of nature’, and in reference to the impact of mankind’s growth and expansion across the globe, are highly critical, citing current trends as evidence that ‘we’ are “destroying the planet”.  Worse than this however, is the tendency to view the lifestyles of the indigenous peoples of the ‘developing world’ as being ‘in harmony’ with nature, while blame for ‘the destruction of the planet’ is directed towards the peoples of the West, as further evidence of our ‘innate wickedness’.

In fact, while ‘Green’ politicians, environmentalists and ‘eco-warriors’ often talk vaguely of ‘mankind’ destroying the planet, such people are invariably of a liberal or Marxist disposition and the culprit they really have in mind and all of their venom is directed towards White people and what they see as Western culture and Western civilisation. It is in fact a central tenet of the egalitarianism, humanism and the moral universalism that permeates all of what is currently viewed as progressive and politically correct discourse, that a state of worldwide ‘harmony with nature’ and between the races, religions and nations of the world should be the primary goal of mankind.

Even some nationalists position such a state of worldwide ‘harmony between the nations’ and between mankind as a whole and the planet as their ultimate objective. The only difference between such ‘nationalists’ and those of a Marxist outlook being that while Marxists envisage such a world in which all of mankind are corralled into a single global super-state, the ‘nationalists’ envisage such a world composed of ‘independent’ nations living as a kind of ‘patchwork quilt’ of cultures and ethnicities under the supervision of a benevolent over-arching global administration of some kind. Indeed, Greg Johnson the Editor in Chief of Counter Currents, proposed the creation of just such an administration while speaking at the London Forum on 11th April this year. He spoke of the need for , “… some kind of order, some kind of organisation, some kind of forum, where people who are broad-minded can come together to mediate the conflicts that inevitably arise from the more narrow, particular, partisanships and duties that we all have”.

united nationsGreg Johnson was expounding upon and advocating the ideas of Gottfried Lessing, suggesting that mankind needs the direction of an ‘eternal conservative freemasonry, and began by stating: “We believe that the best, most harmonious and well-functioning societies are racially, culturally and linguistically homogeneous.

“We believe that the best constitution is not a one size fits all, totalitarian, ‘boiler-suit’ …, it’s a unique garment tailored to fit the distinct genius of each people.

“We think that there has to be some sort of supra-political or trans-political order to mediate disputes amongst us and to co-ordinate our relations with other racial and civilisational blocs, like Islam, India, Africa, China and so forth”.

Greg Johnson thought this was necessary in order to promote “human solidarity” and “to think about the common good”.

Of course, such ideas appear quite laudable in a superficial sense, especially against a backdrop provided by the egalitarianism, humanism and moral universalism of the modern, ‘progressive’, politically correct milieu in which many of us currently swim.  Harmony and moral universalism go together like ‘love and marriage’, like a ‘horse and carriage’ to paraphrase the words of a song, but moral universalism — incorporating soppy romantic notions such as “human solidarity”, ‘global harmony’ and ‘harmony with nature’ – is the foundation stone of both Marxism and liberalism.

I don’t wish to disparage Greg Johnson and other nationalists who have also fallen into the trap of embracing moral universalism in the hope of justifying their vision of nationalism to a politically correct world, I believe their intentions are good, but the natural order is not one of harmony, because harmony requires stasis, and as we all know the natural world is not and never has been static. The one constant in all of time and space and throughout the universe is ‘change’. Change is the engine that drives evolution and it cannot happen in a universe that is static, in which all of the forces are in harmony. It can only happen in a universe in which the competing forces are out of balance – where a state of imbalance or disharmony exists.

Nationalists who argue for a ‘harmony of nationalisms’ have unfortunately allowed themselves to fall under the influence of a kind of ‘intellectual Stockholm Syndrome’ and this comes from an over-enthusiastic embrace of ‘meta-political’ discourse in which one immerses  oneself in the arguments of our enemies in the hope of justifying our own political outlook to those same enemies. There is an old saying attributed to Alexander Pope: “Vice is a monster of so frightful mien. As to be hated needs but to be seen; Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face, We first endure, then pity, then embrace.”

Gottfried lessingThere is a lesson to be learned here, as nationalism, especially racial nationalism, differs fundamentally from liberal and Marxian ideologies in that it must be based upon moral particularism, i.e. based upon the premise of ‘what is good for our race’. Anything that promotes the survival, proliferation and advancement of the White race is good. Anything that militates against the best interests of the White race is bad. This is and must always be the bedrock of our ideology!

If we return to the arguments of the Marxian environmentalists, we find them advancing two basic ideas:

The first is that ‘we’, that is ‘mankind’, must bring our consumption of the earth’s resources into balance with the planet’s ability to renew those resources, thereby creating a situation of ‘harmony with nature’; and the second, is that ‘we’, that is the White people of the West, must help the peoples of the ‘developing world’ to acquire their ‘fair share’ of the planet’s resources and enjoy their ‘fair share’ of its wealth – thereby creating a situation of ‘equality’ and of ‘harmony’ between the nations, races and ethnic groups.

In order to shame us in the West into agreeing to this, we are told about our ‘carbon footprint’ and told that in order for all of the people of the world to enjoy a standard of living equivalent to that which exists in the West, it would require several planet earths — 3.6 planet earths to enjoy a British standard of living or 5.3 planet earths to enjoy an American standard of living. This is supposed to make us feel that we are being unnecessarily greedy and what seems to evade most people is the logic that:
 If we are to achieve parity of wealth and resource consumption across the world, we are either going to need several planets in order to provide the necessary natural resources, or the standard of living for people in the West must be reduced several fold until it matches an only marginally improved standard of living for the far greater population of the developing world; and perhaps it was not such a good idea to encourage the peoples of the ‘developing world’ to want and/or expect a Western standard of living, something they cannot have without massively damaging the interests of the White nations of the West?

Lord Jim 1

During the 19th and early 20th Centuries we in the West dominated the world and we could have fashioned it in any way we chose. Had we set about creating an alliance among the White nations of the world, the resources of this planet would have been sufficient to cater for our needs even with considerable population growth amongst our peoples, and we could have looked forward to massively increasing our standard of living and our technological prowess, such that interplanetary travel would already have been possible well before the advent of the current century.

The non-White populations of the world were kept in check by poverty and disease and their own inability to counter these phenomena, and they neither had nor aspired to our standard of living and if we had not persuaded them that they are our ‘equals’, they never would have. The non-White populations of the world would have gradually dwindled, and as their need for land and natural resources diminished, we of the West could have colonised the newly available living space.

The world today would have seen an almost worldwide White Imperium with technology far in advance of that we have today and already beginning to colonise other planets — expanding the ‘final frontier’ — taking our civilisation to new worlds – going where no man has gone before!

As it was, with such immense possibilities available to us, our leaders were  literally ‘spoilt for choice’ and with no pressure and no threat from a natural enemy, our governments decided instead that uplifting the conquered peoples of the colonies was a more pressing priority. Instead of asking themselves, ‘what is good for our race’, they chose instead, that which was good for others and which it has turned out, has been bad for the White race.

Good for the JewsImbued with the moral universalism of a religion given to us by Jews, who ironically practice a separate religion that exhorts them to always ask, “is it good for the Jews”,  and filled with ‘righteous’ zeal for ‘the Lords work’, Christian missionaries took White man’s medicine and gave it to the natives. They built houses and roads and railways, and hospitals and schools, and they taught the natives about the White man’s ways, encouraging them to want to be like us and have the things we have. And so the natives increased in number and eventually wanted to rule themselves, and we let them.

They continued to increase in number, even though their crops began to fail and their people became malnourished, and we responded by giving them more medicine and more food-aid, but this was not enough. The bourgeoning bio-mass of their people cannot be sustained under their own administrations and so in their millions they are now invading our homelands in a seemingly endless flood. They want our life chances and our way of life. They want what we have and in order to get it they are literally prepared to risk death.

They want what we have and they will not stop coming until there are so many of them here, our wealth and resources are spread so thinly, that the average standard of living in the West has been reduced to Third World levels. Only when there is no advantage to them coming here will they stop coming, but when that day comes, if nothing changes, our White nations will be no more. We will have been swamped, displaced and crowded off the face of the earth.

We in the West have become like the proverbial old lady who befriends a couple of bedraggled cats she finds in her garden and begins to leave food out for them, eventually allowing them into her house. As time passes more cats begin calling at her home, and more, and more. Eventually a neighbour realise that the old lady has not been seen for weeks and when police break down her door, they find her emaciated and partially decomposed body  lying amongst the litter left by literally dozens of feral cats. So concerned was she to feed each one of these ‘needy souls’ that she neglected to provide for herself and eventually succumbed to starvation and hypothermia.

We should not hate the immigrants who come to this country, because they are only doing what nature has programmed them to do, what all of our people would be programmed to do if it were not for the constraints of moral universalism. They are simply seeking and doing what is necessary to acquire the good things in life. They are doing what is right for them, their families and their race, and they are not pre-occupied by the consequences of their actions for us. The plight of our people and our survival does not inhibit them or even factor in their thinking and this is why we too must begin to ask what is best for us and to act accordingly.

Now let us for a moment consider what would happen if the wealth of the world could be spread evenly among all of the peoples of the world and a situation of ‘harmony’ is established. To examine what would happen next, we should look at the indigenous peoples who currently do live, apparently, in ‘harmony’ with nature.

Amazonian Natives

If we examine the indigenous natives of the Amazon basin, we find that they began to live in ‘harmony’ with their environment some ten or twenty thousand years ago.  A price they have paid for that ‘harmony’ however is that their culture has remained stagnant throughout that time. They were not able to change their way of life or introduce any innovation without disrupting the ‘harmony’ they had created, and so they stagnated and retained a stone-age culture and a stone-age existence.

Within such groups, each day involves the same routine as the previous day and each individual leads a life that is identical to the life their parents led and it is not surprising that among such people they have no sense of time — they live in the present – they know only what is ‘now’. When they think of the past, their lives are indistinguishable from their parent’s lives and all of their forebears before them. Their memories blur into one collective ‘memory’, in which their past is the same as their parent’s past and their past is the same as their present. When they try to think of the future, they can only imagine days that are the same as today, in which either they or their children will do the same things they do today and again, their future blurs into their present. For them every day is ‘Groundhog Day’.

In our world of ‘harmony’ therefore, all human progress will gradually stagnate, because any change to the way people live, the introduction of any technological innovation, will require the consumption of more resources and that will disrupt the harmony. It will disrupt the delicate balance that will have been achieved between the quantity of resources available and the size of the population capable of being sustained.

One way to increase the resources available per capita, will be for certain people to be denied the right to reproduce, or for people to be limited to one child per couple, but we all know how successful that policy was in China!

The result of striving for global ‘harmony’ would be humanity trapped in a state of cultural and technological stagnation – humanity preserved in ‘aspic’ – a planetary living museum, where everyone lives the same lives their forebears lived and every day is ‘Groundhog Day’.

Some people will accuse me of exaggeration and bias in projecting such a dystopian future, but let us examine one very telling factor: On May 25, 1961, President John F. Kennedy announced before a special joint session of Congress the dramatic and ambitious goal of sending an American space mission to the Moon before the end of the decade. His goal was achieved on July 20, 1969, when Apollo 11 commander Neil Armstrong stepped off the Lunar Module’s ladder and onto the Moon’s surface. Between 1969 and December 1972, five further lunar missions were achieved in which men landed on the Moon, and up until 1976 there were further unmanned lunar missions, but none since. It is not that we don’t have the technology to land men on the Moon, the USA simply cannot afford the cost in terms of resource consumption.

Man on the Moon

Next year will be the 40th anniversary of the last time mankind landed a craft of any kind on the Moon, and the 44th anniversary of the last time a man walked on the Moon and we must face the possibility that a lunar landing may never ever happen again!

Our generation may be the generation that witnesses the ‘tipping-point’ at which increasingly the constraints placed upon us are no longer our understanding of technical complexity, but the availability of natural resources. As we increasingly prioritise environmental goals and the achievement of global ‘harmony’, we may be witnessing the point at which the advance of human civilisation finally grinds to a halt!

Evolution requires that life forms expand their numbers and strive to fill every ecological niche with their kind and once one species has achieved that aim, the struggle for an increasing share of finite resources will apply the selective pressure needed for a new sub-species (race) of that original species to evolve, which then expands at the expense of the original population until it too has filled every ecological niche. This is what happened when Homo erectus evolved and spread throughout the inhabitable world driving all previous hominid species into extinction almost a million years ago, it is what happened when Homo sapiens evolved and spread throughout the world, and it is what should and would have happened again at the end of the 19th Century, if it had not been for the lunacy of moral universalism.

Moral universalism is un-natural and counter evolutionary and it is for this reason that liberalism, Marxism and Christianity are aberrant belief systems. Furthermore, it is the disharmony and moral particularism of racial nationalism that is in tune with nature and which provides the hope of a better future for White people. Let us never forget that!

Evolution or Equality? (Pick-One)

via Taki's Magazine

It is impossible to simultaneously understand the theory of evolution and to believe in blank-slate cognitive equality among human groups of different continental origins.

Both propositions—evolution and equality—cannot simultaneously be true. You have to pick one. Choose wisely, because you can’t have both.

Either evolution is a real and ongoing process that has rendered different groups with different mean aptitudes, or we’re all equal—and thus all measurable group disparities in things such as income and intelligence are due to unfairness, hatred, injustice, and flat-out stinking evil.

Yet against all logic and evidence and propelled purely by the smarmiest sort of saccharine emotionality that has ever been shit-sprayed out of human hearts, modern progressives insist that these two fundamentally contradictory belief systems are simultaneously true.

“What sort of person who claims to believe in evolution would deny its fundamental role in shaping human history?”
They insist that evolution is real and that only a dumb hillbilly would not believe in it. But they also insist that evolution had nothing to do with quantifiable disparities between groups in brain size and intelligence, and even if those dumb apelike hillbillies consistently score higher on intelligence tests than your average nonwhite hood rat, well, then, you’re dumb—and evil—for even noticing.

In other words, they want to have their Darwin Fish and eat it, too.

They want their Darwin Fish when it gives them the opportunity to take anyone who refuses to swallow the progressive worldview and mock them as a retrograde evolutionary missing link—a subhuman knuckle-dragging atavistic Neanderthal caveman on the wrong side of history who is about to face a much-needed culling and extinction, as if all that threadbare rhetoric wasn’t itself laced with Darwinian logic and a tacit admission that these phony egalitarians don’t really believe we’ve all evolved equally.

They want to eat their Darwin Fish—or, rather, they want to dispose of it and hide all evidence that it ever existed—when faced with the sheer preposterousness of what they’re proposing, which is that human evolution magically stopped and froze at that mystically indeterminate moment when everyone miraculously reached the cognitive finish line at the same time.

If, controlling for other factors as much as possible, Asians and Jews consistently score higher on intelligence tests than whites…who consistently score higher than Hispanics…who consistently score higher than blacks…well, either the tests are skewed or the results are skewed due to unfairness and hatred and oppression and the pervasiveness of this Ultimate Sin called “racism,” which somehow manages to stain everything despite the fact that race doesn’t even exist. Or they’ll go one step further and say that intelligence is merely a social construct, despite the strong correlation between a group’s mean intelligence and the number of things they’ve invented.

They don’t have any trouble admitting that evolution has rendered these “races” that don’t exist with observable physical differences. In fact, the most egregiously self-hating among them seem to bask in the idea of black physical superiority. They also gloat over the highly eugenic idea of eventual white extinction. When it comes to anything anti-white, they’re about as Darwinian as it gets.

But then they spin around and propose—in fact, they completely depend on—the utterly nonsensical idea that evolution played a decisive role in forming every human organ except the brain. And, perhaps in a slimy act of projection, they’ll call you the dumb one for rejecting their obviously dumb idea.

Our Napoleon

via Counter-Currents

Napoleon has generally been viewed harshly by anti-liberal thinkers, with a few notable exceptions such as Nietzsche and Léon Bloy. A great deal of criticism has been leveled at him. He has been accused of being a mere petty dictator without any higher authority legitimizing him, an enemy of the Catholic Church, a liberal egalitarian who brought the violence of the French Revolution to the legitimate monarchies of Europe in his conquests.

In certain respects, these criticisms have a measure of accuracy. However, the charges of liberalism and illegitimate authority could easily be leveled at the English monarchy following the Glorious Revolution. Indeed the influence on English liberalism on French Enlightenment thinkers such as Voltaire and Montesquieu has been noted. If we are to judge Napoleon, we must judge him compared to his contemporaries. From this point of view, Napoleon’s vision was far wider than any man of his age. His field of view extended across history, reaching back to the glory of the Roman Empire and extending into the future of the Pan-European dream articulated by Third Positionists such as Thiriart in the wake of the Second World War. Moreover, he was not only a geopolitical visionary, but an economic one as well, who fought the forces of usury and advocated a continental autarky. Napoleon was the grandfather of Great Europe, a community of common struggle from Lisbon to Vladivostok.

From a purely practical point of view, preferring the legitimate monarchy of France to Napoleon is unrealistic considering the depths of crisis the monarchy lead France into and the spectacular recovery of France under Napoleon. However, the strongest case against Napoleon is not a matter of practical politics but one of spiritual authority. Napoleon occupied a position belonging to the kings of France, a position that had been sanctified by the Divine Right of Kings. However, venal or corrupt the King was, he still represented a sacred principle. Napoleon, in contrast came to power in a coup, which can be said to represent a “might is right” claim to authority. For a traditionally oriented society, true authority is based on sacred principle not sheer violence, thus rule by a dictator strong enough to keep the country in order is a regression, no matter how effective that dictator is.

However, we must consider Napoleon’s role in the course of history, his evolution from mere officer to Emperor. Napoleon did not overthrow the King Louis XVI; he was not responsible for the regicide. Certainly, he was on the side of the French Revolutionaries in the conflict against the King as a young officer. However, his entry into the world of political power was to seize control of the weak and ineffective Directory that had been established by the Revolution, ending the chaos unleashed by it. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, we can see Napoleon as somewhat of a reactionary, ending the wild political experimentation of the French Revolution, yet this could viewed as simply a pragmatic approach to progress, rather than a resistance to it. When in power he reversed the course of the War of the Second Coalition and led France to a positive peace treaty three years later.

Two years after the Peace of Amiens, Napoleon was crowned Emperor in 1804. We should note that Napoleon refused the consecration traditionally given to the Kings of France, so we cannot say that he had inherited the same type of sacred authority they held. Yet, Napoleon’s coronation was absolutely imbued with divine meaning. He did not receive consecration as the King of France, but as Emperor, and the symbolism he utilized claimed the heritage of ancient Rome and Charlemagne. He received a blessing from Pope Pius VII himself, with whom he had accorded a concordat in 1801, ending the imposed secularism of the French Revolution.

From the standpoint of traditional methods of legitimacy, we can consider the creation of the Empire and the foundation of the Napoleonic dynasty as the Western equivalent to a doctrine found in China, the Mandate of Heaven. According to this ancient teaching, a dynasty that has been shown to lose the blessing of heaven, through signs such as national hardship and catastrophe, can be replaced by a new one claiming the blessing of heaven. While the rebellion itself is not a right and rebellions of those claiming the favor of heaven have been quashed harshly, a successful revolution could be sanctified when the course of action transfers sovereignty to the man who can handle it the best. From the point of view of the Mandate of Heaven, Napoleon had been appointed to replace a dynasty that had lost the confidence of divine providence. While Napoleon’s accession to Emperor had only come after a plebiscite, we can evidently see in the adopted imperial style and through the blessing of the Pope, the transcendence of mere secular, democratic mechanisms of power, towards glorified ideals.

Napoleon’s relation with the Catholic Church would eventually sour, yet that is not a reason to strip him of any sacred authority. We can see in the eventual conflict between Pope and Emperor echoes of the Ghibelline-Guelph conflict of between the Holy Roman Emperor and the Pope during the 12th to 15th centuries. Like the Holy Roman Emperors he asserted the authority of the Empire over the Church. The Ghibelline-Guelph struggle arose from different issues than the conflict between Napoleon and the Pope, which was driven by imperial territorial expansion at the expense of the Papal States. However, Napoleon directly invoked the heritage of Charlemagne as Emperor of Rome, explicitly putting himself as the heir to the spiritual tradition of the Holy Roman Empire, as the temporal lords of Rome. He stated the idea that the Papal States were imperial fiefdoms, “Considering that when Charlemagne, Emperor of the French and our august predecessor, made the donation of several counties to the bishops of Rome, he intended them only as fiefs and for the good of his States, and that through this donation, Rome did not cease to be a part of his empire: that since that time, this mixture of spiritual power and temporal authority has been, and still is, a source of discussion which has too often led to pontiffs using the influence of one to support the claims of another.” While it may look like a sacrilege to claim authority over the Pope, the Imperial-Ghibelline tradition hearkens back to a tradition predating Christianity, though never explicitly claiming to be so, the idea of sacred kingship. Evola lays out this spiritual conflict between Church and Empire in Revolt Against the Modern World:

The meaning of such a struggle, however, eludes both those who stop at a superficial level and at everything that from a metaphysical point of view is regarded as a mere occasional cause — thus seeing in it only a political competition and a clash of interests and ambitions rather than a material and spiritual struggle — and those who regard this conflict as one between two opponents who are fighting over the same thing, each claiming the prerogative of the same type of universal power. On the contrary, the struggle hides the contrast between two incompatible visions; this contrast points once again to the antithesis of North and South, of solar and lunar spirituality. The universal ideal of a “religious” kind advocated by the Church is opposed to the imperial ideal, which consists in a secret tendency to reconstruct the unity of the two powers, of the regal and the hieratic, or the sacred and the virile. Although the imperial idea in its external expressions often claimed for itself the dominion of the corpus and of the ordo of the medieval ecumene; and although the emperors often embodied in a mere formal way the living lex and subjected themselves to an asceticism of power — the idea of “sacred regality appeared yet again on a universal plane. Wherever history hinted only implicitly at this higher aspiration it was the myth that bespoke it; the myth was not opposed to history, but rather revealed its deeper dimension.

The historical figure of the Emperor claiming Rome is the embodiment of this myth, though he may be unaware of it and simply performing his legal duties. This esoteric interpretation of the Ghibelline Holy Roman Emperors is just as valid for Napoleon, as they both demonstrate the conflict between the imperial principle and the Church. Thus what we see is not blasphemy, but the supersession of Christianity by one of the truly perennial Traditional doctrines.


Yet we cannot say Napoleon embodied Perennial Tradition in every aspect of his rule, he was a man of his time, an era riven by strife and spiritual degradation. Napoleon can be rightly criticized from the Right for his acceptance of certain facets of the Enlightenment, notably the elimination of aristocratic privileges and the equality of all men before the law. However, he reversed the most radical aspects of the French Enlightenment, restoring relations with the Catholic Church, scrapping the Republican Calendar, and abolishing divorce by mutual consent. Furthermore, it should be noted that the legitimate monarchies of Europe that Napoleon would fight against were by no means immune to Enlightenment liberalism. The ideas of the Enlightenment in the legitimate monarchies would result in so-called Enlightened Despotism in Prussia, Austria, and Russia under Frederick the Great, Joseph II, and Catherine the Great respectively. Indeed, the same philosophers who inspired the French Revolution were influential to their thinking, Voltaire himself corresponding with both Catherine the Great and Frederick the Great. Britain, Napoleon’s chief enemy was long a fortress of liberal ideology, going back the Glorious Revolution of 1689. Moreover, it was Ango-Saxon liberalism as represented by John Locke that inspired many of the French Enlightenment liberals. While many of Napoleon’s opponents had curtailed some the liberal reforms in response to the French Revolution, it would be fallacious to suggest they were not as much part of the Enlightenment as Napoleon was. Furthermore, on one crucial issue Napoleon was absolutely illiberal, namely his rejection of liberal capitalism.

Napoleon recognized the utility of state credit. In a state credit system the government prints its own money and uses it to buy goods, or loans it to producers at a minimal interest. He repudiated the monetary policies of the French Revolution, where the government paid interest to private financiers who bankrolled the state. Under Napoleon the Bank of France was put under government control and it limited the involvement of private bondholders. During a period of economic crisis 1806 to 1807, the French government used state credit to advance low interest loans to the industries of the nation. Moreover, industrial disputes were settled by government boards rather than the hand of the market. Essentially, Napoleon advocated an autarkic, dirigiste economy, in many respects like the Third Position corporatists of the 20th century. His rejection of the international financial system earned him the enmity of the London based Jewish financier Nathan Rothschild, who gave significant loans to the British and Prussian governments to fund their fight against the Napoleonic Empire. Furthermore, Rothschild used his banking connections on the continent to funnel information to military and government leaders who fought against France. This was certainly not done out of any sense of patriotism or duty, but pure greed. A victory for Napoleon would have destroyed his multinational banking empire. This economic warfare against Napoleon had very important geopolitical consequences.

To counter the English blockade and the English financing of his enemies on the continent, Napoleon developed the Continental System. Under the Continental System, the nations of Europe, including the Austrian Empire, the German States, Russia, the Italian States, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Spain were forced to cut off trade with England. Essentially, Europe as a bloc, was forbidden from the British market starting from 1806. This system was not particularly effective and Russia’s withdrawal in 1810 eventually lead to Napoleon’s disastrous invasion two years later. Yet, ideologically, this was the beginning of a Pan-European ideology. His dynastic ambitions were clearly so, as he placed his relatives on the thrones of Naples, Spain, and Westphalia. In many ways Napoleon saw his Empire as the successor the Roman Empire, through the heritage of Charlemagne. Under him the petty nationalism that kept the peoples divided would be swept away and replaced by a grand European empire. He stated, “I wished to found a European system, a European Code of Laws, a European judiciary; there would be but one people in Europe.”

In this sense we can consider Napoleon the grandfather of Thiriart’s Great Europe, one and indivisible from Lisbon to Vladivostok. Thiriart would articulate the form of a unified Europe in the years following the Second World War until his death in 1992. He wrote, echoing Napoleon’s vision of the Code Napoleon as the unitary law of Europe, “The concept of a uniform legislation is one of fundamental principles of this Empire. Civil laws, criminal laws, labor laws and commercial laws are uniform. Interpretation and application of the law are identical everywhere.” In the area of economics, Napoleon’s Continental System can be seen as a predecessor of Thiriart’s “autarky of great spaces” where Europe would be protected by tariffs from foreign competition and pursue a self-sufficient economic policy. Thiriart viewed the unification of Europe as the result of a historical evolution from city states to nation states to empire.
Napoleon lived that idea, unifying petty fiefdoms and then incorporating them into his empire. Even in defeat, Napoleon drove this historical evolution, inspiring much of the later nationalism that unified the various disparate feudal states of Germany and Italy. His Confederation of the Rhine was the blueprint for the unification of Germany. Though his Empire was perhaps too ahead of its time, it drove the creation of nations from city states, and thus turned the wheel of time towards the future grand empire of Europe.

The Emperor Napoleon stands at a great crossroads of European history: he was the last Roman, and the first European. His electrifying reign transformed Europe, giving it a consciousness of itself, beyond the historical divisions that divided its peoples. His vision spread across the ages, recapitulating the whole of European history from Greece and Rome to his own accession to power, and forging it into the dream of a truly European future, stripped of the tired regional resentments of the past, free from the hand of finance, striving for Honneur et Patrie. This dream did not come to fruition in his lifetime, it is now the responsibility of his spiritual heirs to take up his struggle against the forces of greed and small-mindedness and realize the glory of the Great Europe he envisioned.