Jun 16, 2015

Meta-Community (Self-Employment)

via White Independent Nation

We have thrown down the gauntlet in terms of the requirement to covertly construct White communities within existing White localities. The blueprint for these racially-conscious communities—our burgeoning tribal enclaves—has been made ‘open-source’ because of the need for replication, and we have learned from bitter historic experience that massive umbrella organisations can be effortlessly infiltrated and subverted. But beyond the ordered ethnic hubs we are creating in Britain, we must occasionally unfocus our attention on specific locations and reconsider our own people, the stewards of the race, and contemplate the central skills we will need in order to aid us in the survival, proliferation, and development of our kind.


I have mentioned on many occasions a form of soft activism I term ‘small acts of rebellion’. The consequences of our small and subtly acts of rebellion are two-fold: a) they engender a sense of personal empowerment and a real-world disconnection from the hostile occupation into which we have been born, and b) they provide us with a surplus of free time which would otherwise have been poorly spent in thrall to the chief channel of enemy propaganda: the television, or distracted by absurd ball games, etc.


Before I go any further, allow me to clarify the word rebellion in the context that it is being used. At no point do I employ the word rebellion with connotations being made to violence; it is, in this instance, to be defined as the action or process of resisting a hostile authority, enemy control, and malevolent conventions. Our rebellion is not passive, but neither is it intemperate or fuelled by hatred. Our rebellion revolves around the glowing star of our sacred Idea and the eternal love of our kind.


Tribalism is at the core of our new world perspective and it is the acknowledgement that we, as sole stewards of our precious genetic inheritance, are governed by duty, responsibility, and an almost palpable urgency, and this understanding determines our exertions. Running in parallel with our tactic of small acts of rebellion is the demand to evaluate broader gradations of our dissent against hostile occupation. One such thought must involve the career choices and vocations of our fellows. In keeping with our gradual, though inexorable, detachment from an inimical regime, our objectives must be to assist the adherents of the Idea in becoming an integral part of a meta-community, of which our racially-conscious communities will, in the fullness of time, be made strongholds.


It is an essential aspect of our struggle against oppression that the stewards of our race become as independent as is possible from every mechanism of our pervasive draconian society. Our small acts of rebellion merely represent the prelude to what is to come. The second stage in our liberation is the move towards the wide-spread self-employment of the self-appointed stewards. But in order to achieve this goal, all adherents to the Idea must play a decisive role. All who are capable must begin to offer their services as experts, advisers, and patrons, sustaining the progressive, though circumspect, flow of power from a corrupt and mendacious regime to those who will inevitably establish a new social order.


There are many untapped business opportunities which simply require a small amount of funding and the will and manpower to effectively launch them. We must start mining these occupational veins and deposits, not for the purposes of ‘get rich quick’ schemes or to exploit those with the drive to undertake them, but to form and augment our tiny, but no longer fetal, new nation; our meta-community. And there are several underlying reasons for suggesting a strategy of aspiring towards full self-employment:

  1. Many of those currently unemployed or languishing in menial, low-paid jobs may well have the opportunity to beginning earning a better wage;
  2. Self-employment, although certainly not undemanding, often circumvents the typical working arrangements of PAYE professions, frequently affording one the ability to more effectively manage working hours and allot spare weekday time to other activities relevant to our cause, including essential community work, organising and attending meetings, etc.;
  3. The psychological grip of our hostile occupation is lessened and the ‘everyday grind’ is increasingly fragmented;
  4. Racialists will begin to employ other adherents of the Idea, meaning that we generate our own regional and national markets. We will begin to establish a living network of working comrades across the country making employing our own, and even relocation to racially-conscious target areas, far easier and more lucrative prospects;
  5. There are various tax benefits;
  6. If, as is the case in so many instances, our enemies instigate a campaign of hate against a racial patriot, we are as such far less likely to lose our livelihoods due to the fact that a frightened, craven boss or manager no longer exists.

Before this can happen, however, the stewards of our race must gravitate to one another and scrutinise seriously their present situations. We will also be obliged to examine our current skill sets and be willing to take instruction and guidance where necessary. In the coming months a (White nationalist) symposium will be held in order to exchange views on this, and other, critical topics, and draw some important conclusions. Attendance at this conference will be restricted by invitation and successful application. More details will follow shortly, both here and elsewhere.


The process of building a new nation, one conceived and constructed in our own image, is barely beginning, but understand this: it is happening. We cannot, as the sole stewards of our rare and beautiful race, hand down to the next generation nothing but vague possibilities and abstract fantasies. If we do nothing during our time on earth then we will be rightly considered as traitors to our grand legacy and the posterity we casually failed. In this generation something must change. In this generation the foundations will be poured.


Long Live the New Tribe.

Can the Ossis save Europe? Part 1

via The Occidental Observer

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban
delivers a speech to the EU Parliament
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán tells the European Parliament: “We Hungarians would like to keep Europe for the Europeans, and we also wish to keep Hungary as a Hungarian country.”

Today, over 25 years after the destruction of the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain which split Europe asunder, profound social and cultural differences persist between the two halves of the continent. In the West, the ideology of “anti-racism” is largely hegemonic. The idea that indigenous Europeans should defend their culture and interests in general, and should oppose Africanization or Islamization in particular, is considered heresy — grounds for excommunication from civilized humanity.

Among the Ossis in Central and Eastern Europe, on the contrary, a casual and open ethnocentrism is remarkably common. (Ossis is the German nickname for former citizens of the communist German Democratic Republic. In this article I extend the term to all formerly communist Central and Eastern European countries.)

Bulgarian Prime Minister Boiko Borisov has said that Muslim immigration threatens the “demographic balance” of his country (which has had a Turkish minority of 10% of the population since Ottoman days). His Hungarian counterpart Viktor Orbán makes remarkable speeches. He recently highlighted the civilization-threatening and irreversible character of the demographic changes in Europe:
A modern day mass migration is taking place around the world that could change the face of Europe’s civilization. … If that happens, that’s irreversible. … There is no way back from a multicultural Europe. Neither to a Christian Europe, nor to a world of national cultures.
In Hungary, the even more nationalist Jobbik party commands over a fifth of the vote.

Central and Eastern European ethnocentrism is also evident at street level. The PEGIDA movement (Patriotic Europeans against the Islamization of the West) in Germany has organized demonstrations with tens of thousands of people, the biggest being in the former communist cities of Dresden and Leipzig. During my visit to an Identitarian event in Great Britain, I was pleased to see that the security was provided by sturdy Polish nationalists. No Bruderkrieg here! And while the current Polish regime likes to give off airs of being a progressive “European” (read: hypertrophied liberal) country, Poland’s annual Independence Day rally attracts thousands of nationalists, including toughs who insist on asserting the primacy of heteronormativity by burning down a rainbow arch. In Greece (a strange case) and Ukraine, we even have outright popular and battle-ready National Socialist movements.

In short, in the East nationalism appears much more palatable to a significant part of both the ruling establishments and the public than in the West. Why the difference? In part, the reasons are likely indigenous. Northwest Europeans (British, French, Scandinavians…) have long been more liberal than the rest of the continent, a fact which may well be related to a higher frequency in the genes of Ice Ace survivors.[1] However, it seems clear that the degree of difference of ethnocentrism between Western and Eastern Europeans today is more because of their exposure to two very different forms of Marxism since 1945.

In the West, there was the affluent society, bourgeois regimes and the cultural Marxism documented in The Culture of Critique, associated with figures such as Herbert Marcus and Jürgen Habermas. This culture, which put individualism, egalitarianism and anti-ethnocentrism above all considerations of the public good, gradually attained a Gramscian hegemony through the efforts of Hollywood, Anglo-American pop culture and media, the Ivy League universities, and local European liberal and/or Zionist ruling elites. There is of course regional variation: In France, local Zionists play a major role, in Germany an indigenous liberal elite imposed these ideologies upon a nation totally destroyed and traumatized by the world wars, and in Italy there is actually a relatively high degree of cultural freedom, with not-inconsiderable neo-fascist movements and intellectuals.

In the East things were very different. Instead of the soft, seductive Marxo-Freudianism of the Frankfurt School, they had the unforgiving terror of Stalinism. As a result, the population was not brainwashed, but rather made immune to a Marxist propaganda firmly associated with Russian imperialism. (In Central Europe, anti-communism and Russophobia go hand in hand, while in Russia the Marxist legacy is unfortunately partly intertwined with national pride.) These countries remained poorer. Life was rougher, yet more “normal” in a way. There is the more normal distribution of ethnocentrism: a general, “common sense” ethnocentrism and a sometimes violent ethnocentric fringe.

In short, the more natural, less brainwashed peoples of the East are in a good position to help their Western brothers turn to nationalism.

Traditional Values as Evolutionary Adaptiveness

It is striking to realize the degree to which so many of the old ways, such as patriarchy, heteronormativity and ethnocentrism — often institutionalized by religion so as to enforce and reinforce these norms culturally and socially — are evolutionarily adaptive. In the traditional world, tribes that promoted strong men[2] and reproductive women, suppressed homosexuality,[3] and protected their kin, tended to replace — either through violence or the womb — tribes that did not. That is why virtually all traditional societies throughout the world are, for the modern liberal, “misogynist,” “homophobic,” and “racist.”

These traditional values are almost certainly biologically-influenced. Even the New York Times can bring itself to print that “scholars suggest that in evolutionary times we became hard-wired to make instantaneous judgments about whether someone is in our ‘in group’ or not — because that could be lifesaving.” But equally clearly, these attitudes were socially and culturally magnified by traditional institutions and especially organized religion.[4]

These values, having been magnified culturally, could also be weakened or even outright suppressed, which is what has happened in the West since the eighteenth-century Enlightenment, a long-term project of essentially bourgeois and, in the contemporary world, Zionist elites. This was often done by demonizing the old values as mere “prejudice” or “obscurantism” or “oppression.” In fact, at the level of the masses, any social norm needs to be more or less unthinkingly adhered to in order to work and few contest the necessity of a (civil) religion in general for society to function.

The better critique of traditional values would not be that they are “evil” but that they are no longer relevant in a technologically modern society. Certainly, with contraceptives, low infant mortality, less need for manual labor, and so on, we do not need exactly the same taboos regarding gender norms as those of the Middle Ages to have a healthy society. But we should not throw out the baby with the bath water, which is what Liberal/Zionist elites have done, spreading maladaptive values which are making Europeans worldwide vanish from the Earth and turning them into vulnerable minorities in their own homelands. These new values were partly promoted sincerely, because the old ways were inappropriate for a modern society. However, it is difficult to not see a part of malice, conscious or otherwise, as well: The promotion of self-destructive, anomic, atomized behavior among the masses has the effect of further removing checks upon and empowering exploitative bourgeois elites (including a very powerful Jewish component that sees its ethnic self-interest as dovetailing with such behavior on the part of non-Jews).

Jews do not require an adaptive general culture as much, being intelligent and famously activist in promoting their own adaptive subcultures. Indeed, “rootless cosmopolitanism,” anti-nationalism, and homosexual apologetics are often associated in the popular imagination. Anne Applebaum, an anti-Russian Jewish-American journalist and wife of former Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski, has written:
Halfway through an otherwise coherent conversation with a Georgian lawyer last week—the topics included judges, the court system, the police—I was startled by a comment he made about his country’s former government, led by ex-president Mikheil Saakashvili. “They were LGBT,” he said, conspiratorially.
What did that mean, I asked, surprised. Were they in favor of rights for sexual minorities? For gay marriage? Were they actually gay? He couldn’t really define it, though the conversation meandered in that direction for a few more minutes, also touching on the subject of the former president’s alleged marital infidelity, his promotion of female politicians, his lack of respect for the church.
Afterward, I worked it out. The lawyer meant to say that Saakashvili—who drove his country hard in the direction of Europe, who pulled Georgia as close to NATO as possible, who used rough tactics to fight the post-Soviet mafia that dominated his country—was “too Western.” Not conservative enough. Not traditional enough. Too much of a modernizer, a reformer, a European. In the past, such a critic might have called Saakashvili a “rootless cosmopolitan.” But nowadays the insulting code word for that sort of person in the former Soviet space—regardless of what he or she actually thinks about gay people—is “LGBT.” …
Yet despite the absence of Russian speakers, a form of Russia’s [sic] anti-Western ideology can be felt in Georgia, too. It’s a minority view that drifts in through religious leaders—part of the Georgian Orthodox Church retains old ties to Moscow—through some pro-Kremlin political parties and Russian-backed media. But it finds indigenous support, taking the form of xenophobic, anti-European—and nowadays—anti-gay rhetoric.
In short, “rootless cosmopolitans” are criticized in the former Soviet Union for spreading maladaptive values detrimental to the cohesion and identity of the country and, although Jews are not explicitly mentioned in the exchange, Applebaum immediately felt targeted by the criticism and responds condescendingly (“an otherwise coherent conversation”).

Anti-Semitism appears to be more common in the East. No doubt there is a latent memory of the ethnic group which was often so instrumental — as in Russia, Poland, and Hungary — in imposing those totalitarian regimes dedicated to what Winston Churchill called “the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality.” Indeed, Russian President Vladimir Putin has remarked upon Jewish predominance in the early Soviet regime and Serbian President Tomislav Nikolić has argued Jewish over-representation in “finance, art and science” contributed to Nazi anti-Semitism; unthinkable statements tantamount to political suicide for our Western politicians. Many Central and Eastern Europeans cannot help but notice that it is often members of the same ethnic group — such as George Soros — who are financing anti-nationalist, individualist-egalitarian and homosexualist propaganda in their countries. There is also support for obscene and hysterical anti-Christian feminist groups such as Femen and Pussy Riot.

In addition to cultural suppression, ethnocentrism appears to have been strongly attenuated in the West through high standards of living. Ethnocentrism and ingroup identification are strengthened in times of competition and threat (here, p. 72). The more insecure an individual or society is, the more ethnocentric it will tend to be.[5] The historian Robert Bartlett reports that medieval European societies, particularly in Central Europe, with its medley of Germans, Slavs, and Jews, were relatively tolerant during times of economic expansion. (Intra-) European racism increased however in the latter half of the High Middle Ages in the wake of overpopulation. Dominant groups drafted legislation excluding out-group members from intermarriage, guild membership, town citizenship, and so on. Bartlett writes: “The picture darkens as the recession of the later Middle Ages begins. As the meal shrank, the diners began to eye each other more suspiciously.”[6] It is not surprising, therefore, that heightened resource competition is a recurrent theme in European anti-Semitism. This mechanism is indeed visible in all multiethnic societies in times of crisis. A multiethnic society is an accident waiting to happen, an entity just waiting to collapse under pressure, typically upon losing a war (Austria-Hungary) and/or with the malicious encouragement of foreign powers (Lebanon, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria…).

Rising ethnocentrism in times of crisis is also evidenced in the “rally ‘round the flag” effect which governments are apt to exploit, diverting popular ethnocentrism to their particular oligarchic ends.[7] Indeed, pent-up feelings of tribal insecurity are liable to explode in ethnocentric spasms, which in American Blacks gives us periodic riots destroying their own neighborhoods and which in interwar Germany gave us the Third Reich. National Socialism can be understood as a uniquely radical, authoritarian, and explicit attempt to impose an adaptive culture and polity within Germany and total security without (including, tragically, to the detriment of other European peoples).

High standards of living — which remain historically unprecedented and likely to persist for some time, barring a major environmental or financial crisis, especially in light of the new efficiencies enabled by the Information Revolution — have softened Western ethnocentrism and manhood. In the West, we virtually have only dependents: students, welfare leeches, the disabled, office drones, and retirees. The new generations grow ever-more androgynous, and indeed this is celebrated by the regime and its propagandistic media outlets. In the East, we still have farmers and workers —  men. Many Easterners are intuitively repulsed by absurd Western pretensions of moral superiority through the public celebration of man-on-man sex. Eastern nationalists are indeed adept at exploiting Western apologia for homosexuality as evidence of “Gayropa’s” [гейропа] manifest decadence.

Evolutionarily adaptive behavior may in some respects be harder to promote in a modern society tempted by laxity and softened by consumerism.[8] But there is nothing inevitable about this. Western liberalism, interwar fascism and today’s Eastern European conservatism show that Europe’s history could have taken many different turns, that we have an almost infinite array of potentialities. An enlightened elite can, and must, promote values and policies which will allow Europeans to survive and flourish again.

Notes:

[1] To a significant extent, the history of the world over the past 500 years has been the story of non-Northwest Europeans attempting to emulate Northwest European success — whether in technology, wealth, martial prowess or good government — and generally failing. France wants to be like Germany; Italy, Spain, Portugal and Greece want to be like the civilized “Europeans” (read: Anglo-Franco-Germans); Russia sporadically wants to be like the West; Turkey wants to be like Europe, etc. They all fail. They fail because, as the Russian historian Nikolai Trubetzkoi beautifully explained, every people is unique and crude attempts to emulate a (often temporarily) better-performing people will necessarily fail unless one adapts to local ethno-national conditions. Perfect equality of outcomes between different peoples is, by definition, impossible, but as Japan shows similar performance can be attained in certain areas if a people is talented and their particularities respected. Even without communism’s baleful, distorting impact in Central and Eastern Europe, the paths of different regions of Europe would not have been identical.
[2] When heterosexual men use the slur “faggot” against one another, it is typically to shame un-manly behavior, and conversely, to promote evolutionarily adaptive behavior.
[3] Repeated penis-to-anus sex with multiple partners is obviously pathogenic in the extreme and indeed explains the comparatively high prevalence of HIV among homosexuals to this day. Before the advent of condoms and modern medicine, such behavior would systematically lead to the spread of disease, which is likely why it was suppressed by most religions.
[4] Traditional rulers’ attitude towards ethnocentrism has varied. If their realm was ethnically heterogeneous, they had an interest in suppressing ethnocentrism to maintain social peace. Hence Christianity and Islam are universalist religions promoted by imperial authorities ruling over the ethnically chaotic mess which was the post-Roman Mediterranean world. These religions did however transfer ethnocentric loyalty, so to speak, to the religion, with non-believers facing various forms of exclusion: Anyone from any tribe may join the religious society and order, but they must submit to its rules and values prior to receiving its benefits.
[5] This would also explain why, among the masses, less intelligent people tend to be more ethnocentric. Although I suspect that those in the movement — who have emancipated themselves from ruling dogmas of the age — have very high IQs. Certainly your average liberal is much less intelligent and cultivated than his smugness would warrant. Rebecca Searles, “Intelligence Study Links Low I.Q. To Prejudice, Racism, Conservatism,” The Huffington Post, January 1, 2012.
[6] Robert Bartlett, The Making of Europe: Conquest, Colonization and Cultural Change, 950-1350 (Penguin: 1994), 234.
[7] One of the most infamous examples being President George W. Bush and the Neoconservatives’ exploiting the patriotic fervor after the 9/11 terrorist attacks to launch an unprovoked war against Iraq and create a vast, all-encompassing Surveillance State.
[8] Comfort undermining virtue is indeed not a new problem. The fourteenth century Arab historian Ibn Khaldun’s celebrated Muqaddimah world-history presents a theory whereby virile tribes gifted with asabiyyah (group solidarity) conquer urban empires, which leads them to excessive comfort, laxity, and decadence, which in turn within a few generations will lead to their being conquered by a new, uncorrupted tribe.

Nationalism: What it Is and Why it Is Essential (to Your Survival)

via Nationalist Alternative

It is important to clearly determine what a nation is before exploring nationalism as a concept. A nation is a society of people who share common bonds with one-another. These bonds stem from common heritage in the form of language, culture & religion, societal values, systems of law and, arguably most importantly of all, bloodlines. Indeed, race & ethnicity is the most fundamental component of national identity because it is the only component of national identity which cannot be diluted, transformed or denied. While a man may change his religion, acculturate himself into a new sort of behaviour and adopt different ideas and values, what remains is his racial identity – the unbreakable bond which makes him a part of a folk, whether great or small. Every human on Earth is a part of a people with whom they share this common bond, regardless of whether or not they recognise it as truth. In all, a nation is a people who share with each other an identity which groups them together as a collective.

Nationalism (the suffix ‘–ism’ denotes reference to an idea or ideology) is, firstly, the recognition of the fact that nations exist; to acknowledge that bonds exist between people through culture, language, ideas and race. More importantly, though, to be a nationalist is to relish in and care for one’s own identity, the identity of one’s folk, as well as the recognition of other nations’ God-given right to sovereignty, self-determination and survival. A nationalist loves his people, and consistently demonstrates a willingness to defend the existence and prosperity of his folk, no matter the cost. A nationalist places the loyalty he has towards his kin before all other obligations, including those to the state which governs his nation. In fact, most of the confusion as to what a nation truly is stems from its modernised use as a synonym for the word ‘country’. This is absolutely incorrect; a nation and a country (or ‘state’) are entirely different entities, as will be explained…

As has been examined, a nation is an organic entity – a large group of people who are intrinsically united through a common sense of heritage embodied in the contexts of culture and blood. On the other hand, a country (or state) is a political construct. It denotes the political construct of a territory, controlled by a form of government, which contains a populous which owes political allegiance to its governors. This is the difference at its most basic: A nation is an organism, while a country is a frail political construct.

The confusion between the two terms (born of the way in which the word ‘nation’ is, oftentimes, used synonymously with ‘state’ and ‘country’) stems from the fact that countries typically reflect the attitudes of the nations over which they govern. That is to say that states are, indeed, subject to be influenced by the nations over which they govern. This in turn stems from the fact that countries are erected in the first place by nations in order for a nation to provide itself with a form of governance and order. Indeed, more than one nation can live under the same country as another, but at least one of those nations will always be considered the ‘host’ nation as it will be their country that both groups are living in. For example, in the country of Australia there exists one host nation: The European-Australian. This is the nation that created the state of Australia from the ground up, and in its original embodiment, it was a state that properly reflected the values, ideas and interests of the European-Australian nation. Today, however, Australia is no longer a nation-state (a state which properly embodies the identity of its founding nation). Today, it – like the majority of white countries – is described as a ‘modern state’; a state which disassociates itself from the identity of the host nation, and which applies the overarching ideas of democratic-liberalism to all citizens regardless of nationality. Today, the European-Australian (as well as the Aboriginal-Australian, the prehistoric native populous of Australia who enjoy a monumental offering of affirmative action under the Australian state) is surrounded by those with whom he hasn’t a thing in common, but who are viewed as being just as rightful a member of Australian society as he. These invasive, alien groups are most greatly embodied in the significant minorities of the so-called ‘Asian-Australians’ and ‘Middle-Eastern- or Arab-Australians’. Similarly, in the USA, there exists the European-Americans and African-Americans (amongst a multitude of other nations, including Latino-Americans). Due to this demographic dilution, the founding nation of the European-American is no longer properly represented by the modern republic of the USA. The state has, instead, been hijacked by those who advocate for internationalism and globalisation, placing those who do not belong on equal footing with those whose forefathers built the state in which they relish. This is a demonstration of the way in which countries reflect the ideas, values and interests of the nation(s) over which they govern, which carries with it a certain strain of vulnerability – the fact that immigrant nations can effectively hijack the attitudes and systems of the state, making things grossly unpleasant for the host nation.

It is important to recognise the existence (and significance) of nationality as this is the most vital step in understanding why it is that the European nations (both at home and in the peripheral territories of European civilisation) now face a major existential crisis. Mainstream political figures and supporters of multiculturalism will often draw attention to what they perceive as the most important component of the process of immigration: ‘integration’ and ‘assimilation’. These notions propagate the idea that an immigrant living in a country different to his own can distance (and eventually sever) himself from his own national identity and instead become a member of the host nation living in the country he has migrated to. This is fundamentally incorrect. It is absolutely impossible for one to discard his own identity and replace it with another. One may become a citizen of a country other than their own, but they will never truly be a part of that society, or of the host nation. They will always be a foreigner. A Frenchman cannot become Chinese by relinquishing his French citizenship, replacing it with a Chinese one, learning Mandarin and living there amongst the Chinese people. He could live his entire adult life in China and even forget how to speak French, but the man would never be Chinese because his racial identity is unalienable and undeniable; he and his offspring (should he couple with a non-Chinese woman) will never truly be Chinese. The same principle applies: an African man cannot be born in England to African parents and be considered a part of the English nation because his identity is fundamentally different; the cultures to which his family belongs and his association with those back in his bloodline’s land of origin remind him that he is not, and never will be, an Englishman, no matter how thick his accent may be. National identity is absolute within oneself and cannot be changed, no matter how hard one hates himself. You are what you are.

Recognising that cultural integration is flawed in that one cannot change his national identity, the true crisis that arises from non-European immigration into what once were the European nation-states sprouts from an inherent unwillingness possessed by immigrants to ‘integrate’ in the first place (again, if it were even possible to begin with). We are able to observe throughout Europe and Australia today that immigrants who are permitted to congregate into densely-concentrated suburban living areas best described as ghettos feel as though they are under no obligation to respect the laws, customs and ideas of the country they are living in. This phenomenon breeds notions of esotericism within immigrant communities and provides immigrants with an environment in which they may propagate the continuation and spread of their own culture. This occurs at the detriment of the host nation in two ways. Firstly, tolerating the creation and expansion of immigrant ghettos allows for the continual growth of non-European culture inside European countries. This in turn harms the demographic balance of a given European country, with the host nation becoming gradually less prevalent, even becoming a minority in extreme cases. Thus, the host nation loses control over its own country, and is suddenly subject to the ideas, systems and customs of foreign nations. Secondly, and of greatest significance, the ideas which third-world immigrants propagate are in direct opposition to those of European nations. Unable to distance themselves from their unescapable sense of identity and societal values, immigrants who are surrounded and supported by others like them will attempt to deliberately force these cultural and societal traits upon members of the host nation. It is unreasonable to expect immigrants to want to change their identity and it is dangerous to expect them not to intentionally force their incompatible ways of life upon us – the European host nations – in order to make themselves more comfortable. This intentional attack upon the values and systems which we know to be our own can be observed in the ‘Muslim patrol’ phenomenon sweeping northern- and central-England and (to a lesser extent) some parts of Germany. It can also be seen in the every-day life of the families living in these immigrant ghetto-communities, in which the standards of living and positive regard for laws and community practices are severely degraded. It is also seen in the fracturing of half-native, half-immigrant communities & neighbourhoods in which people of completely different cultures are forced to live side-by-side. There is no mutual benefit here for either group, and certainly not for the native populous. Surrounded by foreign customs, languages and standards of living, these natives whom may have lived in a given area for generations are forced to make a decision: Leave, or tolerate a lesser quality of life brought on by a hostile community. The European nations are being robbed of their right to national sovereignty, self-determination, and even existence. This phenomenon is seen everywhere, from London, where over 50% of permanent residents are non-British [1], to Sydney, Australia, where a significant trend of domestic migration northward to the state-capital of Brisbane has been observed due to the density of Middle-Eastern immigrant suburban communities in Sydney’s western regions.

While it is a frightening concept, it is ignorant for one to deny that should current trends continue, the European nations will face a crisis which threatens not only the prevalence of their identity, but also their very existence. With reproduction rates so low (relative to the exceedingly high reproduction rates of Middle-Eastern and African immigrants) and immigration rates dangerously high, Europe and its peripheral territories have a choice to make: Wake up now and take action through democratic means, or continue to live in blissful ignorance until the system of democracy becomes a weapon to be used against you, leaving violence as the only viable option to defend your race and way of life. If you do not fight with pen & paper now, then your children will be forced to fight with fists & firearms. If nothing is done and Europeans refuse to stand up before it simply becomes too late, we will lie in the wake of a future in which Europeans will have been bred and murdered out of existence in order to make room for the exponential growth of the third-world nations.

Nationalism is the only solution to this ongoing threat. The clash between cultures we are observing in the western world today is a clash between nations. In order to win this battle, whether it be through lawful means or through warfare, the pacifism which has corrupted the soul of modern European civilisation must be annihilated. This can only be done through the restoration of ethnic, cultural and pan-racial pride, and the abolition of the guilt which pertains to one being white/European. Europeans across the world are taught from a young age that all of the ills in the world are the fault of Europeans; it is a demoralising and corruptive notion that may ultimately prove to be our downfall. This is because before we can win in a struggle of nations, we must be willing to fight in the first place. At this stage, we are not. Our folk are more inclined to kneel before the spectre of death than to fight against the alien hordes which seek to rob them of their forefathers’ heritage. Nationalism, at its core, is to love and have pride in one’s identity and those who are his folk, making it a naturally suitable ideology to combat the illness of pacifism, and to reverse the ‘take-it-lying-down’ attitude that the majority of Europeans possess concerning the destruction of their countries and the suffocation of their nations.

Nationalism is essential to the survival of all the European nations. Without this restoration of pride and identity on both a national and pan-racial scale, Europeans will have no reason to fight as a united front. Instead, they will wait, only realising the horrific result of their ethnomasochism as they die alone at the hands of malicious third-world hordes who view the European man as an oppressive monster. From Lisbon to Athens, from London to Moscow, from Ottawa to Canberra and from Cape Town to Buenos Aires, Europeans must embrace the ideas of nationalism with all their heart and soul, lest our civilisation fall into ruin and our identity disappear forever.

Notes:

[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20680565 … http://www.standard.co.uk/news/more-ethnic-pupils-than-whites-in-london-schools-6368734.html

Identitarianism—A Conversation Starter

via Radix

This is an attempt to start a conversation, not only regarding Radix Journal’s essay competition but what we are trying to accomplish and how we should understand ourselves. 

Over the past decade, the term “Identitarian” has gained currency, mainly in reference to activists and intellectuals in Western and Central Europe.

Interestingly, the term was first used by French sociologists in describing a “repli identitaire” (“identitarian withdrawal” or lack of assimilation) among immigrants, due to “discrimination,” and also among the lower-classes of the indigenous population, due to their “racism.”

“Identitarian” became a rallying point (and a noun—“Les Identitaires”) when it was taken up by the pan-European elements within the French Right, who were in opposition to the Front National, whose nationalism was then merely ethnic and now is merely civic. Identity, in this sense, was the root idea behind the founding of Bloc Identitaire in 2003 and Génération Identitaire in 2012.

“Identitarian” runs into the usually problems of neologisms: it might seem arcane, confusing, or euphemistic, or to be just another “-ism” that is destined to fall out of fashion.

Despite it all, we find Identitarianism to be powerful, evocative, and useful on a number of fronts.

First, it posits Identity as the center—and the central question—of a spiritual, intellectual, and (meta-)political movement. In other words, Identitarianism is not just another agenda on economics, human rights, public and foreign policies, etc. It’s a statement that all of these questions—and many more—can only be addressed after asking much bigger ones: Who are we? Who were we? Whom will we become? And Identity is not just the call of blood, though it is that.

Secondly, Identitarianism avoids the standard Left/Right divide of the 20th-century (even if most Identitariains come from the Right). Identitarianism is open to different and new perspectives, and to the integration of energies that are often pigeonholed as “Left” or “Right.” What is a “free market,” “social justice,” or “world peace” to us, until we’ve sounded out such terms, and determined what they mean for our future?
Thirdly, Identiatrianism avoids the term “nationalism,” and its history and connotations. Indeed, one of Identitarians’ central motives is the overcoming of the nationalism of recent historical memory, which was predicated on hatred of the European “Other.”

As a political expression, Identity brings the concept of the nation-state itself into question, both in its “big” (e.g., American) forms and its “little,” more ethnically defined variations (e.g., the Czech Republic and aspirational entities surrounding Scottish, Ukrainian, or Quebecois nationalisms).

Both “big” and “little” states have important differences, but they are, nevertheless, based on the same principles of democracy, equality, popular sovereignty, and the rest of the Enlightenment project. Moreover, “big” and “little” states are, in their ways, too big and too little. The idealized concept of “France” denies local identities within its borders, as well as regional cultures that overlap nation-states. In turn, “France” ignores the mythological, biological, and cultural commonalities that unite all Europeans, from Ireland to Vladivostok.

In this way, Identitarianism exists in a global context. To be certain, it eschews nationalist chauvinism, as well as the meaningless, petty nationalism that is tolerated, even encouraged, by the current world system. That said, Identitarianism is itself not a universal value system, like Leftism, monotheism, and most contemporary versions of “conservatism.” To the contrary, Identarianism is fundamentally about difference, about culture as an expression of a certain people at a certain time. In this way, Identitarians rejects the impulse towards “conversion,” a tendency that is both ancient and modern. From the standpoint of an engaged Communist, liberal, or American “conservative”—or Christian or Muslim—every human being and every people is a potential Communist, liberal, conservative, or follower of the faith—or else an enemy of freedom, justice, and all that is holy. Identitarianism acknowledges the incommensurable nature of different peoples and cultures—and thus looks forward to a world of true diversity and multiculturalism.

How Identitarianism will manifest itself politically—and how European Identitarians can cooperate with traditionalists of other cultures and races—remain open, tantalizing questions.

Gilad Atzmon Explains the Subversion of the Pro-Palestine Cause by the Jewish Left

via The Realist Report

The Realist Report Editor's Note: Gilad Atzmon, an internationally renowned musician, philosopher, and writer born in Israel, is currently on a speaking tour to promote his latest book entitled A to Zion: The Definitive Israeli Lexicon, as well as address the Jewish subversion of the pro-Palestinian movement. On Monday, May 11th, Atzmon spoke at a public library in San Diego County, an event I was able to attend. We had a nice conversation and I was able to ask him a question following his presentation.

What follows is a Q&A I conducted with Atzmon via email shortly after his speech in San Diego. I hope to continue this dialogue in the near future. There are many more questions I'd like to ask him.


JF: In your talk, you described Jewish leftists infiltrating and ultimately undermining the Palestinian Solidarity movement - why? What is their ultimate goal?

GA: In an interview a few years back, Philip Weiss, the chief editor of the Jewish pro-Palestinian website Mondoweiss, admitted to me in plain terms that, in his eyes, pro-Palestinian activism serves "Jewish self interests."

Such a Jewish activity conveys a (misleading) image of Jewish political pluralism. It suggests that not all Jews are "bad," Jewish politics can even be ethical and universal.

Evidently, Jewish liberals are angry with me for unveiling the deceit that is embedded in such an attitude. They have invested a great effort attempting to silence me, and for a good reason - I have produced some persuasive arguments suggesting that Jewish solidarity is not the solution, it is actually the core of the problem.

In fact, the Jewish Left is far more problematic and dangerous than hardcore right-wing Zionism. Zionism is a celebration of the Jewish "symptom," so to speak. The so-called "anti" are set to deny the rest of us an access to the symptom.

If Jewish power is defined as the power to suppress the discussion on Jewish power, Mondoweiss, Jewish Voices for Peace, Democracy Now!, Noam Chomsky and others are there to pursue with that task day and night.

They crudely restrict the boundaries of the discourse by means of political correctness. Mondoweiss went as far as banning any criticism of Israel within the context of Jewishness. This duplicitous attempt to subvert the discourse worked for a while. However, not anymore, and I take some credit for it.

Together with other thinkers and commentators, I have been pointing at a controlled opposition apparatus that is committed solely to "Jewish self interests," as Philip Weiss was either brave or foolish enough to admit back in 2011.

JF: How is the Palestinian Solidarity movement or pro-Palestine cause now framed in Jewish terms and related to overall Jewish interests?

GA: As I showed in my San Diego talk, while in the past it was the Palestinian right of return that defined the Palestinian cause in ethical, political and legal terms, the growing domination of liberal Jews within the movement diluted this elementary right. It was replaced by a tsunami of misleading and faulty terminology that was set to appease some diaspora Jews and whatever is left of the Israeli Left. All of that was done at the expense of the Palestinians.

While the right of return located the Palestinian plight within historical, political, legal and moral context, the newly imposed terminology i.e., "End of Occupation", "Colonialism", "Apartheid", and even the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement (post-2010), is legitimizing the Jewish state within pre-1967 borders. It dismisses the refugees, Gaza, and the Palestinian diaspora’s plight entirely.

It instead engages only with issues that are relevant to the West Bank, and why? Because the West Bank is subject of an internal Jewish debate. While the vast majority of world Jewry sees the West Bank as an integral part of greater Eretz Yisrael, a few liberal Jews in Manhattan insist that Tel Aviv is the true fulfillment of the Zionist project. The meaning of it is tragic. Thanks to the growing domination of Jews within the Palestinian Solidarity movement, the entire movement has been reduced into a Jewish internal debate. This may explain why the solidarity movement has achieved nothing as far as Palestine is concerned. It was born to fail and it achieved its goal.

In short, the Palestinian Solidarity movement is now a Jewish movement devoted to solidarity with the Jews. This could have been an amusing development unless there was a tragedy of another people involved.

JF: Can you comment on how the Palestinian Solidarity movement has become part of the larger overall social justice movement (LGBT rights, immigrant rights, feminism, etc.) in recent years?

GA: The Palestinian Solidarity movement becoming a part of a large social justice movement could have been a great and welcome development. Yet, one may wonder, is the breaking of society into identity politics sectors or factions such a great development? Obviously not.

In the last six decades the working people have been plundered repeatedly. The people who used to be called the working class are now the workless class, and many of them are underclass by now. But why?

Unlike the (imaginary) "old good labor-oriented Left" that promised to unite us all against capital and the Empire, the neo-Marxists and the Frankfurt Yeshiva enthusiasts invested a huge effort breaking the cohesiveness of the working people and Western society in general.

Instead of bringing people together, which was the old Left ideal, we are now split into tribal sectors. We are transformed into a matrix of a manifold of Jew-like tribal groupings defined largely by biology (color, gender, sexual preferences, race, etc). However, it is hardly surprising that Jewish identity merchants are way better than anyone else in being Jews. Jews have been practicing Jewish tribal survival strategies (identity politics and ethnocentrism) for 3000 years. This form of tribal politics is pretty new to gentiles and this may explain why identity politics has failed those who were lame enough to follow it in the first place.

We are dealing here with a multiplicity of impotent, marginal identity campaigns that are paralyzed by a strong sense of victimhood. The feminists are oppressed by masculinity, the Black is intimidated by the White, the gay is chased by the homophobe, the Muslims and their Islamophobes, and now the Palestinians also have the Zionists. We are dealing with a binary dichotomy between an imaginary and evasive "oppressor" and a concrete and lucid "victim".

But here is the problem: those who indulge in a victimhood narrative end up in a state of paralysis - they learn to blame others yet vindicate themselves. Those who succumb to victimhood never look in the mirror; they never take responsibility for their fate.

For more than a while we have been witnessing a few Western Palestinians and Jewish liberals spreading hollow and misleading terminology that has removed the conflict from Palestine and their resistance; colonialism, apartheid, BDS -  everything but building Palestinian rockets or military defiance. This development obviously served the Jewish state. Instead of fighting Palestinian freedom fighters, the conflict was reduced into a meaningless exchange between two Jewish positions.

Though some Western Palestinians and NGOs joined this well-funded corrosive liberal Jewish project, Hamas didn’t fall into this trap. IDF infantry units were minced in Gaza last summer. They were met with fierce Palestinian resistance. While Chomsky debated Dershowitz on some questions to do with "the future of Palestine," young Palestinians were preparing for battle. While the liberal Zionist George Soros’s Open Society funded a BDS LGBT tour in America, young Hamas engineers were digging tunnels and building rockets in Gaza. I am convinced that Palestinian Muslim leaders in Gaza grasped at a certain stage that the struggle for Palestinian queer politics may not be the definitive path toward Palestinian liberation.

Wigger, Pleeze!

via Taki's Magazine

Sipping my iced coffee outside a café last Thursday night in Decatur, GA—a town with such a thriving lesbian ghetto that local wiseacres call it Dick Hater, GA—the stars magically aligned and I found myself seated next to a table of three fat white women huddled worshipfully around one fat black woman.

The fat white women all stared with adoration at the fat black woman. It seemed as if merely by being black, she was their guru. They laughed at everything she said—loudly. Clearly they enjoyed her salty, authentic vocal inflections and her sassy, mama-don’t-take-no-mess attitude. When they weren’t laughing at her jokes, they spoke somberly of justice and inclusivity and passion. I swear on a stack of Torahs that they also stressed the need for people to properly distinguish between inclusivity and passion, although I doubt that even they had a clue what the fuck they were talking about with that one.

But what rang clear as a copper bell on a crisp Alpine morning was that these three fat white presumed lesbians worshiped the fat black presumed lesbian merely because she was black and thus wasn’t saddled with the historical guilt that emotionally cripples fat white lesbian women in the throes of a midlife racial identity crisis.

If they were only able to crawl inside this black woman’s skin, they would do it. In fact, I suspect that’s exactly what they did later that night.

“The term ‘wigger’ is a portmanteau of ‘white’ and a word beginning in ‘n’ that is so horrible, I just literally shrieked out loud at the mere thought of typing it.”
As our society is currently constructed—or, rather, as our culture is currently dictated to us—there is no emotional satisfaction in being white. There is only pain and guilt and apologies. And this is why so many whites seek refuge in pretending to be black. They talk black, think black, and even try to look black. Some even claim that they are black.

Earlier that day before I encountered the interracial fat lesbian social-justice quartet at the Dick Hater coffee shop, Taki’s Mag writer (and accused Judeophile) Kathy Shaidle informed me of the odd case of one Rachel Dolezal, the NAACP Branch President of Spokane, WA who for years has successfully “passed” as a black woman but was recently outed as a natural-born blue-eyed devil.

She wasn’t pretending to be black in order to experience their suffering. She was pretending to be black so she could reap the benefits. This wasn’t Black Like Me. It was Black Like She.

In a video that went viral last week, a reporter corners Dolezal about her claims that her dad was black. Behind blue eyes, Dolezal affirms that yes, indeed, sure, yup, her dad was black, yes, yeah, mm-hmm, he was. But when the reporter presses the subject, she walks away.

For years Dolezal has claimed her dad was coal-black and that she’s given birth to black sons. But last week her white parents revealed that she’s almost entirely of European descent, with the only other tincture being perhaps a gentle sprinkling of “Native American.” Also last week, one of her alleged “sons” revealed that he was merely her black stepbrother and that she often urged him to lie to others that she was black. It seemed as if her parents and her black step-bro all wished for the nutty charade to end.

In addition to birthing Rachel, her parents also adopted four black children. Like their natural-born daughter, they apparently loved basking in the whole black experience, too. But despite their wide-eyed progressive earnestness—or perhaps as collateral damage from it—they say their daughter started acting increasingly hostile toward them around 2006 or 2007. As luck would have it, this was also when Rachel began her attempt to visually “transition” into blackness. She already felt she was there internally—she merely needed a new coat of paint to finish the renovation job.

Miz Rachel is either baking her naturally melanin-deficient skin orange at a tanning salon or applying bronze-colored makeup in an act of theatrical deception that is only different from full-blown minstrel-show blackface in terms of hue.

The term “wigger” is a portmanteau of “white” and a word beginning in “n” that is so horrible, I just literally shrieked out loud at the mere thought of typing it.

But Rachel Dolezal—who was born with blonde hair, blue eyes, and pale white skin—appears to also be a literal wigger, assuming that is indeed a kinky-haired black-woman’s wig she was wearing in that video. If not, she must pay her stylist bookoo bucks to blackify her God-given Nordic mane. In this video—where she bemoans the proliferation of wealthy white males on US currency—she’s rockin’ some blond cornrows that I strongly suspect are hair extensions.

Don't Go with the Flow: The Oriental Mysticism at the Heart of Our Passivity

via Alternative Right

"If you describe yourself as 'spiritual but not religious' you might be a Taoist." 
"Here, I would like to make myself absolutely clear: I do not think that the present vague spiritualism, the focus on the openness to Otherness and its unconditional Call, this mode in which Judaism has become almost the hegemonic ethico-spiritual attitude of today’s intellectuals, is in itself the ‘natural’ form of what one can designate, in traditional terms, as Jewish spirituality." – Slavoj Zizek 
"Saving one's soul may be of interest in a system, but in ignorance of that system... your Xtian examination degenerates into mere cerebral onanism." – Ezra Pound 
"All knowledge rests either on authority or reason but that whatever is deduced by reason depends ultimately on a premise derived from authority." – Charles Peirce
When you ask ordinary people about the economy, multiculturalism, or about immigration, they often give vague answers. Rather than identifying a specific historical trajectory that won a military and ideological victory, and is continuously pushed by NGOs, think-tanks, capitalist cabals, ivory tower academics, the mainstream media, and a certain ethnic group, they instead allude to how it is all just the “natural course of events.”

They might point to mass transportation and its easy affordability as the reason there are tens of millions of strangers in the West and more coming, instead of economic and ideological policies that have destroyed the cultural-racial-ethnic-geographical boundaries that, traditionally, have always been guarded.

These simple souls have swallowed hook-line-and-sinker the Leftist narrative of "progress." Instead of worrying about the big picture they busy themselves with coping mechanisms for the post-political, post-historical, post-ideological world of the Last Man. But even this passive and blinkered view of the masses has its ideological precursors, which is what I want to look at in this essay. Where exactly does this "go with the flow" attitude stem from?

Not being "racist" means letting it all flow over you.
When it was first published in 1982, The Tao of Pooh by Benjamin Hoff made a big splash, but this was hardly the first wave of Western interest in the Orient. Tao of Pooh was part of a commercialized postmodern wave of spiritual plurality, but the widespread popularity of yoga, Buddhist paraphernalia, and general Oriental fetishism has long been a feature of the commercialized and spiritually void West. It became particularly apparent during the 1960s counter-culture as Westerners grasped at Oriental philosophy to obfuscate their nihilism. Hermann Hesse’s Siddhartha, for example, although published in 1922 became a hit in 1960s America. Combined with this Western ingestion of Oriental mysticism is a trivialization of Western thought, as we see in this excerpt from the foreword of The Tao of Pooh:
"That was after some of us were discussing the Great Masters of Wisdom, and someone was saying how all of them came from the East, and I was saying that some of them didn’t, but he was going on and on, just like this sentence, not paying any attention, when I decided to read a quotation of Wisdom from the West, to prove that there was more to the world than one half, and I read:

‘When you wake up in the morning, Pooh,’ said Piglet at last, ‘what’s the first thing you say to yourself?’
‘What’s for breakfast?’ said Pooh. ‘What do you say, Piglet?’
‘I say, I wonder what’s going to happen exciting today?’ said Piglet.
Pooh nodded thoughtfully.
‘It’s the same thing,’ he said."
There you have it! The whole of the Western philosophical tradition, according to Hoff and his circle of Orientalists, is regulated to the meanderings of a honey-obsessed lackadaisical teddy bear in a children’s book. This is somehow insanely relevant to the adult-children of today – thunder-buddies for life means never having to say you’re an adult.

"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day."
Earlier waves of interest in the Orient did not begin with modern colonialism as the resentment horseshit of post-colonial studies tries to affirm. Nor did it begin with Napoleon’s invasion of Egypt or Marco Polo’s voyages to the East. Perhaps the earliest account that is relevant is Alexander the Great’s conquest of Central Asia and Northwest India around 330 BC.

If this acquisition of territory, subjects, tithes, and resources can be described as an early form of colonialism, then perhaps colonialism is a central feature of Western civilization itself; as indeed conquest is a part of all civilizations that are able to raise themselves up to a certain level of power.

This is why Hegel was quick to dismiss those civilizations who failed to conquer as non-historical entities, namely India, while simultaneously identifying the soul of the West with the Classical age:
"All educated people, and we Germans in particular, feel at home when we speak of Greece… all our science and art, what adorns and dignifies spiritual life, has either emanated directly from Greece or come to us in a roundabout way via the Romans."
(Hegel, Lectures on the History of Philosophy, vol 2, p.10.)
An important reference point of Occidental Orientalism was Madam Blavatsky’s Theosophical Society and its attempt to unify divergent theologies into a perennialist esoteric cosmology. But this was only one part of a long process to meld together Eastern Wisdom, Classical Antiquity, and Christian Gnosticism – a philosophical attempt to "herd cats."

Like multiculturalism itself, such spiritual amalgamations are tenuous and superficial, often relying on recurring themes or archetypes, as in Joseph Campbell’s work, and abstruse teleological progressions.

Hegel refused to countenance such Oriental fetishism, and clearly separated the East from the West in philosophical and spiritual terms. Battling the Blavatskys of his era in the figures of Friedrich Schlegel and Georg Friedrich Creuzer, Hegel divided the Orient into its constituent parts, the Mongolian East of China and India and the nearer Caucasian East of Persia and Egypt (later adding Judaism).

The timeless East.
For Hegel, China and India represent the emergent sphere in his theological system, but are confined to ahistorical nonentity status, mired in entropy and cut off from the movement of spirit, while Persia and Egypt occupy the sphere of development, with its universal laws, abstract moral good, and connection to Western Tradition.

While Schlegel and Creuzer were busy trying to promote the Orient as a cultural model for German emulation, Hegel was playing the contrarian with a better hand. In Hegel’s teleological historicism, which also grafts nicely onto the Leftist narrative of progress (creating the schism between Left and Right Hegelians), the Orient is presented a pre-historical phase of spiritual evolution and a primitive and negative quality.

Hegel sees the Chinese as servile, the Indians as savage, cruel and effeminate, and the Persians as cruel rather than noble. In this way he resists the process of the universalizing spirit, inherent in his system – the same monotheistic drive which is the ultimate enemy of hierarchy and the mainspring of liberalism. Hegel’s ‘Germanness’ and his adoration for the state redeems him as a figure of the Right, but his monotheistic Judeo-Christian drive has clear affinities with the ahistorical East that he argued against.

Just as Western religion and philosophy has a Left and a Right, so too does that of the East, with Taoism and Buddhism fulfilling the same egalitarianizing role as Judeo-Christianity, against the more hierarchical tendency of Confucianism.

Wu Zetian, heavily romanticized. 
A revealing example is provided – not surprisingly – by the reign of one of China’s few female leaders, the Empress Wu Zetian (690-705AD) of the Tang Dynasty. It was during her reign that both Buddhism and Daoism replaced Confucianism as the state ideology. Confucianism had been established as the state ideology Under Emperor Wu (140-86 BC), of the Han Dynasty, which is considered the Golden Age of Chinese history. Wu excluded all other systems.

It was also under the Tang Dynasty that the coin of the realm was replaced by so-called "flying money," the first use of paper currency, which coincided with the burgeoning power of a merchant class, which, by 1020, had caused massive inflation. As usual, social liberalism is connected to economic liberalism and vice versa. In several intervening centuries there were many episodes of such hyperinflation.

In an echo of today’s attempts to establish "feminist narrative," Empress Wu Zetian also introduced matriarchy and feminist historical revisions, mutilating tradition according to her own practical precepts:
"In order to challenge Confucian beliefs against rule by women, Wu began a campaign to elevate the position of women. She had scholars write biographies of famous women, and raised the position of her mother's clan by giving her relatives high political posts. She moved her court away from the seat of traditional male power and tried to establish a new dynasty. She said that the ideal ruler was one who ruled like a mother does over her children."
The radical upheaval of tradition by Empress Wu is analogous to the 18th-century bourgeois revolutions and more contemporary radical Jewish-dominated feminist movement, which rewrites the past to stigmatize every past patriarchal society and present household. In their distorted rape-fantasies, the healthy social order is transformed into a world of inebriated wife-beating troglodytes, and their powerless victims.

This desire to eradicate difference – in gender role, sex, race, and even philosophy (by throwing together divergent and contradictory schools) – conjoined with the impulse to revise history and discard traditions, holds within it the germ of chaos. It is an invocation of formlessness and debasement paralleled by the inflation that eventually ruined the empire.

Ezra Pound: not fond of "Taozers."
Global capitalism and social pluralism are intricately connected. Laissez-faire has both economic and social dimensions, much like Marxism and Cultural Marxism. In fact, social laissez-faire or liberalism is practically Marxism minus property rights. Hence, Ezra Pound was incredibly perceptive in linking the Taoists and Buddhists as Eastern variants of the metaphysical aspect of the Jews in Europe – as agents undermining the state and its traditions.

In his Cantos he wrote about the "seepage of Buddhists" and the "babbling" of "taozers," and how these groups destroy the "five human relations," the organic bonds of political and familial deference and emulation. Concerned with only matters of the head and spirit, the Buddhists "provide no mental means for / Running an empire," and so represent "Man by negation." The Taoists are "wholly subjective." Babbling of heaven and elixirs of immortality, they shift men’s minds to their inner life.

For Pound, the Jews function as the Taoists and Buddhists of the West. They confuse the natural hierarchy of society, weakening it from the inside.

Occidental interest in the Oriental is long tied to our exploratory nature and genuine curiosity about the world – the term ‘Faustian’ springs to mind. This Western impulse was seized upon and directly attacked by the Palestinian intellectual Edward Said in his book Orientalism (1978). This was an enormously influential anti-colonial narrative denouncing what he refers to as the “patronizing” and “ideological fictions” of the West.

Said, and those like him, conflated 19th-century colonialism with Orientalism. By doing so, he entwined two separate, though often overlapping discourses and realities within his own ideological fiction – resulting in a fundamental denial of the importance of existing differences and their maintenance.
"The term Orient nor the concept of the West has any ontological stability; each is made up of human effort, partly affirmation, partly identification of the Other."
This sort of Leftist irrationalism is the ends justifying the means. Another example of this Leftist doublethink is their attempt to rid the world of "racism" by categorically denying race – which like Said’s Orientalism moves from being a biological and social reality into a "social construct," which doesn’t actually signify anything other than the process of generating knowledge about the world.

"The hate-filled gaze of the West."
This is poststructuralist obscurantism at its most irrational, flagrant in its desire to overthrow, kill, and cannibalize the existing world. In so far as the decline of the West is occurring through a denial of the existence of the West, the same function is at work with race. In Leftist terms, even if the West and race exist, they ought not to because they are oppressive. The contradiction of trying to abolish something that they believe doesn’t exists never seems to trouble them.

By Said’s own definition, the West is only sustained by affirmation, identification of difference, and will. This sort of will is the opposite of the laissez-faire ethos of liberalism, which wrongly and falsely assumes that things just are (an atheistic rendering of the ‘invisible hand’).

In Taoist thought all problems arise with the interfering mind and the intervening individual:
"While Eeyore frets… and Piglet hesitates… and Rabbit calculates… and Owl pontificates… Pooh just is."
From the Taoist point of view, evil comes from the interfering and unappreciative mind, so passivity is encouraged. This attitude is encoded in the Western equivalent, "Go with the flow," and, in the 1960s, was even set to song by the Beatles in Let It Be.

Because Said wants to dismantle the ‘oppressive’ “ideological fiction” of the West, he is essentially arguing for a position of no effort and no affirmation from those upholding the West. This brings us back to ideological Taoism – social laissez-faire, liberalism, And Cultural Marxism. The enemies of the West must be ecstatic to see it as it is: unsure of itself, apologetic about its past and its traditions, succumbing to political correctness, and accepting plurality along with hordes of immigrants to change its essence. Said is of course one.

Said’s point of attack is that all knowledge about the Orient “is violated by the gross political fact,” by which, of course, he means our oppression of the South and East. But what he misses is that it is precisely this "political fact" that contains the most important knowledge about the Orient and the Occident.

Secularists make a similar claim about the Church, stating that it spiritual legitimacy is compromised by its worldly and political dimension. This Cartesian split misses the point of religion itself and slides into the formlessness of Taoism. Religion is political. The Church is an institution and has always been grounded in politics, and, if it is to retain any substance, it should remain political.

Said invites us to imagine some realm where one’s strength is not measured by competition, but by one’s own deranged solipsist measurement. But one cannot be regarded as ‘strong’ if no one is regarded as ‘weak’ – this is the Leftist Hegelian utopia of the abolition of the master-slave dialectic which Marx capitalized on.

Rather than Western conceptions of “The Other” being merely rooted in some malignant desire to dominate (which in part they are, and rightfully so), they are also rooted in understanding and contrasting. Western identity has seldom been simple blind self-affirmation. Setting aside the usually erroneous products of leftist anthropologists, like Margaret Mead, there are many authentic Western accounts that praise “The Other” – admiring the physiques of Native Americans, for example, along with their honesty and tribal structure. Likewise, it is not too hard to find adulatory Western accounts of feudal Japan.

Another important point to remember is that Western conceptions of “The Other” can only be rendered in a self-reflective manner, namely from a Eurocentric position. Without this, there is no perception. The post-structuralism that underscores Said’s work attempts to dislodge the Westerner from his own perspective and reveals who is really the object of dehumanization. This is explicitly admitted by the Jewish father of post-structuralism, Jacques Derrida:

"The idea behind deconstruction is to deconstruct the workings of strong nation-states with powerful immigration policies, to deconstruct the rhetoric of nationalism, the politics of place, the metaphysics of native land and native tongue… The idea is to disarm the bombs… of identity that nation-states build to defend themselves against the stranger, against Jews and Arabs and immigrants…"
The point, made abundantly clear here, is to deconstruct Western Civilization itself, and accomplish this by abolishing the notion of Western Civilization.

Unilateral disarmament of a civilization.
Libertarians will argue that that the system is too heavily regulated. If only government red tape was removed, the gears of the system would function ever-so-smoothly, but one look at the ebb and flow of global markets reveals the reality. What libertarians refer to as “freedom” is what radical conservatives would label “chaos.”

The number one traded “commodity” in the world is currency, which itself is an arbitrage scheme that by-passes the social benefit of productive labour to produce wealth by creating money out of money – the traditional understanding of usury. Given our examination it should be of no surprise that:
"The laissez faire slogan was popularized by Vincent de Gournay, a French Physiocrat and intendant of commerce in the 1750s, who is said to have adopted the term from François Quesnay's writings on China. It was Quesnay who coined the term laissez-faire, laissez-passer, laissez-faire being a translation of the Chinese term 無為 wu wei and mo wai in Cantonese."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire)
Wu wei being non-action or non-doing, without action, without effort, without control, is the Taoist principle at the heart of "Laissez faire et laissez passer, le monde va de lui même!" ("Let do and let pass, the world goes on by itself!").

The real point of the Right is to give form to the formless, to emphasis structure and to affirm ourselves against this onslaught of lackadaisical social laissez-faire liberalism, which is revealed as an ontological and epistemological Western Taoism, facilitated through economic exchange.

We need to call forth Western Civilization and affirm it, in ourselves and in others. Our enemies meanwhile seek to undermine us through deconstruction and extinguish the flame of the West; we must, as Dylan Thomas wrote, “Rage, rage, against the dying of the light.”

We need to instill the ‘Confucian principle’ of authority that Pound recognized as analogous to fascism as a solution to the problem of economics and liberalism. Confucian society is a rigid traditional hierarchy, characterized by patriarchal and feudal values and the ideals of the homestead. How much more Right could we get?