Aug 4, 2015

Terrorism and Totalitarianism

via Amerika

Modern people have divided the world by using categories which because of their good/bad nature are allowed to make decisions for people. For example, we all know that terrorism is bad and totalitarianism is bad.

Terrorism refers to guerrillas who target civilians so that the media freaks out and makes the terrorist cause more important. Totalitarianism describes any system of government where a central authority manages the daily activities of its citizens in order to keep them obedient and controlled.

We in the West love to talk about how we fight for democracy/freedom/peace, which all seem to mean the same thing: our system taking over yours. This has not changed for several hundred years. Napoleon fought his wars for the same reason, and the Soviets described their various assaults in similar language.

Another powerful reason exists to distrust this language. We are using it to deflect from our own society and its failings. In particular, we are both terrorists and totalitarians.

Anyone living in this society suffers constant fear of physical harm from the instability of society leading to criminal attacks, and the possibility of his fellow citizens making terrible decisions in times of crisis. These decisions range from rioting, stampeding, and theft to ignoring the crisis itself and voting for a series of distractions until war is upon us and we are unprepared. A few thousand soldiers and sailors from Pearl Harbor would like a word on this account, as well might the 3,000 people dead at the World Trade Center, not to mention the many people who were injured or had their property destroyed in race riots in Los Angeles, Ferguson and Baltimore.

The terrorism we face is that of instability. Our government claims to be doing something about these problems, but each time one flares up and the herd panics, government gets more power. In addition, the voters will never tackle a problem if they can ignore it, so government must create a crisis to get anything done. When they want more money for police, they let crime get out of hand; when they want more power for war, they allow an attack. Either way, citizens get caught in the middle and treated as expendables.

Our totalitarian side is simple: where previous totalitarian governments had a negative focus, as in a desire to crush non-conformists, our government sets up a simple formula. You either obey and be rewarded, or get ground down into the ghetto where the constant crime — which somehow they cannot solve — and corruption, disease and hopelessness will destroy you. In the Soviet Union, it was demanded that all who did not obey would be shot; in the Soviet West, it is demanded that all be shot by our helpful underclass except those who obey.

Textbooks do not define the terms this way. They prefer to keep the terms outward looking, so we think of terrorists as people overseas with Arab accents and totalitarians as sneering German übermen. Ask yourself why we need to deflect in this manner. The answer is that we can look anywhere but in the mirror, because to do so is to remove the legitimacy of our society and the method we use to control our people. In our masked totalitarian-terrorist society, that sin remains unforgivable.

I Am a World-Historical Individual

via Counter-Currents

Franz von Stuck, The Spirit of Victory
I realized the other night that I cannot remember a time in my life when I did not believe that I would make history. I have always had the unshakeable conviction that I am a man of destiny. (To be exact: a man of destiny, adventure, and romance.) In part, I have my mother to thank for this. Every so often, starting when I was very, very young, she would lean down, fix me with her dark brown eyes and say things like “You’re different,” “You’re special,” “You’re going to do something great when you grow up.”

I don’t often tell this to people, because it usually produces a response like, “Oh, all mothers say that to their children.” Well, I don’t know that that is true. All I know is that my mother said it like she really meant it, and I absorbed the message, and it became engrained in me. But I am a strange and paradoxical person, for I am also plagued by insecurity and self-doubt. The odd thing, however, is that in spite of this I have never really doubted what my mother told me.

My insecurities are — in the scheme of things — trivial hang ups (fear of rejection, fear of losing my looks, etc.), while my self-doubt usually has to do with my ability to cope with adversity. In fact, I have successfully coped with a great deal of adversity in my life. But you know how it is (yes, I’m talking to you): no matter how much empirical evidence piles up, it only seems to make the tiniest dents in one’s self-image.

But I can’t ever recall a moment in my life where I thought something like, “Maybe I really don’t have anything to say after all.” Or: “Maybe I’ll just die in obscurity. Maybe mother was wrong: maybe I’m just an average Joe.”

You see, I think my mother said these things with such deep conviction because she really did see something in me. She wasn’t stupid, and she wasn’t trying to “build up my self-esteem.” I came of age before all of that crap. And she sure as hell wasn’t just trying to be kind. That wasn’t in her nature.

Contrary to what you are probably thinking, I wasn’t overpraised. This is so for two reasons. (1) I actually did deserve the degree of praise I received. And (2) my mother was pretty hard on me when she thought I wasn’t living up to my potential. My failures weren’t swept aside with “There, there. One day you’ll show them what you’ve got inside you. Mother understands.” There was no false, exaggerated gushing over mediocre efforts. No, I was pretty much made to feel that I had great potential and that she expected me to actualize it — to really actualize it. My mother despised weak people, and those who failed to make anything of themselves.

I was a very, very, very sensitive child. I was introspective, but not moody (until I hit puberty). I had an extremely kind nature and could not bear to see suffering in others. I remember once my mother reading to me what I think was a Brothers Grimm story about a little girl who was bad to her mother and suffered hellish torments. (There was no agenda here, she read me every fairy tale so she was bound to get around to this one eventually.) I was so overcome by pity for the little girl — and, perhaps, remorse over how I could now and then be unkind to my own mother — that I began weeping, and my mother had to stop reading to me. I think I was about 14 at the time. No, I’m kidding: I was about 7. A couple of years later I was traumatized by a scene in a TV movie (A Girl Named Sooner, 1975) in which a girl kills her beloved pet bird. I wept so much I think my mother was quite disturbed by it.

I never lost this kindness and sensitivity, but hell is other kids. And the experiences I had with them caused me to develop a mean streak that has since co-existed with the sensitivity and sometimes threatened to bury it. As you have probably already guessed, the sensitivity went along with one hell of an imagination. And that was the thing that I was generally praised for the most. They also told me I was really smart — yet I struggled with math and science in school (I just hated those subjects; English and history were my favorites).

Very early on I noticed that I had a strong eccentric streak. I mean this in its literal sense: a tendency to move away from the center. I despised the conformity I saw in the kids around me. And I could always see through their phoniness and desperate desire to seem “grown up.” I wasn’t shy about sharing any of this either. The result was that after about age 8 I was, for the most part, ostracized. And the more they ostracized me the more I tried to provoke them. I knew that the reason they ostracized me was because they resented me for being superior.

Of course, over time I learned that there are an awful lot of really nice inferior people, that most people are inferior, and that if I didn’t want to be totally alone I needed to control my mouth and find some way to relate to them. But when I was very young I didn’t realize any of that. I felt a sense of contempt for others that was so overwhelming it became impossible for me to relate to others or to reach out to them. Eventually, those others included my entire family. Yes, even my mother. I essentially built myself a fortress of solitude.

I knew that I was smart and talented (hell, I had philosophical arguments with myself starting in the fourth grade). This wasn’t my assessment of my “potential”: I really did stuff. I painted and wrote poetry. I could always write really good. Once in the fifth grade another kid — being quite genuine and complimentary — said “How do you write like that?” Needless to say, this was an occasion for me to feel contempt. “It’s simple,” I said dismissively. “I just write like the people we’re reading.” And that is just what I did. I had an ability to (fairly successfully) imitate the styles of others. I could not understand why other kids couldn’t do this.

Very early on I perceived the lack of self-awareness in others; and their mechanicalness. Of course, I lacked a certain degree of self-awareness as well, and I was mechanical in my own way. But over time I have come to see this. My current problem is that I look at people my own age who seem never to have realized that they lack self-awareness, and I think “How can you be this way?” My contempt for others hasn’t diminished. And how could it? No one expects a good deal of self-awareness in a child. But when it’s lacking in a fifty year old man? What am I supposed to feel? Pity? Sorry. Not in my nature. What has happened, however, is that I have lowered my expectations of people. I have learned not to let my contempt boil over into anger. I have actually learned how to descend from Olympus and make friends with mortals. I have become kinder and more patient. But it is often still a struggle. And there is a strong streak in me that wants to lash out — to use my intellect like a weapon; to humiliate others; or just to say things to shock them and drive them away.

Before I forget, here’s story I know you’ll love. In the third grade, when the little wind-up children really ramped up the ostracism, we had a practice of bringing in records, which our teacher would play during lunch. Needless to say, these wastes of protoplasm would bring in their older siblings’ records. Anything that was “hot,” and seemed “grown up.” I can’t tell you how many times I suffered through “Kung Fu Fighting.”

Anyway, one day I decided to turn the tables and brought in my own favorite record: Conduct Your Own Orchestra: Child’s Introduction to Conducting. It featured the greatest hits of Beethoven, Brahms, Mozart, Wagner, etc. Words can’t express how pleased I was by the horrified protests of my fellow inmates. It was readily apparent to me how each was trying to outdo the others in protesting how much they hated this awful music. After a minute or two, bowing to public opinion, my teacher took the record off. She knew what was going on. She knew what I was up to.

Now, though I can’t remember a time when I didn’t feel supremely confident that I would do something great — that I had a destiny — I spent a very long time uncertain of just how that would play out. I accomplished quite a lot in my twenties and thirties. (Did I mention I had a literary agent by the time I was 20?) But I knew that none of it was what my mother meant when she said “you’ll do something great one day.” I achieved a fair amount of success in my profession, but when I started approaching 40 I had the inevitable crisis: just what is it I am supposed to be doing? When will I do that “great” thing mother always said I would do? And do I have enough time left? But my belief in destiny extends beyond simple confidence in myself: it actually involves the conviction that there is a World Spirit guiding things, and that it has plans for me. So I bided my time.

And then, just at a point when I had really begun to feel a real sense of urgency (“I must do something great now”) it found me. Or I found it. Or it put the two of us together. However you want to express it. I dedicated myself to the struggle to preserve my culture and my race. I don’t need to give my readers an argument for why this struggle is the struggle: if our culture and our race are lost, all is lost. On the scale of catastrophes, it is equivalent to the sun burning out. If that happened, all life on earth would end. If Western culture and the white race were to cease to exist, life would go on but what would be lost is the finest of mirrors nature has created for the purpose of beholding itself.

I’m a cosmotheist: our cosmic role is to be the self-consciousness of existence. Our role is to actualize God in the flesh. And all of the glories of our culture — which outshine those of all others — have been consciously or unconsciously created for this end.

This is the “great thing” my mother said I would do: saving the white race. I don’t think I’m going to do this singlehanded, of course. I am going to need a little help. And I suppose this is the reason I have decided to bare my soul and tell you all of this. If you’re one of these kids I spit at in school, chances are you’ve stopped reading by this point. But if any of this has struck a chord with you, then follow me. Follow us. If you have ever felt the call of destiny, and felt that you had something great that you must accomplish, look no further. There can be no greater task than this.

No excuses, please. You are going to die. And possibly sooner than you think. So I want you now to give up inwardly on the life you have led up to this point. I am not telling you to quit your job or divorce your wife or stop watching The Vampire Diaries. Outwardly, you need change hardly anything. Inwardly, however, you must detach yourself from the crap you have hitherto cared about and from now on care about one and only one thing: the survival of our culture and our race (yes, that includes your children — I hope).

I said no excuses. So that means that you must do this now. Not after you’ve done this that and the other thing. If you do not know what to do, wait. Or, for now, support those who do do something — especially those who actually have made the Movement their full-time job. You can also email me care of the editor of this site, who will forward your message. Tell me your situation, and I will do my best to advise you.

I said no excuses. So please, no negativity. If we think we’re not going to win then of course we won’t. If we think we’re doomed then of course we are. If there is no greater cause (there isn’t), and if our cause is just (it is), and if it is in principle winnable (it is), then we have a moral obligation not to entertain defeatist thoughts.

Besides, I can assure you that we are going to win. I am as confident of this as I am of “my destiny.” I have a hotline to the World Spirit, you see. There is a plan, and this present age of darkness is a part of it. There are men and women who will align themselves with the forces of darkness, and others who will align themselves with the light. It is those latter who will lead us out of our present predicament, even if they never live to see the fruits of their labors.

Join us. It’s really not a matter of “giving your life a purpose.” It’s more like becoming a god. You too can be a world-historical individual. Choose this — really choose this — before you leave this page. Or don’t come back here again, because I don’t want to see you.

Lessons from the Trump Fiasco

via TradYouth

After several weeks of leading American conservatives and even a good share of radicals in our own camp to believe that they’ve finally found a powerful and confident candidate who speaks for them, Trump has clarified his position on illegal immigration, confirming that he’s indistinguishable from the rest of the pack:
  • Focus on deporting the criminals
  • Create a pathway to citizenship for the “good ones”
  • Amnesty for illegal immigrant minors
  • Silence on Birthright Citizenship
According to the most fevered Bioshock fantasy fathomable; Trump manages to win the Presidential election without further compromising his position (improbable), achieves his full vision without it being watered down by congress’s cesspool of leftists and corporate lobbyists (improbable), and fully funds and flawlessly executes his complete vision (improbable), we’ll get more of the same . . . with perhaps a statistically significant hiccup in the number of the most dangerous recidivist prison gang types committing crimes in the United States.

This whole depressing fiasco creates an opportunity for one of the dozens of nameless candidates to charge to his right on the issue and pants him, staking out a more firm position on illegal immigrant. In the entire history of the democratic political process, there has never been a more direct and obvious pathway to muscling into the front of the pack than what Donald Trump just presented. I’m not holding my breath, as the cuckservative groupthink among the Republican Party elite is enough to make George Orwell wince.

Lessons Learned
1. Identity Electrifies
The Democrats have been saying it for years, and they’re absolutely right. The most reliable way to get White conservatives to the polls is to find some way to break past the filter of political censorship and speak to their group interests as Whites. There are a variety of implicit and indirect ways to dog whistle White Interests, of course. After all, even the illegal immigration issue is a dog whistle, a call to protect our demographic majority thinly disguised as a law and order concern.

Trump demonstrated that even at this late date, dog whistling still electrifies the White electorate. And there are other ways for the rest of the candidates to achieve the same effect without managing to steal the illegal immigration issue from Trump. The Democrats’ incipient social engineering campaign to reshuffle minorities, immigrants, and refugees into historically White neighborhoods threatens White conservatives where it matters: their home values, their school quality, and their direct personal safety. Staking out a law and order position on prison reform is another implicitly White issue hidden in broad daylight, awaiting a politician willing to stoop to that uncomfortable issue.

2. Alpha Posturing Wins
Newt Gingrich nearly ran away with the 2012 nomination with a series of aggressive debate performances, forcing Mitt Romney to man up. The current selection of candidates keep wasting time trying to arrange their issue positions in just that perfect way to win the hearts of the voters. As it goes with picking up girls, so it goes with picking up votes. If you have to make a direct appeal to your fundamentals, you’ve already lost.

The voters are swooning over Trump because they viscerally sense his willingness to socially dominate the Washington establishment. Trump doesn’t care about the voters’ wish list, and the voters can barely remember their litmus test issues when he rolls up on his motorcycle. Granted, as with Fifty Shades of Gray, being a billionaire certainly grants him an edge, but there would be a dark horse opportunity for a politically incorrect antihero in this contest if any of the fools would ditch the Karl Rove clones and hit up Roissy for some campaign advice.

3. Stay the Course
One would think we would have learned our lesson with our abysmal collective experience with Ron Paul. I resisted my urge to come out against Trump while he was still appearing to be genuinely better than the rest on illegal immigration, something Ron Paul never bothered to do even while his focus was on courting paleoconservative financiers and voters. Wherever there’s identitarian or traditionalist momentum, wherever it’s coming from, I try to stick with my Ghostbusters Policy of refraining from crossing streams.

I did post an article begging my comrades to adopt more of a wait-and-see approach rather than throwing in, to save them the potential embarrassment of having thrown in with a candidate whose position on the illegal immigration issue turns out to be entirely within the boundaries of Washington establishment groupthink. I hate to say “I Told You So!”, but even in the exceedingly rare event that I appear to fall on my face with a prediction, I’m actually just a few years ahead of things.

From an identitarian perspective, Jim Webb is indisputably a more interesting addition to the race than Trump, and he’s also the one candidate capable of being more socially aggressive than the Donald.

4. Be the Unmoved Mover
There’s little added value in identitarian radicals endorsing and supporting mainstream candidates at this point. Leave that work to the hacks and normies. Even if you believe in incremental change within the system, our role in that process is standing firm on identity and tradition and creating a gravity well around our positions which attracts normies toward us and then requires mainstream political actors to inch closer to our positions in order to recapture them.

We should be beyond capture, firm, and unmoved, delivering the complete and uncompromising message. Let others do the work of repackaging and watering our ideas down for mainstream consumption, then maintain a Ghostbusters Policy of resisting the urge to jealously protect our ideas from being adapted and corrupted by others. Polarization should focus on the politicians actively running away from identity and tradition, not the ones who are running toward identity and tradition.

Think in simple Pavlovian terms. Zap the ones doing worse things and hold your fire against the ones doing better things.

We can witness this process playing out rather swimmingly with the “cuckservative” meme’s success. Not every political actor is going to embrace it to its full extent, opposing interracial marriage and following it to its proper conclusions regarding America’s foreign policy relationship with Israel. We should hold our fire against those who are embracing a watered down understanding of it which is useful in attacking Jeb Bush, Lindsay Graham, and other egregiously despicable politicians.

There’s no actual contradiction between being an uncompromising radical and engaging with the mainstream political process. Our role is as the uncompromising radicals in the mainstream political process, consistently and persistently, without fidgeting or blinking, injecting our positions into the debate like a diabolical child focusing his magnifying lens on an anthill. At some point in the future, black swan events and disaster scenarios could play out which afford us an opportunity to become the political mainstream. But even then, the people will be looking for a vanguard which has proven itself firm and uncompromising, not anxious and itchy to follow the money and attention.

How to Unite a Disunited People Against Tyranny: Enter Vercingetorix

via Renegade Tribune

Introduction:
Although we learn about life by observing the world around us as it is today, we can also learn a great deal by looking back throughout history and viewing for ourselves situations that hold echoes of what we find in our time. The account of the Gallic uprising led by Vercingetorix against the Romans in 52 BC illustrates a perfect example of a people who had been mistreated and pushed too far. Crucially, the account also tells us exactly how Vercingetorix persuaded the Gallic tribes to put aside their differences and finally unite and join him to take on the Roman legions. Also covered are the military tactics used by both sides, explaining why certain approaches were successful while others were not.

Background events:
The year is 52 BC. After 6 years of campaigning, Roman legions, under the command of Julius Caesar, have finally subdued the numerous Gallic tribes to the north of Rome and have established control across all of Gaul (modern day France). For a long time their presence in these lands had been little more than a reign of terror, even involving the extermination of entire tribes, however Caesar at this time largely maintains control by using a divide and rule strategy amongst an already disunited people. Gaul was not then a unified nation, but a conglomeration of numerous ethnically-related Celtic tribes who sometimes fought one another. Caesar’s carefully orchestrated divide and rule approach typically involved favouring certain Gallic noblemen over others (eg. by offering political favours and luxurious Roman goods). But there is one huge problem that Caesar seems to have overlooked: the Gauls harbour a burning hatred toward their occupiers. They will never forgive nor forget what the Romans have done to their people. Caesar and his men are amongst a resentful population on the verge of revolt; a population just waiting for their chance to drive out the invaders.

Vercingetorix:
Enter Vercingetorix. He was a charismatic nobleman of the Celtic Arvernian tribe and a natural leader with a vision to drive the Romans out of Gaul once and for all. Not only was he a brilliant strategic thinker, but he had actually served in Caesar’s army (as had many Gauls). Therefore not only did he have actual military experience, but he had also gained intimate knowledge about how the Roman Army worked. He knew its strengths and its weaknesses. In 52 BC Vercingetorix was appointed chieftain of the Arverni tribe. “Vercingetorix” derives from the Gaulish meaning “great warrior king” or “king of great warriors”. And indeed, the man would soon show all of Gaul just how much he deserved the title.

The strategy:
Vercingetorix knew that even if a large force of Gauls were to be raised, they would be inexperienced and disorganized, and would be no match for the highly tuned Roman war machine in a direct all-out confrontation. But, on the other hand, he also knew that the Romans relied upon their men arranging themselves into highly organized, disciplined formations in order to engage their opponents. The Roman Army would therefore be at a disadvantage if an opponent managed to deny them the opportunity to get into formation, and would deny the Romans their cohesion, forcing the legionaries to have to fight in a confused, disorderly manner. This was perhaps best demonstrated 57 years later in 9 AD during the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest in Germania, where three whole Roman legions were enticed to enter the woods. Rough terrain and narrow roads resulted in the Roman column gradually becoming stretched out for miles. They were then ambushed by a coalition of Germanic tribes. Already highly vulnerable due to their being overstretched, the Romans also found that they were obstructed on all sides by the densely wooded terrain, in addition to pre-prepared obstacles and traps, and were therefore unable to organize into a coherent formation. These three legions were then wiped out almost to the last man by the Germans.

Knowing that he could only count on a fairly amateur, disorganized fighting style from the Gallic forces, Vercingetorix quite rightly concluded that the ideal strategy to employ against the Romans was to repeatedly strike at them in short bursts, retreating before the legionaries had time to organize themselves and mount a decisive response. He also knew that if he was lucky, enough such raids would start to severely deplete the strength of the legions, and at some point Caesar would be forced to turn south and head back to Rome for the season.

This was the ideal outcome, but Vercingetorix did not feel easy about relying on guerrilla-style tactics alone to defeat the most powerful army in the known world. He knew that every engagement with the Romans would be a risky venture, and he had too much respect for the Roman Army to fall into complacency. He therefore decided to increase the pressure on the Romans even further once the rebellion had started by implementing a scorched earth strategy. Thus not only would the Romans be repeatedly hounded by hit-and-run tactics; they would also find it a constant ordeal to feed themselves and live off the land.

The spark of revolt:
Vercingetorix could sense the mood of the Gauls right across the land. He knew that they had had enough. He knew that the time was ripe. His strategy to inspire the main Gallic tribes to unite and join him was to attack and devastate a Romanized city in Gaul in order to send an unmistakable shockwave throughout all of Gaul to signal to all that the revolution had started in ernest. And so, commanding a force of thousands of Gauls, Vercingetorix stormed the Roman city of Cenabum (modern day Orleans), burning it to the ground and butchering every single Roman that was found. This was the spark of revolt. There was no turning back now.

As it happened, Vercingetorix had anticipated the reaction of the Gauls perfectly. His strategy had worked. After Cenabum (Orleans), all but a handful of tribes agreed to unite and join with Vercingetorix. Vercingetorix now had his army. The ranks of his rebel force had now swelled to 80,000 men, in comparison to Caesar’s 10 legions, which consisted of 50, 000 soldiers. It was now time to take on the Romans legions.

Vercingetorix on the offensive:
Vercingetorix’s guerilla tactics against Caesar prove brutally effective. Caesar was wrong-footed right from the very start. He had completely misread the situation in Gaul and the mood of the population. Not only was his army dispersed and vulnerable, but he himself was even absent from his own command, being south of the Alps in order to monitor the political events of Rome. Upon returning to take charge of the situation, Caesar found himself totally on the defensive and could not properly counter the guerilla-style tactics the Gauls were using.

Before too long, repeated Gallic raids upon the Roman legions began to have the desired effect. This, together with the scorched earth campaign, gradually wore down Caesar’s forces. The last straw came when Vercingetorix’s forces attacked the Romans near Divio (modern day Dijon). The Romans had now finally sustained so much damage that Caesar was forced to begin the retreat south towards Rome.

But Vercingetorix, determined to press the attack over and over, pursued Caesar and attempted to cut off his retreat. Caesar’s men then turned to face their pursuers, with a fierce skirmish erupting. The Romans eventually broke off the encounter and continued retreating south. Vercingetorix’s strategy appeared to be working. However, by this time, Vercingetorix was also finding it very difficult to feed his men due to his own scorched earth strategy. And so, having naturally assumed that Caesar would head back to Rome for the remainder of the season in order to replenish his forces, Vercingetorix decided to head north to his main supply base at Alesia (modern day Alise-Sainte-Reine).

Caesar turns the tables:
Suddenly, upon the long march north to Alesia, Vercingetorix was horrified to learn that Caesar, instead of heading back to Rome, had actually about-faced and was now pursuing him! By doing so, Caesar had done something that Vercingetorix would have considered impossible with such a depleted force, thereby catching him totally off-guard. And by doing so, Caesar had regained the initiative.

Instead of attempting to wrestle back the initiative by resorting to his successful hit-and-run tactics, Vercingetorix, for whatever reason, kept to his strategy of reaching Alesia, which happened to be a well-fortified hilltop city surrounded by natural obstacles such as hills and rivers. Retreating to a bastion always invites the risk of being surrounded and besieged, but perhaps Vercingetorix thought that retreat to a fortress city was the only option given that Caesar had retaken the initiative. Perhaps too he had been influenced by a previous encounter with the Romans where the Gauls had successfully defended the hill fortress of Gergovia, inflicting heavy losses on Caesar’s men and eventually forcing Caesar to retreat in order to avoid total defeat. Whatever the reason for Vercingetorix’s decision to retreat to Alesia, it would prove to be a fatal strategic error.

The Siege of Alesia begins:
The safety of Alesia does indeed prove to be an illusion for the Gauls as Caesar brings up his entire 10-legion strong force of 50, 000 men and surrounds the city. Vercingetorix knows only too well that Caesar intends to besiege the city and starve his men into surrender. He also knows that this battle will be the final showdown in deciding the fate of Gaul.

Alesia, already home to over 10,000 inhabitants, watched as 70,000 extra mouths to feed flooded through its gates. Although there was a considerable amount of beef and corn stored up in the city, in addition to a well to meet the requirements for water, Vercingetorix knew that a prolonged siege would break Alesia. Despite all of this, however, Caesar’s situation itself was also far from ideal. The Romans were facing massive logistical difficulties in keeping their men fed – once again because of the Gauls’ scorched earth campaign. They too faced going hungry. Vercingetorix realized that the victorious side in this confrontation would be the one that was able to stave of starvation the longest.

The pressure increases:
Caesar then increased the pressure even further on Vercingetorix by ordering the construction of a 4 metre (12 foot) high wall that would eventually encircle the entire city and stretch for 16 km (10 miles). This was aimed at essentially imprisoning the rebel force within Alesia and prevent them from escaping. In addition to this, Caesar had also ordered the area between the wall and the city to be turned into a no-man’s-land of deep spiked ditches, moats and various death traps. Nasty little iron barbs called stimuli were also placed over the ground in order to puncture both feet and hooves.

But Vercingetorix refuses to just sit back and let his men waste away. He orders his cavalry to go out from the city gates and attack both the Roman construction workers and those Romans foraging for food. Although this initially proves highly successful at slowing down construction of the wall and keeping the Romans hungry, Roman cavalry soon begin to counter these raids. The Gallic cavalry are forced to scale down their attacks and construction of Caesar’s wall speeds back up.

The gamble:
Vercingetorix, knowing that both time and food were running out in Alesia, made the fateful decision to send out his entire cavalry force of 15,000 men in order to recruit help from the other Gallic tribes. It was a desperate gamble. If it failed, the whole uprising would be doomed. But if it succeeded, it might well end with the destruction of the hated enemy. What added more weight to this gamble was the fact that by sending out all of his cavalry, Vercingetorix was giving up any advantage he had in slowing down construction of Caesar’s wall, in addition to hindering the Romans’ efforts to gather food.

Although things were now starting to go his way, Caesar remained acutely aware of the fact that his legions would be highly vulnerable should Vercingetorix’s plan work and a relief force of Gauls arrive from the surrounding areas. He therefore ordered the construction of a second wall around the first one, this time 21 km (13 miles) in length, so that his legions, by being stationed between the two walls, would be safe from any attack by Vercingetorix’s men from within Alesia, as well as from any Gallic relief force that arrived from the surrounding countryside. He could therefore continue the besiegement of Alesia in safety. Caesar also ordered a one month supply of grain to be gathered, in addition to a massive stockpile of stones, sharpened sticks and other projectiles to be used against the Gauls.

The Gauls turn the tables back on Caesar:

After seven weeks into the siege, food stores are almost running out inside Alesia, and real suffering begins to take hold. And to make matters even worse, Caesar has now finished construction of both walls, complete with watchtowers at regular intervals equipped with powerful field artillery. The resulting siegeworks were truly bizarre: A city surrounded by a wall surrounded by a wall, constructed by besiegers who were themselves preparing to be besieged!

Morale inside the city reaches its lowest point as some of the Gallic soldiers threaten to surrender. As Vercingetorix fights to boost moral and all hope seems lost, a massive Gallic relief force of between 120,000 – 250,000 men finally appears on the horizon (some sources claim 60,000 men). This force was led by Commius, an interesting figure who, like Vercingetorix, had also served under Ceasar. In supreme irony, one year before, Commius had been hauled up before the Romans on trumped-up charges and sentenced to death. He managed to escape with a severe wound and vowed never again to associate with a Roman. Commius was the king of the Atrebates, a Gallic tribe that, quite interestingly, would later migrate to Britain.

The arrival of this relief force had a massive impact on moral within the city. Vercingetorix’s men were now motivated to fight. The rebellion had been reignited.

Everything hangs in the balance for both sides:

Commius goes on the offensive straight away. What followed was a frenzied, chaotic clash lasting several weeks which saw the Gauls repeatedly trying to find ways to breach Caesar’s walls, with desperate Roman efforts to counter their attacks. Roman cohorts were sometimes sent out to defend the outer wall. Over the course of this engagement, the fate of both sides would hang in the balance.

Initially Commius, despite repeatedly sending in huge numbers of men to assault the outer wall, watched time and again as they were pushed back by the Romans. But as time went by, the Gauls began probing and trying out different tactics. Commius’s relief force even started bringing in ladders and wall hooks. At several points in the battle over the following few weeks, the Gauls looked to be on the very verge of breaching the outer Roman wall, despite being showered by a constant stream of rocks, sharpened sticks, and other projectiles stockpiled by the Romans. They were also fired upon by powerful field artillery. And Caesar, against overwhelming odds, managed to regain the upper hand and drive the Gauls back every time.

But eventually, a critical point in the battle is reached when Commius’s men discover a gap in the outer wall where construction could not provide full closure due to a the presence of a river running through the Roman defences at that point. And so that night a huge Gallic ambush force snuck into a forest near the gap, hiding, planning to attack the Roman positions inside the wall at noon the following day. This was to be part of a massive, coordinated three-pronged assault that seems to have been planned by both Vercingetorix and Commius. Historians postulate that perhaps they had men sneaking through small, overlooked gaps in the walls at night, relaying messages between the two Gallic commanders.

The following day at noon the Gauls launch their three-pronged assault, with the huge Gallic ambush force rushing onto the offensive inside the outer wall against the Roman positions. Meanwhile, a second Gallic force begins an assault on the outer wall at a different location, and thirdly, Vercingetorix’s men launch an assault against the inner wall. By this time the Romans were running out of projectiles to hurl at the Gauls, and the three-pronged assault they were now up against was proving too much. And, as if to deliver the final, decisive death-blow to the Romans, Commius sends an additional 20,000 men to the gap in the outer wall.

Caesar is now forced to send reinforcements towards the gap in the outer wall to counter this latest move, and once again his men prevail. But this is largely due to the fact that the Gauls, by trying to squeeze their 20,000 reinforcements through the narrow gap, have largely neutralized their own numbers advantage. Despite this, however, the Romans at this part of the outer wall are still fighting for their lives against the large ambush force of Gauls who had entered earlier.

From his watchtower, Caesar looks on as the Gauls continue to engage his men on the inside of the outer wall, and can also see that Commius’s men are now also attempting to tear down the outer wall with mural hooks from the outside. Caesar realizes that the battle is reaching its climax, and that now is the time for him to take matters into his own hands before the Roman line breaks. Donning his famous red cloak, he personally leads four cohorts of reinforcements right into battle, and by doing so, finally turns the tide against the entire Gallic relief force. Morale within the Roman ranks is lifted as they see their commander charging into battle, and before long, a tsunami of Roman soldiers charge forward and follow Caesar. Commius’s huge force of Gauls are then finally pushed off the battlefield, and retreat in a panicked, disorderly manner. This makes them easy pickings for the Romans, who pursue them in a disciplined, orderly manner, slaughtering many as they do so. Eventually the Gauls are chased right back to their camp and completely routed.

This outcome sends a message of defeat and despair across the land, and within days the entire Gallic coalition crumbles completely as the Gauls who had fought under Commius head back to their own tribal lands. This now only leaves Vercingetorix’s forces in Alesia, who, despite understanding that all is lost, fight on courageously regardless. Eventually, however, Vercingetorix realizes the futility of this and surrenders to Caesar.

The aftermath:
Caesar was surprisingly lenient with the Gallic rebels who surrendered at Alesia. Either their courage and fighting prowess had won Caesar’s respect, or Caesar felt it was best to spare them as a public relations exercise, in order to appease the angry masses and keep the chance of uprisings to a minimum. But Vercingetorix had to be made an example of; after all, he had started all of this. So in 46 BC, after 5 years of imprisonment, he was executed, most likely in the customary fashion by strangulation in prison. All alone inside his prison cell except for his executioner in his final moments; such an undignified ending for such a proud, courageous warrior.

The final cost:
  • Romans: 12,800 killed or wounded
  • Commius’s Gallic relief force: 56,000 – 90,000 killed or wounded
  • Vercingetorix’s force: 40, 000 men captured
Important principles this historical example teaches us:
Although times may have changed since this epic showdown of the ancient world, basic military principles by and large have not changed. True, in today’s world, technology has undoubtedly changed warfare forever, however utilizing all the technology in the world during a military conflict will prove futile if the basic principles of warfare are not adhered to.

To summarize, the showdown between Vercingetorix and Caesar illustrates quite well a number of crucial military and historical principles:
  • Oppressors always provoke resentment within the population
  • Oppressors: The more violent the oppressor, the greater the chance of revolt from the masses
  • Oppressors can badly misread the population, leaving the door open for a massive backlash
  • People in common cause are drawn to leaders who radiate success
  • When hope is ignited amongst an oppressed people who have been pushed too far, many will fight and give their lives for the cause
  • Maintaining the initiative: This is absolutely crucial in armed conflict. Doing so generally keeps the enemy on the defensive and unsure about what to expect, and where to expect it. This in turn provides more options and flexibility to the side holding the initiative
  • The element of surprise: Vercingetorix managed to seize the initiative right from the very start by doing the unexpected. Later, Caesar would also do the unexpected to retake the initiative
  • Pitting the strength of an army against the weakness of its opponent: Vercingetorix did this by choosing a strategy that not only suited his own mens’ fighting style, but one which also played to his enemy’s weakness – in this case the inability of the Roman legionaries to get into formation quickly enough to counter his swift raids
  • Caesar then regained the initiative by using the element of surprise: By turning around and giving pursuit to Vercingetorix’s forces, he did something which Vercingetorix considered virtually impossible
  • Retreating to a redoubt in such a situation, as with Vercingetorix’s decision to retreat to Alesia, goes against conventional military logic, as it invites encirclement and besiegement. And indeed in this case it proved to be a huge strategic mistake
  • When Caesar arrives at Alesia, he then does to Vercingetorix what Vercingetorix had initially done to him: He pits the strength of the Roman Army (in this instance, their engineering prowess) against the weakness of the Gallic force (their being trapped in Alesia)
  • Stifling an enemy force’s ability to feed itself: This often proves to have a devastating effect, and is indeed one of the oldest tactics in military history. In this historical example, we see the huge success that Vercingetorix had with his scorched earth strategy. We also see how the very battle of Alesia itself depended upon food
  • Neutralizing the numeric advantage of a superior enemy: Caesar did this brilliantly by the construction of the two walls. Often in warfare, however, commanders will select natural terrain with choke points to neutralize an enemy’s superior numbers. The most famous historical example of this was during the battle of Thermopylae, where several thousand Greek warriors stood their ground on a narrow pass and managed to hold up a Persian invasion force of 100,000 – 200,000 men for several days
  • Increasing moral: We see two examples of this, both occurring at two critical points in the battle: Firstly, when the Gauls within Alesia realized that the Gallic relief force had arrived, giving Vercingetorix’s men renewed vigour to fight; secondly, we see the same increase in motivation occur within the ranks of the Romans at the climax of the battle when Caesar personally took charge of the situation and led his men into the fray
  • The danger of panic and disorder: As soon as the retreating Gauls broke down into panic and disorder, they were easy prey for Caesar’s disciplined pursuit. We see examples of this principle all throughout military history. One historian describes the phenomenon as follows: “Once fear gets into the ranks, you’re done. You can’t control it, no matter how disciplined you are, how controlled you are.”
  • Minimizing the risk of future insurgency: After the conflict was over, we see Caesar changing his approach and adopting a more lenient stance towards the Gauls

References:
Battles BC: Caesar – Super Siege (DVD)
Wikipedia: Vercingetorix – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vercingetorix
Wikipedia: Battle of Alesia – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alesia
Wikipedia: Battle of the Teutoburg Forest – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Teutoburg_Forest
Wikipedia: Commius – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commius

Cucks

via Western Spring

There’s a terrific term making the rounds among Awakened Whites *: Cuck or Cuckservative.

The term comes from cuckold which in turn comes from cuckoo bird.

As you probably know, cuckoo birds have a reproductive and survival strategy that has them lay their eggs in the nests of other types of birds.  Then, these other birds put in all the effort–waste their time and expend their precious energy–to hatch the cuckoo eggs.

When the cuckoo chicks hatch, they are often larger and more aggressive than the host birds’ chicks, and the cuckoo chicks out compete the host  chicks for the food supplied by the host parents which often starves the host  chicks to death, and if that doesn’t kill them off, the cuckoo chicks will often push the host chicks out of the nest to their death. The result is that the host birds are cuckholded: They work against their own best survival and reproductive interests and help the reproductive and survival interests of the cuckoos.  This is just one part of the Gene Wars that I write about often.

Now, to the point. Who is a human cuck?

Any White who miscegenates. Any White who adopts non-White children.  Any White who helps non-Whites survive to make more like themselves. Any White who supports sending White kids to fight in wars that benefit non-Whites. Any White who works against White interests and who helps the interests of non-Whites.

Here’s an example of a cuck:  One who says they follow this or that religious belief system and that he or she would accept a non-White under his or her roof if they were the same religion but who would not accept a fellow White under the roof if this White was not of that religion. Such a person may initially sound like an Awakened White but  because they favor the non-White over the White  they demonstrate that they don’t understand the fight we are in for our survival as Whites.

There can be no exceptions: Whiteness over all.

Here’s another example, one of former U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s sons adopting a Black child.

And, another, present U.S. presidential candidate Jeb Bush who married a Mestizo Mexican woman and who produced children who his father, former president George H.W. Bush once described as “those little brown ones.”

General examples from the political front also include  those non-Jewish White politicians who do the bidding of Jews and who want to send non-Jewish White kids to fight for Jewish/Israeli/Zionist interests.

I’m sure you can name many cucks. 

*Author's Note: I  define an Awakened White as ANY non-Jewish White person who puts Whiteness before all else and who is consciously White  all the time and  who doesn’t apologize for being White, and  who feels no guilt for being White, and who wants Whites to start breeding again (and, importantly, by engaging in the breeding of himself or herself) to win the Gene Wars. And, this is truly EVERY White no matter their political or religious views or affiliations. If Whiteness trumps everything else, they are an Awakened White in my book.

Suicidal Humanism and the White Enemy Within

via Occident Invicta

Poor Bernie Sanders. After provoking the ire of black activists, the beleaguered socialist from Vermont has incurred the wrath of the polemical far-left site Vox. So what was Sanders’ latest “ugly” transgression? He entertains the radical notion that open borders is a bad deal for American workers, and that the US should look after its own people:
So I was disappointed, if not surprised, at the visceral horror with which Bernie Sanders reacted to the idea when interviewed by my colleague Ezra Klein. “Open borders?” he interjected. “No, that’s a Koch brothers proposal.” The idea, he argued, is a right-wing scheme meant to flood the US with cheap labor and depress wages for native-born workers. “I think from a moral responsibility, we’ve got to work with the rest of the industrialized world to address the problems of international poverty,” he conceded, “but you don’t do that by making people in this country even poorer.”
Dylan Matthews, the gadfly who penned the article, seems intent on validating the argument that leftists serve as useful idiots for the 1% that they supposedly oppose. This article is so ridiculously quixotic and replete with bizarre leftist internationalism that a part of me thinks Keith Preston wrote it as a way to parody “totalitarian humanism.” Just check out this passage (emphasis mine):
There are two problems with Sanders’s view on this, one empirical and one moral. He’s wrong about what the effects of an open-border policy would be on American workers, and he’s wrong in treating Americans’ lives as more valuable and worthy of concern than the lives of foreigners.
Yes, you read that right; apparently, caring more about your fellow countrymen than every person on the planet is anathema to leftists like Matthews. I know that I’m starting to sound like a broken record, but yet again I challenge you to find sizable numbers of pundits in non-white countries who espouse such nonsense. But anyway, the reason why nations and societies exist is to look after their own, and even the leftist economist Dean Baker rightly chides Matthews for his absurd logic. As the tweeter at the bottom named Aaron put it, Sanders isn’t “running for president of the world.”

Matthews only further compounds his fatuousness by citing this ridiculous thought experiment:
The philosopher Michael Huemer has a great thought experiment making this point. Imagine a man, Marvin, is starving to death, and goes to a marketplace to buy bread. Another man, Sam, forcibly stops him and prevents him from buying bread. Marvin starves to death.
That’s wrong, right? And it’s still wrong if the harm caused is less severe. Say Marvin isn’t going to the marketplace to buy bread, but instead to sell it. If he sells it at that particular marketplace, he will make 15 times more money than if he sold it at the other marketplace in town. But Sam stops him, by force, from selling at the lucrative marketplace, forcing him to settle for the other market, where he makes 15 times less.
The analogy is not exactly subtle: Marvin is a potential immigrant (in this case from Nigeria; recall that moving from Nigeria to the US raises an average migrant’s earnings 15-fold), and Sam is a US border patrol agent. If you think Sam is hurting Marvin by barring him from selling bread from the good market, you’ve got to think that border agents are hurting immigrants by keeping them from coming to work in the US.
For starters, there’s an obvious difference between citizens living within a nation and outsiders who intend to move in. To curtail the rights of your own citizens is certainly wrong; nations, on the other hand, have no obligation to tend to any and all needs of myriad outsiders. Otherwise, they cease being nations.

There’s a far better and more apt analogy, which Dota gave me during one of our more recent conversations. Let’s imagine that there’s an altruistic, civic-minded young liberal woman living in San Francisco. Understandably, she wants to address the plight of the city’s burgeoning homeless population. What are her options? On the one hand, she could donate money to support food drives for the homeless, lobby the city to construct more shelters, and advocate for laws that protect the homeless from abuse. Or, she could invite as many homeless people as possible to live with her, while encouraging her friends to do the same.

Essentially, Dylan Matthews would have the US exercise the latter option, with little regard for living space or boundaries. Unsurprisingly, the results would be just as disastrous. If one actually gives a crap about remedying the penury of the 3rd world, then there are better ways to do so than opening the floodgates. Just as supporting homeless causes is a more sensible course of action than allowing them to move in, tackling international poverty and violence is a better option than allowing the masses of the (non-white) world to inundate the country. Instead of pressuring our elites to alter their destructive foreign policy and harmful international trade agreements, leftist shills for open borders want to pass the costs of 3rd world destitution onto regular white Americans.

Obviously, open borders is sheer lunacy and highly detrimental to the lives of white Americans. That’s why its proponents can only invoke “humanitarian” arguments or tout its supposed economic benefits by citing libertarians such as Bryan Caplan. If mass immigration were really so wonderful, it wouldn’t require constant cheerleading.
At the same time, I have nothing against immigrants themselves, and I don’t condemn Latinos and Asians for wanting to improve their lives. Instead, I denounce white elites and their lackeys such as Dylan Matthews. They are the reason why whites are poised to become a minority by 2042; they are the ones responsible for the flourishing of cultural leftism. Suicidal white humanism – along with its many adherents – are the true enemies within.

We must continue to thoroughly discredit their ideas, and at the bare minimum ensure that they do not infect other white people with their loony logic.

Attitudes on Immigration: Compassion for Whites; Ethnic Hardball; and Crocodile Tears for Jewish Activists

via The Occidental Observer

Jewish ethnic activist, Stosh Cotler
What’s the population of the United States? About 320 million, you think? No, that statistic is both woefully out-of-date and grossly unjust. The actual, ethical population of the US is seven billion and rising. Funnily enough, that’s also the ethical population of the United Kingdom – and of Canada, France, Sweden and Australia. In fact, all European-majority nations have an ethical population of seven billion. Just ask Stosh Cotler, CEO of “Bend the Arc: A Jewish Partnership for Justice”:
Right now, at least 11 million men, women, and children are living in the United States with the real fear that they could be thrown into a detention center, deported, and torn from their families at any time. These are our neighbors, our friends, and our children’s classmates. Even if we don’t have a personal connection to any of the millions of undocumented people in America, they are people whose innate dignity deserves respect.
Today, upwards of 30,000 people are being held in detention centers across the country, many without any way to contact their families. Every day an average of 1,120 people are put on buses and discarded across the border. This is no way to treat people who have worked hard, paid their taxes, and contributed to the country like the rest of us — they are “different” only because they lack the right papers. (Why Immigration Reform Is A Jewish Issue, NationalJournal.com, 11th April 2014)
The logic is clear: it is nonsensical and unjust to discriminate between people who have the “right papers” for American citizenship and people who don’t. The difference between those two groups is illusory. This leads to a simple conclusion: that all seven billion people on Earth are actually American citizens. It’s just that most of them don’t have the right papers and don’t currently live there. And the same logic applies to Britain, Canada, France, Sweden, Australia and all other Western nations. Legalistic, petty-minded demands that all potential citizens of those nations have the “right papers” are a gross violation of their innate dignity as human beings.

Yes, that’s the clear message of the warm-hearted and compassionate Jewish activist Stosh Cotler as she fights for justice in the U.S. Cotler thinks that compassion toward immigrants is a central aspect of Jewish identity, but she clearly also regards compassion toward immigrants as an aspect of Jewish ethnic strategizing. Underneath the masquerade of compassion is some very self-conscious ethnic hardball — a far more compelling reason for why Jews have been in the forefront of pro-immigration movements throughout the West. The compassion is a facade, nothing more than crocodile tears. In Cotler’s view, immigration, legal and illegal, is good for the Jews:
Jews understand that while we may not be the ones on the buses today, we’ve been there before. We know that when one group is threatened, it puts everyone at risk.
One of Judaism’s central teachings is to “welcome the stranger,” to offer shelter to those in need and to accept those who we perceive to be different from us. Contrary to the individualistic, go-it-alone attitude that has prevented our country from making progress on many pressing social issues in recent years, Jews believe that our fates are bound up in one another — that we’re all in this together. Put in a different way, we are responsible for each other, and an injustice against one hurts everybody. It also means we are responsible for correcting the injustices in our world. (Why Immigration Reform Is A Jewish Issue)
It is clearly an injustice that American citizenship should be based on something as trivial as paperwork. If people anywhere on Earth want to become Americans, no decent government should stand in their way. Britain too is full of warm-hearted and compassionate Jews fighting to correct migration injustice. And again their compassion for asylum seekers is intimately linked to their Jewish identity. It comes naturally to all Jews:
Rabbi ‘almost in tears’ over asylum-seekers
A rabbi said that a visit to a detention centre for asylum-seekers yesterday left him “almost in tears”. Rabbi Zvi Solomons, of Reading Synagogue [Reading, pronounced “Redding”, is a town in southern England], was a part of a joint delegation organised by Tzelem, the rabbinical call for social justice, and Jewish human rights charity Rene Cassin to the Harmondsworth Immigration Removal Centre in Middlesex.
Rabbi Solomons said that he was “almost in tears” when hearing of the frustration of one man who had been fighting to remain in Britain for a decade and had been detained for seven months. The man’s stepson was also “suffering from the absence of the only stable father he has known,” Rabbi Solomons said. He criticised the system in which people could be detained indefinitely as “utterly unfair and arbitrary, and hide-bound by bureaucracy”.
Rabbi Alexandra Wright, of the Liberal Jewish Synagogue, St John’s Wood, cited the case of another detainee who was due to be deported in weeks after the expiry of his student visa but would be in danger if he returned to his home country.
“After decades of civil war and human rights violations, there is a warrant for his arrest dating back to an anti-government protest in which he was involved,” she said. “From the thick pile of papers in front of us, he pulled out his medical report; a body diagram showed injuries to both his knees where he had probably been beaten up or tortured.”
She said that “the promise of this young man’s life is darkened by unjust imprisonment and a daily diet of uncertainty about his future”.
Liberal Judaism chief executive Rabbi Danny Rich said that “locking up people without any limit on the time – many of whom are vulnerable and will eventually be granted a temporary or a permanent stay here – is particularly poignant at Pesach, when we Jews commemorate freedom for [sic] oppression in Egypt.” He hoped that the visit – co-ordinated with charity Detention Action – would “highlight the plight of these often isolated people who have endured conditions in their own homelands akin to slavery – and give them some assurance that they are not entirely alone.” (Rabbi ‘almost in tears’ over asylum-seekers, The Jewish Chronicle, 9th April 2015; emphasis added)

Rabbi Zvi Solomons: "Let my Eritreans go!"
Rabbi Zvi Solomons: “Let my Eritreans go!”

Jews in Britain have also responded to the current humanitarian crisis at the French port of Calais, where vulnerable migrants dreaming of a better life are being cruelly denied free entry into Britain. The ex-communist David Aaronovitch claimed in the Times that “with proper arrangements, we could take every single person… and hardly notice it. We could turn those rangy, scary young men into electrical engineers” [!!!], while Emma Barnett said “screw British holidaymakers” in the Telegraph and called on us to remember the “real victims” – “the mostly male Eritreans, Ethiopians, Afghans and Sudanese trying to live in Europe,” who are “real people, with hearts, families and lest we forget it, human rights.”

So that’s the message from the warm-hearted Jewish minority in cold-hearted Western nations: “Welcome the stranger! Liberate the oppressed! Open your borders to the world!” Obviously, then, the Jewish-majority nation of Israel must be following that “central teaching of Judaism” and “Welcoming the stranger,” regardless of colour or creed. As Stosh Stotler so movingly put it: “We are responsible for each other, and an injustice against one hurts everybody.”

But Cotler’s emphasis on why immigration into Western countries is good for Jews gives away the game. Just because it’s good for Jews in Western countries does not mean that it’s good for Jews in Israel. Jewish compassion is co-extensive with their self-interest (see “Is Immigration a Jewish Value?“).

Which explains what happens when unjustly oppressed “Eritreans, Ethiopians, Afghans and Sudanese” try to move to Israel. Red carpets are not rolled out, banners of welcome are not hung across the streets and warm baths are not readied to wash the grime of travel from their weary bodies:

Israel’s response to some Eritrean strangers
Israel’s response to some Eritrean strangers

Israel court debates stranded border refugees
Israel’s High Court was on Thursday mulling an urgent appeal on behalf of 20 Eritrean nationals stranded in no-man’s land on the border with Egypt for a week after the Jewish state refused them entry. The appeal was filed by Israeli NGO [Non-Governmental Organization] We Are Refugees in a petition against Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Interior Minister Eli Yishai for refusing to allow the group of Eritreans, who are seeking political asylum, into the country.
Israel on Wednesday denied it had any legal obligation to let them in. “The attorney general ruled today that there is no legal obligation to take in anyone located beyond the border,” said a statement from the interior ministry.
“According to international practices and binding precedents, the fence is a de facto border, and therefore anyone who is beyond it is not located in Israeli territory and is therefore not eligible for automatic entry,” a government spokesman said on condition of anonymity. “There has been no determination by any international body according to which Sudanese or Eritrean citizens are persecuted in Egypt or that their lives are in danger. Therefore, there is no legal obligation to allow entry into Israel of those who are near the fence.”
Israeli figures indicate there are some 60,000 Africans living illegally in the country, most of them from Sudan and Eritrea. In recent months, Israel has been waging a major campaign to round up and deport illegal African migrants, sparking an outcry from rights groups. (Israel court debates stranded border refugees, Alarabiya.net, 6th September 2012)
There you have it. Israel’s “Welcome for the Stranger” — the same types of strangers that the organized Jewish community enthusiastically welcomes to the UK — consists of a big fence, lots of barbed wire, and a firm refusal to accept any “legal obligation to allow entry into Israel.” That story about Eritreans was published in 2012. Since then, the “major campaign to round up and deport illegal African migrants” has been a major success. If you don’t have the “right papers” in Israel, you don’t have any right to be there and you soon won’t be.

What has been the reaction of Stosh Cotler to Israel’s cruel denial of a better life to those wide-eyed African dreamers? Has she demanded that Israel follow that “central teaching of Judaism” and welcome all Black strangers? Has Rabbi Zvi Solomons visited any detention centres in Israel and choked back tears for the vulnerable migrants trapped there? Have David Aaronovitch and Emma Barnett used their platforms at the Times and Telegraph to excoriate the Israeli government for its abhorrent inhumanity and injustice?

To the best of my knowledge, the answer to all those questions is a simple “No.” It seems that open borders are a moral imperative for all White nations in which Jews are a minority, but not at all for the only nation in which Jews are the majority. That’s the clear message from Stosh Cotler, Rabbi Solomons and company.

Furthermore, vast rewards are on offer for non-Jews who echo the Jewish line that immigration is a moral imperative for Whites. The repulsive ex-lawyer Peter Sutherland, an ethnic Irishman, has prospered enormously while being a fanatical supporter of open borders in Europe. No one ever said that the war on Whites wasn’t massively incentivized, so traitors are to be expected.

Peter Sutherland, millionaire traitor
Peter Sutherland, millionaire traitor

Sutherland, a former Attorney General of Ireland, former or present director of blue-chip companies and permanent member of international think-tanks, is like an ungainly piece of inherited furniture, a teak-oiled trophy cabinet full of meretricious treasures. He holds in his stubby hands an honorary British knighthood – the European Parliament’s Gold Medal – the Grand Cross of Civil Merit (Spain) – the Grand Cross of King Leopold II (Belgium) – Grand Cross of the Order of Infante Dom Henrique (Portugal) – the Legion d’Honneur – the Brazilian Order of Rio Branco – and yet more others, a glinting cascade of gold-coloured base-metal tributes.
[I]n 1984 he became the youngest ever European Commissioner, one of those bland mini-potentates whose precise purpose is so mysterious that their appointment cannot be entrusted to ignorant voters.
Central to his grand schemes were, and are, international finance, air and oil – and as good luck would have it, he was soon invited to join the boards of Delta Airlines, BP and Goldman Sachs. His insights were soon being sought by, and all too often delivered to, a plethora of organizations feared by conspiracists – Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group, Council on Foreign Relations, World Economic Forum, Pilgrims Society – although perhaps such groups should be feared more for their narcoleptic than their necromantic powers.
[H]e [also] has the resounding title of Consultor of the Extraordinary Section of the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See. To add to this sacerdotal seal of approval, there have always been plentiful profane rewards – such as the £125 million he reportedly ‘earned’ from Goldman Sachs’ 1999 flotation.
But the money was always incidental to the greater aim of getting rid of all those pesky prehistoric frontiers, traditions and identities which impede the global flows of capital, commodities, human rights lawyers, pictures of celebrities in thongs, and humans in throngs. As he remarked almost angrily in 2007, opposition to greater globalisation is ‘morally indefensible’.
Migration was a ‘crucial dynamic for economic growth’ in some European countries, ‘however difficult it may be to explain this to the citizens’. The declining populations of some EU countries meant that multiculturalism was not only inevitable, but deeply desirable – ‘It’s impossible to consider that the degree of homogeneity which is implied by the other argument can survive because states have to become more open states, in terms of the people who inhabit them.’
Limiting immigration risked Britain’s reputation for being a ‘tolerant, open society’, he claimed – and he contrasted Euro-intransigence with well-known social paradises like the United States, which ‘…accommodate more readily those from other backgrounds than we do ourselves, who still nurse a sense of our homogeneity and difference from others. And that’s precisely what the European Union, in my view, should be doing its best to undermine.’
No-one enquired whether existing residents of countries would also have the freedom to choose what kind of country they lived in – nor whether he foresaw any kind of limits on human traffic from Asia or Africa into small countries like his own (pop. 3 million). … Nor was he asked whether he thought it possible that unlimited migration might endanger the ‘tolerant, easy’ characteristics he and most other Europeans value – nor whether his manic métissage [mixing of races] might make the whole world rather less interesting and beautiful. Although he will be leaving the world a very much richer man than he entered it, the world he leaves behind will probably be poorer, in ways he cannot begin to comprehend. (The questions Peter Sutherland, the globe’s grandee, was NOT asked by the Lords, The Daily Mail, 27th June 2012)
One may doubt to what extent the money was “incidental” to Sutherland’s motivation in all this. Sutherland exemplifies the fame, fortune and high status awaiting those who are effective at implementing elite anti-White attitudes on immigration and multiculturalism.

This traitor is still hard at work calling for the destruction of Europe:
Peter Sutherland, the United Nations Secretary General’s special representative on international migration, said demands for economic migrants to be kept out of the UK are “a xenophobic response to the issue of free movement”.
“In my opinion, the debate in the UK is grossly excessive in terms of Calais,” he told BBC2’s Victoria Derbyshire programme. “We are talking here about a number of people – a relatively small number in the context of what other countries are having to do – who are in terrible conditions and have to be dealt with by France and/or Britain.”
The migrants crossing the Mediterranean by boat are “in the main” genuine refugees fleeing violence and persecution, he said. “Germany last year received 175,000 asylum applications. Britain received 24,000,” added Mr Sutherland. “We are talking here about between 5,000 and 10,000 people in Calais who are living in terrible conditions. The first thing we have to do collectively is to deal with their conditions. Instead of talking about sending Gurkhas [a Nepali tribe who serve in the British army] or building fences, we should be thinking of the humanitarian crisis.”
Mr Sutherland urged the UK to join the common European approach to the migrant issue, warning: “Anybody who thinks that by erecting borders or fences in some way a particular state can be protected from alleged ‘floods’ – which are anything but floods – of migrants is living in cloud cuckoo land.” (Calais migrants crisis caused by ‘swarm’ of people trying to reach Britain, says David Cameron, The Daily Telegraph, 30th July 2015)
Sutherland thus uses one of the same tactics noted above as typical of Jewish activists: Cast immigration and multiculturalism as a moral issue to induce guilt in Whites desperate to avoid being labeled xenophobic or lacking in compassion for non-Whites.

But, as ever, Peter Sutherland is lying. You don’t have to live in “cloud cuckoo land” to think that fences are good. You just have to live in Israel, where fences have proved an excellent way of protecting the state and safeguarding the Jewish majority. The Israeli government thinks that open borders are highly toxic. It’s right: they are. A clear majority of Europeans and Americans think the same. And even in Sweden, famous for its suicidal policies on immigration and asylum, opposition to insanity is on the rise:
Ostracised within the Swedish parliament, the anti-immigrant Sweden Democrats are the country’s fastest-growing political force. Before last September’s general election, one of their candidates had to withdraw when photographs appeared of her wearing a swastika armband. Such reminders of the party’s neo-fascist roots are a regular occurrence, but a substantial swathe of the Swedish electorate does not seem to care. The SD gained 12.9% of the vote at the election, more than doubling its share and making it Sweden’s third-largest political movement. Latest opinion polls put the party above 18%, snapping at the heels of the Social Democrats, who run an enfeebled minority government.
The pitch to voters was summed up by Åkesson in the runup to last autumn’s poll, when he tweeted: “The election is a choice between mass immigration and welfare. You choose.” …
For months the eyes of Europeans have been trained on the travails of Greece. But in these turbulent times a seismic upheaval is also taking place in the normally sedate world of Scandinavian politics. And it is one that, in its own way, is as significant as the emergence of Syriza, or the growing respectability of Marine Le Pen’s Front National in France. In Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland, the populist right is on the march – and it is wearing the traditional battle armour of the Nordic left. (How the Nordic far-right has stolen the left’s ground on welfare, The Guardian, 26th July 2015)
Liars like Stosh Cotler and traitors like Peter Sutherland should be getting very worried at what may happen in future. If they aren’t, I suggest that they pay more attention. Their lies and treachery are starting to fail. More and more Whites think that what’s toxic for Israel is also toxic for their nations. Third World immigrants carry with them what they are trying to escape: criminality, tribalism and low average intelligence. That’s precisely why Israel welcomes Black strangers with a big fence and lots of barbed wire. White nations need to follow Israel’s lead. After all, the Prophet Isaiah proclaims that Israel must be a “light to the Gentiles.”

An Open Letter to Cuckservatives: You Aren't Just Betraying Your Principles

via American Renaissance

Dear Cuckservative,

You are not alone. Like you, Erick Erickson at RedState.com, Matt Lewis at the Daily Caller, Taylor Millard at Hot Air, the blogger Ace of Spades, and Jim Harper with the Cato Institute are all squirming under the lash of this new coinage. They are squirming because a single word, "cuckservative," lays bare the rot at the heart of your movement: American conservatism can conserve nothing if it cannot conserve the nation’s founding stock. I’ll put it bluntly: Nothing you love will survive without white people.

Do you stand for limited government and a balanced budget? Count your black and Hispanic allies. Do you admire Thomas Jefferson? He was a slave-holder who will end up on the dung heap with the Confederate flag. Do you care about stable families and the rights of the unborn? Look up illegitimacy, divorce, and abortion rates for blacks and Hispanics. Do you cherish the stillness at dawn in Bryce Canyon? When the park service manages to get blacks and Hispanics to go camping they play boom-boxes until 1:00 a.m. Was Ronald Reagan your hero? He would not win a majority of today’s electorate.

Do you love Tchaikovsky? Count the non-whites in the concert hall. Do you yearn for neighborhoods where you can leave the keys in your car? There still are some; just don’t expect them to be “diverse.” Are hunting and firearms part of your heritage? Explain that to Barack Obama or Sonia Sotomayor. Are you a devout Christian? Muslim immigrants despise you and your faith. Do you support Israel? Mexicans, Haitians, Chinese, and Guatemalans don’t.

Your great festival–CPAC–is as white as a meeting of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. That’s because blacks and Hispanics and even Asians don’t share your dreams. You’ve heard the old joke: “What do you call the only black person at a conservative meeting? The keynote speaker.” Outreach doesn’t work. You can’t talk someone into loving what you love. Faith, patriotism, duty, and honor come from deeply cultural, religious, and ancestral sources you can’t reach.

Why do you evoke Martin Luther King when you call for a “colorblind” America? You know he wanted quotas for blacks. You evoke King because you think he’ll help you silence blacks and liberals. But it doesn’t work, does it? That’s because only whites–and Asians, when it suits them–even think in terms of “colorblindness.” Blacks and Hispanics will squeeze every unfair advantage out of you they can. At what point will they ever abandon their aggressive racial agenda? When they’re the majority just think how hard they’ll squeeze your grandchildren.

You tell yourself that the things you love about America–and I love them, too–are rooted in certain principles. That is your greatest mistake. They are rooted in certain people. That is why Germans, Swedes, Irishmen, and Hungarians could come and contribute to the America you love. Do you really believe that a future Afro-Hispanic-Caribbean-Asiatic America will be anything like the America your ancestors built?

Let’s consider your principles. Do you dream of a traditional, religious, free-market society with small government, low taxes, and no gun control, where same-sex marriage is illegal, and abortion, divorce, prostitution, and illegitimacy are scorned? There are such places: the tribal areas of Pakistan and Somalia.

And what about countries that violate your principles–with high taxes, huge government, clogged markets, a weak church, strict gun control, and sexual license of all kinds? There’s Scandinavia. And yet if you had to leave the United States you’d much rather live in Denmark than in Waziristan.

Do you see the pattern? Even when they violate your principles, white people build good societies. Even when they abide by your principles, non-whites usually don’t.

We see that in America. Can you think of a majority non-white neighborhood you’d like to live in, or a majority non-white school you’d like your children to attend? No, you can’t. Why, then, don’t you fight with all your strength against the forces of immigration and integration that are turning ever-greater parts of your county into Third-World wastelands?

I know it would be frightening for you to step outside the ever narrower confines of what we are permitted to say about race. You would court the disapproval of every institution in America. You would pay a heavy price. Not since the last Red Scare has the price of speaking out been so high. In the 1950s, it was dangerous to spout Marxist foolishness. Today, the most dangerous ideas are the historical, biological, and moral truths that men such as Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Mark Twain, Walt Whitman, and your grandparents took for granted.

Muster up the courage. Speak these truths. They are your heritage. They are your destiny. They are in your bones. And when you speak these truths, you will join the people who see the only future for America in which the things you love are even conceivable. When you speak these truths you will join the camp of the saints.

And until you speak these truths you will feel the sting of the word “cuckservative.” You will feel its sting because you are not just betraying the heritage and promise of America. You are not just betraying your principles and dreams–even though you think you are working for them. You are betraying your people.

Plutocratic Elites Exploit Electoral Process to the Fullest

via The Realist Report

Ask your average person on the street about elections in America, especially federal elections for high political office, and most will tell you it's all about fundraising, advertising, and politicians selling out to plutocrats and giant corporations in order to raise money and support for their campaign for office. This is especially true when it comes to the 2016 presidential campaign.

A recent report originally published by Variety highlighted the entirely corrupt nature of the American political process. The article describes the manner in which SuperPACs are utilized by all the major presidential candidates to raise enormous amounts of money - millions of dollars - from some of the wealthiest and most politically connected individuals in the United States. What the article demonstrates is that the rich basically run the American political process, and U.S. politicians are willing to sell-out the American people in order to raise money.

The report was also picked up by The Jewish Daily Forward, likely because the majority of the individuals reported on in the story are in fact Jewish. As we've reported, Hillary Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee for president, has already received millions of dollars from a number of Jewish plutocrats dominating and influencing American politics. The same can be said of the GOP candidates (except for Donald Trump).
Priorities USA Action, a SuperPAC supporting Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid, reported $1 million contributions each from Steven Spielberg, Jeffrey Katzenberg and Haim Saban.

Other donors to the group, an independent expenditure committee that can collect unlimited contributions from donors, included J.J. Abrams and his wife Katie McGrath, who each gave $500,000. Saban’s wife Cheryl, also gave $1 million.

The group reported raising $15.7 million in the first six months of the year.

Friday was the deadline for the political action committees to file mid-year disclosure reports with the Federal Election Commission.

Katzenberg has been helping Priorities raise money from high-dollar donors this cycle. He was a founding donor and fundraiser for Priorities when it was initially set up to support President Obama’s reelection bid in 2012.

Other prominent donors to Priorities USA Action included investor George Soros, who gave $1 million, and Los Angeles-based investor Marc Nathanson, who gave $250,000.

The SuperPAC’s cannot coordinate with a candidate’s official campaign apparatus, but the candidate can attend events and meet with prospective donors, but just not ask for the huge sums that are the hallmark of the groups.

Just about every major presidential candidate is supported this cycle by one or more SuperPACs led by Right to Rise, the SuperPAC backing the candidacy of Jeb Bush, which raised a whopping $103 million in the first six months of the year. Bush was able to focus on fundraising for the SuperPAC for much of that time period, as he wasn’t formally a candidate until declaring his bid on June 15. [...]
The entire article is worth reading to get a better idea of just how entirely corrupt our political process truly is. If nothing else, reports like this underscore once again how big of a scam American "democracy" and electoral politics has become in our modern age.