Aug 5, 2015

Restoring the European Subject: The Historical and Economic Roots of Cuckservatism

via Alternative Right

Much has been said about the "Cuckservatism" phenomenon, about whether it is simply a slur word or not, or whether it is a backdoor way of reintroducing racial and tribal narratives that White people are simply not allowed to use outside of the alternative right. There are various points of view and a number of valid lines of argument, but it is the essence of "Cuckservatism" that I want to look at here.

A parsimonious definition of "Cuckservatism" would see it as an objective re-framing of American Conservatism to view it as a set of values – stemming from Northern European roots – that have been hijacked or distorted to serve globalist business interests, the State of Israel, Hispanics, and even Blacks.

While this is a precise enough definition, it doesn’t quite get at the essence of the phenomenon. At its core "Cuckservatism" can be seen as a range of individual and even group empowering values that lack a clear subject. This lack of a subject is the key to understanding the phenomenon and also the reason why it has been likened to cuckoldry, which is the sexual de-subjectification – or re-subjectification – of the active male principle.

Conservative values are basically empowering (i.e. male) because they derive from traditional White culture and include things like honesty, personal responsibility, the Protestant work ethic, a strong need for moral worth and validation, and martial heroism. While this cluster of values can have negative aspects, in general they benefit whichever individuals or groups adopt them.

The neverending labours of Sisyphus
the White middle class
But the problem comes when Conservatives exist within a political system in which their values are no longer dominant (i.e. no longer in an alpha male position), and where they coexist with other value systems, like Liberalism and hyper-capitalism. In such a case, Conservatism tends to fall into an unhealthy symbiosis in which its group, with its superior self-sufficiency and lower dysfunction rates, is parasitically exploited (i.e. cuckolded).

American Conservatism is particularly susceptible to this because its fatal flaw is that it has never had an explicit subject that correlates with its European origins. This lack of a subject is the effect of its history in an America that de-emphasized ethnicity and had little need to positively emphasize race due to the enormous chasm that existed between Whites and Blacks (i.e. racial asymmetry).

For previous generations, an implicit subject (despite its intrinsic feminine qualities) was sufficient – and even beneficial – to facilitate the easy inclusion of additional ethnicities from Northern and even Southern Europe. But, over the years, American Conservatism gradually dropped even its implicit sense of a subject as it moved towards a model of explicit propositional values, which, in theory, anyone or any group could subscribe to. In addition to de-subjectivication of White values, this switch to explicit propositional values can also be read as the facilitation of external ethnic masculinity.

This is the origin of American Conservatism's "cuckedness": it sought to promote White values (masculinity) in a multiracial context (competing masculinities), in which those White values had been displaced from their position of dominance (alpha malesness), without explicitly re-defining them as White and focusing on White interests through a White subject (i.e. re-assertive masculinity). In short, American Conservatism was unable to institute effective "sexual jealousy" – hence cuckoldry.

Cuck Capitalism


But while American Conservatism’s eschewal of an explicitly White subject had its roots in historical conditions, there is also a more general economic dimension that means that "Cuckservatism" is not limited to America, but can also afflict other developed Western nations – for example Britain – although here Conservatism is bolstered to a certain degree by remnants of an identitarian class system as well as aspects of regionalism.

The absence of a White subject in Conservatism is also a manifestation of late-period capitalism. In its earlier incarnation, Capitalism benefitted from nationalism. The rise of the nation state provided a legal and political framework that favoured early forms of Capitalism, as well as a clear dominant "masculine" subject. But, as Capitalism increasingly became an international phenomenon in the 20th century, it increasingly came into conflict with nationalism, developing its inherently rootless and abstract character. This made it increasingly incompatible with organic human communities – or even semi-organic human communities like the modern nation state.

The essence of unmediated Capitalism is the dispersal of capital to those areas that maximize its return. But there is a very deep paradox here: "return" implies a fixed subject to which outlays and profits can return, while the processes of capital maximization serve to undermine any fixed subject, except for those demographics adapted to maintaining their identities under the most dissolute economic conditions, i.e. the Jews and some other merchant communities, like the Parsees and the Hakka.

The alienation of Western
social and intellectual capital.
While Karl Marx saw capitalism as a system that "alienated" the labour of workers – that is, removed it from the control of those providing it, thus preventing them from being autonomous ("masculine") beings – more correctly, modern capitalism alienates the social and intellectual capital of the entrepreneurial, highly productive, and wealth-creating ethnic groups and societies that create it, in the form of technology transfer, externalized investment, and individualized profits. Such outward investment invariably seeks to open up its home market to foreign economic invasion through consumerism to maximize profits. This is exactly the pattern followed in the past by the formerly dominant UK economy and presently by the American economy.

In its unmediated form, Capitalism represents a diffusion and dissolution of its economic subject in exactly the same way that American Conservatism does with regard to its political subject. The process of sharing our technology and investing in the future economic dominance of our rivals can accurately be termed “Cuck Capitalism.”

Both Capitalism and American Conservatism are not just rootless abstractions that mysteriously came into existence. They are rooted in specific racial and historical anthropologies. But both also have a strong tendency to betray their true subject, combining a process of diffuse empowerment paired with a defocusing on their subjects.

In the case of American Conservatism, this means that it is susceptible to parasitism, with Conservative Whites working hard to pay into a commons that has nothing in common with them. In the case of Capitalism, the disembodied thirst for profit leads to disinvestment in the creator societies and economic hollowing out, as well as undermining of the social values that underpin these creative high-productivity societies.

This too represents a form of parasitism, as a coalition of globalized banking and formerly low-tech, impoverished societies with weaker creativity – such as Japan and the BRICs – come to dominate the global economy created by Western man.

Technology transfer: the Choshu Five.

The "Cuckservatism" that we now see exposed in America is essentially a synergy between these two forces. Just as the most naturally productive and innovative societies have destroyed – or are destroying – themselves through a process of technology diffusion, external financial investment, and outsourcing, so something similar can be seen with American Conservatism, which seeks to implant its values and outsource its identity to external groups, such as Hispanics, Blacks, and Asians.

Both political "Cuckservatism" and "Cuck Capitalism" are driven by the same urge to universalize and deny the identity and the rootedness of their respective phenomena.

But while they deny their anthropology, their anthropology does not entirely deny them. Hispanics and Africans can never become defined by the conservative habits of North Europeans, and while cheap, unproductive labour may drive out highly-paid productive labour for a time, the inherent high productivity and innovation of Europeans is not going to disappear as long as they remain on the Earth. What is essential to our survival, however, is adopting a strong identitarian outlook that restores the European subject to the fruits of the European mind, whether that be the habit clusters of American Conservatives or the productivity and innovation of the Industrial and subsequent Revolutions.

Is Alain Soral a Nazi?

via Counter-Currents

Alain Soral
The globalist regime’s standard argument against European nationalists is that they are incipient Nazis whose ideology will inevitably lead to another Auschwitz. Propaganda on this point has been so systematic and pervasive that these days the association is almost Pavlovian. This is so even when a particular nationalist might not consider himself to be close to National Socialism, anti-Semitism, and racialism. In France, this is the story of the Front National.

The French nationalist Alain Soral has taken a rather unique approach in tackling the issue head on by calling himself a “French national socialist.” Various senior politico-media regime figures have used this as a further argument in ostracizing and persecuting the “Nazi” Soral. I believe there is even a video of him somewhere on the Internet (which I recall, but cannot find again) in which he makes the provocative, offhand comment: “Ce qui me fait bander, c’est Hitler.” (Which could be rendered as: “You know what gives me a hard-on? Hitler.”) He has also listed Heinrich Himmler’s Schutzstaffel, along with Charles Maurras’ ideal monarchy and the Islamic Republic of Iran’s ayatollahs, as examples of the kind “transcendental power of a hereditary caste, both religious and military” necessary to check capitalist globalism.

Ironically, Soral politically is not actually a racialist and has spoken derisively of eugenics. This means he is in no way a National Socialist, which would necessarily imply a respect for Darwinian evolutionary principles and their application in public policy. As Commander George Lincoln Rockwell argued: “National Socialism, fundamentally, is the application of science, not only to inanimate objects and animals, but to mankind himself. . . . National Socialism is the inevitable end-product logically of evolution. If you believe in evolution, you’ve got to be a Nazi if you think about it long enough.”

Why then does Soral declare himself a “national socialist” while defending himself against accusations of “Nazism”?

The answer, I believe, is that Soral wants to redeem what there was good in National Socialism even from a non-racialist standpoint, which for him is essentially the ideology’s progressive economics. He has written in Dialogues désaccordés (a book of written exchanges with the mainstream journalist Éric Naulleau):

[T]he far-right [as a slur], at least since 1945 and more so since May ’68, is an invention of leftism, under Atlanticist sponsorship, that is of the business right (what I call the Bank) to hide the fact that National Socialism was socially left-wing.

That too is one of the keys to understanding everything that has been at stake since the Second World War.

As a French national socialist, I am irritated at being lumped with the far-right, a term which for me designates the neoconservatives, the Americano-Zionist imperialists, and the international banking power . . .

So, my answer is that I am not of the far-right, but I am a national socialist, but one can consider this to be worse!

I would add, so that I am not merely taken for a provocateur, that I am a French national socialist: With no need to refer to a racial theory for reasons of living space, which corresponded to the German situation. Ideology often stemming from geography!
I am a national socialist in the manner of Hugo Chávez, hence given the current context of domination by militaro-banking globalism, a genuine man of the left! Understand, if you will . . .[1]

In the video, after quoting these words, Soral adds: “I will let you judge the honesty of each and of the obscenity of my adversaries.” Soral has in other videos praised National Socialist economists Gottfried Feder and Hjalmar Schacht. He has also published a wartime book by the left-wing French writer Francis Delaisi defending the Third Reich’s economic policies.[2] Soral said at the time: “The solutions of tomorrow to the current crisis are in this book . . . which actually had been fully discovered by the German National Socialist economists and planners.” In short, the apology of a regulated, national capitalism rejecting usury and using protectionism where necessary.

In calling himself a national socialist, Soral apparently provides more ammunition for the regime to demonize him. No doubt he considers he is “doing the time” anyway so he may as well “do the crime.” In showing German National Socialism’s merits from a left-wing perspective (and recall that, in France, the Left always benefits from an understood moral superiority) and calling himself a national socialist, Soral violates one of the regime’s most sacred taboos and, beyond the thrill of provocation, contributes to the undermining of political correctness, which he has elsewhere theorized must be destroyed for us to think freely.

If Soral is not a racialist and evolutionary thinker, I suspect this is partly due to unfamiliarity with the copious Anglo-American research on heredity. But it is also because of his alliance with the mixed-race anti-Zionist star Dieudonné M’bala M’bala and his own Black and Maghrebi followers. Soral concedes that immigration and ethnic diversity are destructive, but he adds that these are only secondary consequences of a greater evil: The Judeo-globalist elites ruling France today.

In this Schmittian prioritizing of the enemy, Soral is oddly Hitlerian. For as the historian R. H. S. Stolfi points out,[3] throughout the rise of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP), Hitler refused to support the ruling parties of the Weimar Republic even when these were opposing a foreign adversary such as the Franco-Belgian occupation of the Ruhr or Italian rule over ethnically-German South Tyrol. For Hitler, the fundamental cause of Germany’s then-travails was the unpatriotic Weimar government stemming from the defeat of 1918 and Marxist Social Democracy, and that regime therefore was the primary target of the National Socialist movement.
Similarly, Soral is completely intolerant of those nationalists and identitarians who would try to “cut a deal” with the organized Jewish community (e.g. Guillaume Faye, Éric Zemmour). Conversely, he is supportive of racialists (e.g. Hervé Ryssen) and out-and-out National Socialists (e.g. Vincent Reynouard) who oppose Jewish power. Soral has also associated with supportive Jews such as Jacob Cohen and Gilad Atzmon.

Soral’s view of history is Hegelian: History as a struggle not between races but between ideas. If Jews are subversive, this is because of their adherence to the Jewish ideology (what Soral today calls “Talmudo-Zionism”) as against their inherent nature. A neo-traditional society would, what’s more, be immune to neo-Jewish subversion. He is a self-styled “Judeophobe,” ideologically anti-Judaic, but not racially anti-Semitic.

I would say there is no reason why the racial (that is to say, evolutionary) and ideological views of history cannot be combined. Nicholas Wade appears to attempt to do so, by suggesting the self-reinforcing co-evolution of race and culture.[4] It would be surprising if the world’s various religious traditions, including Judaism, in developing over centuries, did not in some way reflect the underlying character of the peoples that produce them. Indeed, this would account for the many continuities we find in European and Jewish behavior despite the decline of Christianity and Judaism as practiced religions.

Soral then cannot be accused or lauded as an orthodox National Socialist. But he is most certainly a national socialist as defined by Irmin Vinson:

In the generic sense of the term, national socialism is (arguably) not inconsistent with democratic institutions, despite Hitler’s own view of the matter; its true antonyms are multiracialism and capitalist, one-world globalism. Nor is national socialism inconsistent with an American “melting pot” view of ethnicity, provided that the various ethnic groups that comprise the nation are sufficiently similar that each can see a common identity and common destiny in the others – that is, insofar as they, despite their ethnic differences, are branches of the same race and can, therefore, be effectively acculturated to a common set of national ideals.[5]

After considerable study of the mercurial and ambiguous Soral, I would say that perhaps the ideologically-closest figure to him would be Argentine President Juan Perón[6] (indeed, he has often expressed the perhaps unlikely hope that Marine Le Pen could prove to be France’s Evita). The similarities are innumerable and perhaps make for a good summary of “Latin” national socialism: belief that “demoliberalism” is a sham masking bourgeois, Jewish and Masonic power, a highly-moralistic and populist concern with social justice, respect for tradition (pro-Catholic, hierarchy, discipline) and opposition to atomizing ’60s individualism-egalitarianism, opposition to Anglo-American power, opposition to Jewish power and international Zionism, hostility or indifference to the Allies in the Second World War (but clearly more comfortable with Benito Mussolini than Adolf Hitler) including a refusal to demonize the Axis (hence Perónist Argentina’s openness to Axis refugees), and an unsystematic and “spiritual” approach to race.[7]

The departed mestizo champion of Venezuela, President and Comandante Hugo Chávez, would also under this definition be a national socialist (with his opposition to el Imperio Norteamericano, his support for Syria and Iran, and his assertion that “descendants of the same ones that crucified Christ [have] taken possession of all the wealth in the world”).[8] Indeed, Chávez has called himself a Perónist. Encouragingly, Juan and Evita Perón remain secular saints in Argentina, suggesting such a message can resonate enduringly with a nation.

As for the national socialist Alain Soral, he is no Nazi, but that doesn’t make him any less dangerous . . .

Notes:

1. Alain Soral and Éric Naulleau, Dialogues désaccordés: Combat de Blancs dans un tunnel (Paris: Éditions Blanches, 2013), 65-66.
2. Francis Delaisi, La Révolution européenne  (Brussels: Éditions de la Toison d’Or, 1942). Since republished by Kontre Kulture.
3. R. H. S. Stolfi, Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny (Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 2011). Reviewed by Greg Johnson.
4. Nicholas Wade, A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History (New York: Penguin Group, 2014)
5. Irmin Vinson, Some Thoughts on Hitler and Other Essays, 5-6.
6. On Perón, see Kerry Bolton, Perón and Perónism (London: Black House Publishing, 2014).
7. Although I would point out that the various Argentine constitutions (including Perón’s and the one currently in force) simply state: “The Federal Government shall foster European immigration,” which elegantly preemptively resolves the racial problem.
8. A denunciation of deicide and ill-gotten privilege which arch-Zionist Charles Krauthammer immediately understood his tribe to be guilty of.  Charles Krauthammer, “Borat looks in the wrong place for anti-Semitism,” Town Hall, November 23, 2006. http://townhall.com/columnists/charleskrauthammer/2006/11/23/borat_looks_in_the_wrong_place_for_anti-semitism/page/full

Shylock as Judge, Part 2

via National-Socialist Worldview

Part 1


Churchill Protests

The war's icy gust suddenly blows through the besottedly peaceful banquet. Churchill blushes deep red. With a jolt his rotund body shoots up; he gasps for breath. Is it his speech-impediment or his brandy-laden tongue that stops him? Then he bellows into the hall: “Such a course of action stands in stark opposition to the British concept of justice!”

As suddenly as he had risen, he slumps back into his chair.

All gazes turn to Stalin. Malevolently he smirks, twirling his black moustache under his heavy nose, then dismisses Churchill with a questioning glance. Was it brandy, acting, or what? The Generalissimo of the Red Army reaches for his vodka-glass, stands stiffly, and again says:

“50,000 must be shot!”

This is a voice that tolerates no contradiction. Churchill hesitates, but raises himself with difficulty and restates, haltingly but calmly:

“The English people will never allow such mass-murder! I quite resolutely reject summarily handing over anyone, Nazi or not, to an execution-squad without a regular, lawful trial.”

His protest seems to be unconvincing. Was this revulsion genuine? The Western intentions for revenge had already been established since the “Third Inter-Allied Conference” of 13 January 1941 in Saint James' Palace in London. At that time of course one might invoke the Hague Convention, which now, after the war-pact between western democracy and eastern dictatorship, could no longer have jurisdiction. In 1941 it was resolved:
The chief war-aims of the Allies include the punishment of those responsible for these crimes, regardless of whether the particular parties ordered the deeds, committed them themselves, or somehow contributed to them. We are determine to make sure

a) that the guilty and responsible parties, of whatever nationality they may be, having been discovered, be handed over for judgment and condemned;

b) that the pronounced sentences be carried out.

The will for revenge in a guise of legality was even more pointedly expressed on 7 May 1942. That was the occasion of the founding of the “Inter-Allied Commission for War-Crimes,” which was supposed to gather incriminating evidence and to draw up lists of “war-criminals” – consisting only of Germans, of course, not of Italians and Japanese.

Stalin knows about these plans. Just a few days earlier in Moscow, on 1 November 1943, the conference for Allied revenge-justice had been successfully concluded. It ended with the highly promising declaration:
Let those who have hitherto not imbrued their hands with innocent blood beware lest they join the ranks of the guilty, for most assuredly the three Allied powers will pursue them to the uttermost ends of the earth and will deliver them to their accusors in order that justice may be done.
The American Under-Secretary of State Cordell Hull, the British Foreign Minister Eden, and the Soviet Foreign Commissar Molotov determined the text. “The Big Three” signed the document: Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin.

Cato Institute Forgets about Civil Rights Legislation

via Henry Dampier

Jim Harper comments that the Cato Institute will do whatever it can to prevent ‘racists’ from attaining political power to enact legislation that favors some ethnic groups at the expense of others.

Murray Rothbard, one of the co-founders of Cato, wrote capably about the racial discrimination inherent in the raft of civil rights legal programs. This legacy particular to Rothbard hasn’t been forgotten, institutionally, at Cato, but it has been critiqued and buried while waving away the substance of what he had to say.

If the hope was to ‘prevent’ policies that favor some races over others from coming into being, then the time for that has passed us by –by decades.

Writing in 1963, Rothbard described the dual nature of Civil Rights protests which has been maintained through today — one public-friendly face of ‘nonviolent protest,’ which nonetheless involves the ritualistic violation of private property, followed by the public-unfriendly-but-tolerated-by-the-authorities violent counterstrike by the worst elements in the Black community:
For the Birmingham struggle took place in two phases: the first phase, of the non-violent children, was on behalf of desegregation, and also compulsory integration of restaurants and forced hiring of Negroes in various jobs. This phase ended with the negotiated agreement of May 10. In retaliation for the Negroes’ success, white gangs resorted to violence: to the bombing of a leading Negro motel and the house of the Rev. King’s brother. It was this act that provoked an entirely different set of Negroes to action: to committing retaliatory violence on the night of May 11-12. These were not the sober, church-going, lower middle-class Negroes committed to the Rev. King and non-violence. These were the poorest strata of the Negro workers, the economically submerged who help to form that group which suffers from unemployment at a depression-rate, a rate twice the average for American workers as a whole. Interestingly and significantly enough, their aim was not compulsory integration, nor was their particular target the white employer or restaurant-owner. No, it was the police.
The pattern of destabilization continues today, because it’s a pattern that works for seizing power in a democracy at the expense of civil society.

If the Cato Institute wants to decrease rather than increase racial strife, it’d be wise to consider the roots of that modern strife — which lies in the broad affirmation of postwar intellectuals of a false creed of genetic egalitarianism which has not been borne out by the evidence. When the scientist who discovered DNA becomes an un-person for challenging this new dogma, a thinking person must seriously consider whether the man might have something relevant to say about cognitive and other biological differences rooted in genetics between individuals and groups of humans.

Civil Rights laws, in effect, violate property and rights of free association on behalf of some racial groups at the expense of others.

Cato is happy to publish essays critical of Civil Rights law in a roundabout way, which nonetheless praise the raft of laws as well-intentioned, while being terribly concerned about the “progressive libel” that libertarian principals are ‘racist.’ Which, by progressive definitions, they are. That’s why progressives use the slur — because it anathematizes any blocks to their political program.

This approach is one of the reasons why the rationalistic modes of most libertarian discourse can be so frustrating — libertarians are simultaneously happy to argue against Civil Rights law from first principles, but then are unwilling to align themselves with a culture that might be able to sustain those first principles. They can make a good legal argument against the legislation, and good philosophical arguments, but then they undermine anyone who might actually advance those arguments in the culture.

Orbán: 'The real threat is from the heart of Africa'

via The Occidental Observer

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has given another hard-hitting speech on the threat posed by multiculturalism and immigration to the future of European nations. Speaking at his Fidesz party’s summer student camp, the Hungarian leader argued that African immigration was an existential threat to European nationhood and civilization. He also denounced international complicity through silence and censorship in the crimes committed by immigrants, particularly citing the ongoing Swedish rape crisis. The speech, while given some coverage in mainstream media, merits closer examination.

Orbán clearly revels in slaughtering the sacred cows of political correctness, joking at the beginning of the speech that he had been looking for something which “representatives of today’s western ideological mainstream could find sufficiently offensive.” (Last year, that was his concept of “illiberal democracy.”)

Orbán notes a number of incredible events in recent years: Europe’s inability to stop a continuous wave of African and Muslim migrants, proposals to transform French churches into mosques, the United States’ systematic spying on European leaders, and these same leaders continuing to cozy up with Washington despite this.

In all this, Orbán recognizes contemporary immigration as an event of epochal significance:
At times there are phenomena which enable us to understand a given era, and which encapsulate its essence. In our lifetimes, modern mass migration is just such a phenomenon. Looking through this window, we can see the whole world. It is by this that the world is framed, and it is through this that we can understand where we are and what awaits us.
Orbán recognizes immigration as a fatal trend that is a political choice and not an inevitability:
Let us speak plainly: the intensification of modern-day mass migration is a consequence of political processes. The countries of North Africa once functioned as a defence zone protecting Europe, absorbing the masses of people coming from Africa’s interior. And the real threat is not from the war zones, Ladies and Gentlemen, but from the heart of Africa. . . . There are one point one billion people in Africa today, more than half of them under the age of twenty-five. . . . In other words, what is at stake today is Europe and the European way of life, the survival or extinction of European values and nations – or, to be more precise, their transformation beyond all recognition. The question now is not merely what kind of Europe we Hungarians would like to live in, but whether Europe as we now know it will survive at all. Our answer is clear: we would like Europe to remain the continent of Europeans. [. . .] We can say we want it, because it depends only on us: we want to preserve Hungary as a Hungarian country.
The prime minister could have further hammered home the point by citing United Nations statistics forecasting that the African population will rise to over 4 billion this century, almost half of humanity:

un_population_projections_steve_sailer_2



Orbán recognizes the destruction of nationhood as a long-term project of the internationalist left, without mentioning Jewish influence, to be achieved notably through displacement-level non-European immigration:
The European left, dear friends, do not see immigration as a source of danger, but as an opportunity. The left has always looked upon nations and national identity with suspicion. They believe (and take note of their choice of words) that the escalation of immigration may fatally weaken – indeed eliminate – national borders, and in historical terms this would also constitute the attainment of the left’s as yet unimaginable long-term goal.
For Orbán, as with many Central-Eastern Europeans, French multiculturalism is a byword for failure. He claims that the Hungarian left would have turned his country into “a refugee camp, a kind of Central European Marseille.”

Orbán argues that immigration has been enabled by “the West’s human rights fundamentalism” (a similar concept to pathological altruism). He condemns the European Union as an ineffective non-sovereign with “ideological obsession” of opposition to the the nation-state. He opposes a “United States of Europe,” claiming national diversity makes this impossible, saying: “We Hungarians are Europe’s Gaullists.”

Orbán wants to steer clear of the “experiment” of multiculturalism embarked upon the by the Westerners:
Over the past thirty years several European countries have decided to welcome masses of people coming from places with different civilisational roots. I do not believe we should pass judgment on this experiment; in fact I think we should not even allow ourselves to state our view on the outcome of this experiment. All we can say – but we have to say it firmly, having seen the results elsewhere – is that we do not want to repeat this experiment on our country; this is something that we have the right to say.
Orbán goes on to link illegal immigration to the spread of terrorism, unemployment, and crime. On the latter, Orbán is particularly powerful, denouncing Western and leftist complicity in the Swedish rape crisis, not unlike in the case of Rotherham:
And finally let us also mention a subject upon which political correctness in Europe has enforced a guilt-ridden silence.
According to police statistics in western countries, those states with large numbers of illegal immigrants experience dramatic increases in crime, with a proportionate decrease in public safety.
Let me cite a few examples as food for thought. According to UN statistics – not statistics from the Hungarian government, but from the United Nations – Sweden is second only to the southern African state of Lesotho in terms of figures for rape. According to a 2013 British parliamentary report, the number of Muslims in British prisons has tripled over the last fifteen years. In Italy, one quarter of crimes in 2012 were committed by immigrants. And the list goes on.
Orbán concludes:
In summary therefore, Ladies and Gentlemen, we can say that illegal immigration is equally a threat to Hungary and to Europe. It is a threat to our common values and to our culture, and even to our diversity. It is a threat to the security of European people – a threat which undermines our ability to cement our economic achievements.
No doubt some Hungarian comrades will tell us that Orbán’s words are just for show and that he remains a corrupt and opportunistic politician. But actually acknowledging a problem, from the highest levels of the state, already makes an enormous difference in terms of public discourse. If a problem becomes widely-acknowledged by leading politicians and media, this paves the way through discussion and public awareness to the preparation of practical solutions. Indeed, many globalists have complained that Orbán has raised awareness surrounding immigration problems — notably through public consultation, e.g. a recently sent-out questionnaire asking citizens’ opinion on the matter!! Citizen input on immigration and multiculturalism is avoided at all costs by EU bureaucrats, and for good reason. Few would deny that this “populist” appeal against immigration has strongly resonated with public opinion.

Orbán has already taken some practical actions. The economy has been significantly re-nationalized, namely through the nationalization of strategic assets and a ban on retail loans in foreign currency, giving his government greater independence to pursue pro-Hungarian policies. On immigration, billboards have been put up warning migrants against taking Hungarian jobs or breaking Hungarian laws, the construction of four-meter high fence on the 175-kilometer border with Serbia is planned, and the government refused to accept any of the 33,000 migrants currently being redistributed by the European Commission. In all this, Orbán has faced significant censure and opposition from foreign media, the left, and the EU.

Finally, it is worth noting that Orbán’s Fidesz party had been a mainstream Christian-Democratic party and, despite its radicalization, continues to sit in the mainstream center-right caucus at EU level. This shows that a change of discourse and policy is possible in Europe, if the will is there.

England Under Siege

via Aryan Myth and Metahistory

This week has witnessed the attempted invasion of thousands of illegal aliens onto English soil via the infamous Channel Tunnel, a tunnel which compromises the territorial integrity of the English people. For thousands of years England as part of the island of Britain has been separated from the European continent by the English Channel and the North Sea. Interestingly the English Channel is called the South Sea in Anglo-Saxon texts, as opposed to the North Sea. Indeed it is part of English territorial waters. The North Sea used to be called the German Sea. I believe that it was the will of our Gods that England be part of an island and not a continent.

Instead of deploring these invasion attempts by illegal aliens who are mostly of African and Arab origin, and fulfilling their duty to the English people, politicians such as the feminist interim leader of the Labour Party Harriet Harman criticises the Prime Minister's reference to these alien criminals as a 'swarm', saying "He should remember he is talking about people and not insects". So what? Insects actually fulfill far more useful functions and should be far more welcome to us than these burglars and invaders, and burglars are what they are. They are attempting to break into our land and steal our precious resources, paid and sustained for by English tax payers. Our ancestors would never have permitted this. Despite the English people being misguided by the half jewish Prime Minister Winston Churchill and fighting the tragic Brothers' War against the German people at least the English between 1939-1945 had a genuine desire to resist what they (wrongly) considered to be the invader. Now that England really is being invaded due to the existence of the Channel Tunnel and membership of the European Union, instead of the English resisting the invader with force they instead send ships to rescue this human flotsam and jetsam from the  Mediterranean Sea, helping southern Europe to be flooded by these invaders who gradually with the connivance of those governments gravitate towards England. Instead these ships should be used to push away immigrant vessels and if necessary to sink them. This would send a clear message out that they are not wanted in Europe!

One must question why and how supposedly 'genuine' asylum seekers from the African continent (who by and large are young, healthy single males) find their way to northern Europe in general and England in specific. They are drawn by the illusion of a comfortable existence paid for by English tax payers, placing further strains on the infrastructure of this country and making England gradually less English. This suits the agenda of the cosmopolitan parasites that dominate our media and institutions who seek nothing less than the disappearance of the Nordic race from the face of the earth. These influential and wealthy parasites and the native European traitors who do their bidding (like obedient dogs, wagging their tails) are gradually dismantling the England of our ancestors, an England which was bought and defended by Germanic Anglo-Saxon blood and where we will become like pockets of Red Indians living on reservations, obediently doing as we are told by are alien masters until we disappear for ever!

This invasion is being assisted by xtian clerics and churches. There is abundant evidence to be found on the Internet where Church of England priests have knowingly carried out sham marriages to allow illegal immigrants to gain a legal foothold on our soil. Even when not engaging in carrying out these fake marriages bleeding heart xtians generally often engage in campaigns to prevent illegal immigrants from being returned to their places of origin. Again the Internet is full of such examples. This should not surprise us as in the eyes of these life and race-denying shavelings xtianity does not recognise the importance and primacy of race:
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28, King James Version)
Christianity is thus a poison if entered into the veins of a people. We must thoroughly and utterly reject its life-denying dogma if we are to survive as a people and as a race and return to the Gods of our fathers which for the Germanic peoples are the Aesir and Vanir, giving primacy to Woden:
" It was not in Wotan’s nature to linger on and show signs of old age. He simply disappeared when the times turned against him, and remained invisible for more than a thousand years, working anonymously and indirectly. Archetypes are like riverbeds which dry up when the water deserts them, but which it can find again at anytime. An archetype is like an old watercourse along which the water of life has flowed for centuries, digging a deep channel for itself. The longer it has flowed in this channel the more likely it is that sooner or later the water will return to its old bed." (Wotan, 1936, Carl Gustav Jung)

Election Riles Anti-White Group, One People’s Project

via American Freedom Party

Hovater is a 27-year old “all American” guy who is also a former drummer for the metalcore band The Paramedic. He is running as a candidate for Matt Heimbach’s Traditional Workers Party and intends to be a voice for the interests and concerns of European-Americans.

In light of Hovater’s announcement, notorious anti-White racist Daryle Lamont Jenkins at One People’s Project channeled his inner Hanoi Hilton propaganda chief and whipped up a hyperbolic dictate against Mr. Hovater.

Jenkins’s miniscule group is based in Philadelphia, PA., home of the Liberty Bell. The same city that is home to other “hate-whitey” groups. And when he’s not busy dealing with personal legal troubles you can find him hard at work publishing smear pieces about people with whom he disagrees. Jenkins spent all of eight words into the article before calling Hovater a “white supremacist.” Jenkins says nothing about Hovater to demonstrate that this accusation is a statement of truth. The rest of his article talks about how Hovater’s former acquaintances at The Paramedic and the Clark County Young Republicans pulled a classic “cuckservative” move and disavowed association with Hovater. No surprises there.

There are no damning facts in Jenkins’s article, only some basic observations kicked off by a lurid accusation of being a white supremacist, a charge that Hovater has repeatedly and explicitly denied. (What exactly is a “white supremacist”?)

“It makes no sense in my mind to be (a white supremacist) given that each group has adapted to be supreme in its own area of the world,” said Hovater in an Aug. 2 email.

Jenkins even pointed out that the lead singer from The Paramedic is not white, as if that was supposed to be some kind of a startling revelation. The only argument which that fact helps is why Hovater is more likely to be found in the Human Bio Diversity camp and not the white supremacist camp.

This great furor about a white man running for political office with the intent of speaking for white people is supposed to be sufficiently damning by itself. The argument that Jenkins and others are making comes down to underhanded sleights designed to trick the audience into thinking that Hovater is a dangerous person. The wildest thing about Hovater are his eyebrows. Those are some pretty wild looking things.

The only relevant statement Jenkins brought to the table is that Hovater is friends with the “Little Fuhrer,” the “Torquemada of Towson,” the brinner-loving-monarchist Matt Heimbach. Hovater’s most controversial friend loves Waffle House waffles with chocolate chips no less!

Jenkins with Gun

Meanwhile back in Philadelphia, whilst simultaneously panic-mongering and lying about Hovater’s budding political career, Jenkins is hard at work shilling for cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal, aka Wesley Cook. Cook was convicted of killing a Philadelphia police officer in 1981. Jenkins, as well as other members of the New Black Panther Party (NBPP), remains effusively supportive of Abu-Jamal. A July 26 post to his site tells us that he’s still supporting Mumia Abu-Jamal. Jenkins claims his commitment to Abu-Jamal’s plight has mostly to do with keeping the legal and political system accountable.
“For me, this is not about being anti-cop, a racist system, or even being for or against the death penalty. This is about what is right and what is wrong, and even those that believe Mumia is guilty concede that this case was handled poorly by the prosecution. The question that I and others that support Mumia ask is how poorly, and how much of it might have been intentional?”
NBPP King Samir & Jerry Jackson

Speaking of the NBPP, remember that incident where NBPP members — Minister King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson — were intimidating voters outside a Philadelphia polling place (above)? That’s right, none other than King “kill all white babies” Samir!
…Federal District Judge Stewart Dalzell in Philadelphia issued a default ruling against King Samir Shabazz, Mr. Jerry Jackson, the New Black Panther Party and its chairman, Malik Zulu Shabazz (no relation to King Samir Shabazz). Although career federal prosecutors won this case (arguing, among other things, “There is never a good reason to bring a billy club to a polling station”) they were overruled by political appointees in President Obama’s Justice Department who ordered them to dismiss the complaints against all parties except King Samir Shabazz. He was ordered not to exhibit a weapon within 100 feet of a Philadelphia precinct through Nov. 15, 2012. Pittsburgh seems fair game.” By Deroy Murdock – The Washington Times – Thursday, July 8, 2010
Not only were Samir and Jackson let off the hook by Team-Obama’s Justice Department but they are also from Jenkins’s neck of the woods. Yes. Philadelphia. Jenkins gave some weak lip service to the whole affair, and the only thing he could be bothered to say was that the voter intimidation incident was poorly executed.

Daryle Jenkins and Che QuevaraCome on, Jenkins. You know, we know, we all know the only reason you care about Abu-Jamal’s case, and there’s nothing accidental about your sense of what constitutes justice and what merits serious investigation: Black cop-killers should go free, and white men working for the interests of white people should unequivocally be excluded from the political process. Jenkins’s attack on Hovater sounds pretty intentional to me.

Here’s a novel idea for Jenkins, why not keep the political and legal system accountable and help Hovater shake up the system? Hovater is not only a white nationalist, but also a black nationalist.

“In the podcast I did with Matt I said ‘I’ve always been a white nationalist’ for the simple reason I’m white. I am a nationalist for all people though. All I’ve ever done is applied the same ideas of self determination everyone uses when speaking about other races and extended it to my own,” said Hovater in an Aug. 2 email.

Jenkins’s literary attack may bring harassment and possibly violence upon Hovater. In an Aug. 2 email statement, Hovater said he’s not worried about Jenkins and his antics.

“The article hasn’t changed anything I do in any way. OPP is basically one paranoid man ranting about what he perceives as dangerous. In his panicked style he manages to get lots of even simple points messed up.”

Far as I know, and I should know since I’m the Chief Operating Officer of TYN, no TYN officers and none of our candidates have criminal records. Who do you think is better for America? A young white guy who likes to beat the skins, or a dumpy middle-aged black man who defends cop killers?

Hovater isn’t interested in white power(!), he’s interested in white political power, and if the people of New Carlisle have anything to do with it he’ll be beating the other candidates in the upcoming city council election.

‘White Privilege’ as a Warrant for Expropriation

via Majority Rights

Rather than having some kind of lengthy preamble to this article, it’s better to just say this directly, and in the clearest possible language.

Much has been said about Christendom, many nationalists of many different stripes have spoken about it, but the fact is that there is no ‘White Christian Civilisation’.

It’s just someone else’s spiritual framework and someone’s else’s jurisdiction. I think it’s time to shed some light on that fact, and so this will be the first of a multi-part series on the subject.

Here’s a premier example of this framework:
Huffington Post, ‘An Open Letter to White Men in America’, 24 Jul 2015, Rev. Dr. John C. Dorhauer wrote:
Rev. Dr. John C. Dorhauer
President of the United Church of Christ, author of two books, Doctorate in White Privilege, Shalom Award recipient for peace commitments.
Dear White Men,
You are persons of privilege.
You didn’t earn it. More than likely aren’t yet prepared to either admit to it or lose it. This letter, written by one of you, is offered to invite you on a journey of insight, honesty, hard truth and just living. . . .
Yes, that is a reverend saying that. At the Daily Stormer, they carried this article and there they highlighted the mainstream liberal aspect of the content, but they unfortunately did not mention the root of the matter.

The narrative of your ‘white privilege’ acting as a justification for the expropriation of everything that you have in your own lands is not an aberration or a distortion of Christianity as some Christian ‘nationalists’ would propose. Rather, this is the logical and final trajectory of what Christianity is about and what Christianity does.

It is an inescapable fact that Christian churches have a tendency to preach doctrines advocating your dispossession and extinction. The fact that Dorhauer is a Shalom Award recipient is not an accident or an aberration. Most Christian authorities are openly in collaboration with Jewish lobby groups. Occasionally there are what appears to be exceptions to this rule, such as an occasional bishop or pastor criticising Jewish cultural power. But those are exceptions that only prove the rule.

Christianity is not a European religion, it originated in the Levant and its fundamental ethnic character is one that caters to its original owners. It was Saul of Tarsus, who would later be known as ‘Paul’, who projected Christianity into the Graeco-Roman world. The doctrines that ‘the meek shall inherit the earth’, and that ‘the last shall be first’ are ideas that were comforting to the lower classes in the Roman Empire and which stifled the will of the strong by stamping out diversity of belief and of thought, and stacked up their own funeral pyre for them.

Centuries later, as Rome was becoming crippled under an internal rot caused partly by Christians, the co-opted Roman state then imposed Christianity at spear-point onto all Indo-European peoples that it encountered, and spread from there.

But how precisely does it operate? Let’s tackle that now.

To understand its mechanism, you have to check with its owners:
Jewish Encyclopedia: The unedited full-text of the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia, ‘GENTILE’:
A word of Latin origin (from “gens”; “gentilis”), designating a people not Jewish, commonly applied to non-Jews. [...] In its most comprehensive sense “goi” corresponds to the other late term, “ummot ha-‘olam” (the peoples of the world). Toward idolatry and the immoralities therewith connected, the Biblical writings display passionate intolerance.
[...]

Inasmuch as the Jews had their own distinct jurisdiction, it would have been unwise to reveal their laws to the Gentiles, for such knowledge might have operated against the Jews in their opponents’ courts. Hence the Talmud prohibited the teaching to a Gentile of the Torah, “the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob” (Deut. xxxiii. 4). R. Johanan says of one so teaching: “Such a person deserves death” (an idiom used to express indignation). “It is like placing an obstacle before the blind” (Sanh. 59a; Hag. 13a).
[...]
R. Emden, in a remarkable apology for Christianity contained in his appendix to “Seder ‘Olam” (pp. 32b-34b, Hamburg, 1752), gives it as his opinion that the original intention of Jesus, and especially of Paul, was to convert only the Gentiles to the seven moral laws of Noah and to let the Jews follow the Mosaic law — which explains the apparent contradictions in the New Testament regarding the laws of Moses and the Sabbath.
With the conversion of the Gentile to Christianity or to Islam, the heathen and pagan of the civilized or semi-civilized world has become almost extinct, and the restrictions placed on the ancient Gentile are not applicable to the Gentile of the present day, except in so far as to consider him a Noachian observing all moral laws, in contradistinction to the Jew, who as one of the chosen people observes in addition the Mosaic laws.
There is a price that comes when Europeans choose to make themselves into ‘Noachians’, which is to say ‘Christians’.

A society revolves around a central pole, and the location at which that pole is placed has a significant impact on the trajectory of that society’s development. In the realm of infinite possibilities, where no frame of reference is established, and there is no orientation for society, the manifestation of the heirophany—the appearance of the sacred—reveals a fixed point, a centre around which everything will revolve. The manifestation of the heirophany is what ontologically ‘founds the world’, for a given society.

By its extension it also creates a jurisdiction under which value judgements are made.

Christianity is tied to a central pole that manifests in Israel, it is anchored in Jerusalem. By attaching itself to Israel, Christian Westerners are giving Judaism a de facto jurisdiction over their lands. When the west does so, it basically is imprisoning itself under a foreign jurisdiction controlled by Jewish owners. The Christians become the wardens of that prison, even as they are in tension against the same Judaism whose ‘employ’ they are in.

This results in one of two scenarios:
  • In the event that the Christians become ethnic nationalists, they may regard the Jews as strangers, yet they themselves are strangers as well, because they themselves are effectively Jews, alienated from their own land and deputised by the very group that they fulminate against.
  • In the event that the Christians do not become ethnic nationalists, they embrace the Judaic roots of their own religion openly and revel in their own deputisation to Judaism.
But which position they choose once adhering to Christianity is irrelevant, because their social function in any society that they come to govern will inexorably and ultimately be to persecute and destroy anyone who isn’t in the Abrahamic monotheistic club which they have become entangled with, and which has ontologically traced out their world view.

This is how they will treat anyone within their captive jurisdiction who is not part of the club:
Jewish Encyclopedia: The unedited full-text of the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia, ‘GENTILE’:
Having in view the curbing of assimilation and the protection of the Jewish state and society, the legislators, men of the Great Assembly, adopted stringent measures against these Gentiles. These laws were collected and incorporated in the Mishnah, and were interpreted in the Gemara of the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds. The restrictive regulations may be classified as having been enacted for the following reasons: (1) to exalt monotheism, and Israel as a nation; (2) to combat and outlaw barbarism; (3) to overcome the unreliability of the Gentile; and (4) to counteract Gentile laws not in harmony with the humanitarian laws of the Jews.
Pay particular attention to point number four and point number two and implications of them. The Jews believe that the laws and social norms of non-Judaised populations are ‘barbarism’, and that it is their prerogative—assisted of course by the inherently Judaised Christian deputies—to bring everyone into compliance with the ‘humanitarian’ laws of the Jews.

By what methods would they try to accomplish this? By all methods. That it would result in systematic attempts to dismantle what they call a ‘barbarian’ ethnic group’s soveriengty over its own civic space is something that inheres in the logic of such a world view:
Jewish Encyclopedia: The unedited full-text of the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia, ‘GENTILE’:
The barbarian Gentiles who could not be prevailed upon to observe law and order were not to be benefited by the Jewish civil laws, framed to regulate a stable and orderly society, and based on reciprocity. The passage in Moses’ farewell address: “The Lord came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from Mount Paran” (Deut. xxxiii. 2), indicates that the Almighty offered the Torah to the Gentile nations also, but, since they refused to accept it. He withdrew His “shining” legal protection from them, and transferred their property rights to Israel, who observed His Law. A passage of Habakkuk is quoted as confirming this claim: “God came from Teman, and the Holy One from Mount Paran. . . . He stood, and measured the earth; he beheld, and drove asunder [“let loose,” “outlawed”] the nations” (Hab. iii. 3-6); the Talmud adds that He had observed how the Gentile nations steadfastly refused to obey the seven moral Noachian precepts, and hence had decided to outlaw them (B. K. 38a).
[...]
The question arose whether a Jew might share in the spoils gained by a Gentile through robbery. One Talmudic authority reasoned that the Gentile exerted himself to obtain the ill-gotten property much less than in earning his wages, to which the Mosaic law is not applicable; hence property seized by a Gentile, if otherwise unclaimed, is public property and may be used by any person.
Yes, you read that correctly. They consider that you are outside ‘the law’ and that as long as you remain outside ‘the law’, then your property rights get transferred ‘to Israel’. At the same time, if they can establish that you obtained wealth through what they call ‘robbery’, then their system passes a similar judgement which is that your property is regarded as ‘public property’, and may be ‘used by anyone’.

The concept of ‘white privilege’ is being utilised as a rhetorical device, which posits that everything—your land, your assets, your children, your philosophical heritage, your mind, really everything—is a founded upon the basis of ‘theft’, and thus open season can be declared on it, offering it up for ransacking and looting by others.
Here’s an example:
Rollingout, ‘White privilege or White pillage?’, 05 Dec 2014, Rudwaan wrote:
Whites benefited and are benefiting from White pillage, but benefits are not privileges. The bank robber benefits from his crime as long as he gets away with it, he is not privileged, he is a taker, a raper, a pillager. The mafias and cartels who pay off the authorities sworn to oppose them are not enjoying a privilege, they, like Whites, are benefiting from there illicit trade as long as they can get away with it, through the use of violence and payoffs they effectively keep the hounds of justice at bay for as long as they can. That benefit is then passed on to their offspring and subsequent generations who from a position of abject ignorance of their past operate under the sanitized illusion of ‘privilege’ when in fact they are benefactors of rape and pillage.
Above is a further extension of the concept of ‘white privilege’, where it would follow that it would even be seen as ‘legitimate’ to rape and pillage white people.

And to revisit the words of the inherently deputised Christian that were quoted at the beginning of this article:
Huffington Post, ‘An Open Letter to White Men in America’, 24 Jul 2015, Rev. Dr. John C. Dorhauer wrote:
You didn’t earn it. More than likely aren’t yet prepared to either admit to it or lose it.
Note, Reverend Dorhauer is not talking about someone’s colonial outpost here, and he is not talking about conflicts between European Americans and Native Americans. He’s talking about getting you to consent to place yourself under his jurisdiction inside your own land so that you can be found ‘guilty’ of various ‘sins’, so that he can induce you to accept the judgements that he and his cultural masters are handing down.

This bears remarkable similarity to what the Christian-convert members of the Vietnamese elite clique did to the people of Vietnam after it was culturally infiltrated by Christian proselytisers during the rule of Emperor Gia Long after 1802. By the time of the rule of Emperor Tu Duc, Vietnam was not only internally divided and unable to rationalise its own defence, but also threatened from outside, as Christians and Christian missionaries condemned the non-Christian Vietnamese people as ‘barbarians’ for having attempted to defend their ethnic genetic interests from Christian onslaught, and essentially invited France to attack Vietnam. This was one of the factors which led to the Tonkin War in 1885.

The same kind of narratives that they used against the Vietnamese, are those that are now—in slightly different form—being used against European-Americans. They make no differentiation between peoples ultimately, they see everyone as an undifferentiated mass as GW has noted, because in the Christian, Judaic, and Islamic world view, all those who refuse to subject themselves to ‘the law’ of their monotheistic desert-god, are ‘barbarians’, or ‘goyim’, or ‘infidels’—all synonyms—whose property rights are forfeit.

Subjecting yourself to that essentially Jewish jurisdiction—through Christianity—allows them to execute that warrant for expropriation against you.

The Cuckservatives

via TradYouth

While collecting evidence for the sequel to my interracial porn article that I will include in my upcoming book, I came across one especially disturbing video. In it, a black man breaks into a couple’s home, with a trashy looking bottle blonde and her middle-aged white husband. The black man brings a gun, has sex with the wife, and ejaculates inside of her as the middle-aged white man pleas for him desperately not to do the last part, “Please don’t, not inside her please! NOOOOOOOOOOO!” the wimp cries.

Afterwards, the woman takes the gun from the negro, points it at her husband’s head, and says “eat those black babies”, he subsequently goes on to do something really gross. After having his “cuckfood” (the video’s title), he gives them $10,000 dollars when his now ex-wife says “me and Elvis are going to run away together”. He lays in the fetal position and wimpers.

I’m sure Libertarians will tell me that this kind of trash has no effect whatsoever on the minds of the (mostly) black men who watch it on the many free porn sites.

The video was produced by a company called “Dog Fart”, a smut enterprise overseeing numerous interracial porn sites with lovely titles such as : “Watching My Daughter Go Black”, “Watching My Mother Go Black”, and “Cuckold Sessions”. The entrepreneur, pursuing the “American Dream” (as cuckservatives say) through this avenue, is none other than Cable Rosenberg. Just where oh where would the West be without its Rosenbergs constantly driving innovation forward.

Rosenberg’s out in the field, freely degrading the mothers, sisters, daughters, girlfriends, and wives of a Zionist occupied people. He’s willing to go farther than some more discreet Jews, by throwing it in our faces with a character meant to represent Western man and the civilization we fathered.

This video got me thinking. The video shows the cuckold as controlled opposition, impotent and incapable of defending what is his, but who is that middle-aged white man willing to do these disgusting things even for money? Does he feel no moral dilemma in acting out a role intended to undermine the manhood of his own race?

This man is a cuckservative. He’s a model Republican; the archetype of philo-Semitic Anglosphere conservatism as a whole.

GOP Donors and Projection

Psycho-Sexual theories, especially those relating to the concept of “projection”, are for the most junk science with no clinical substantiation. Projection theory was formulated by Wilhelm Fliess and Karl Abraham (both Jewish), under the guidance of the ass-paddling hand of “Doctor” Sigmund Freud and his daughter Anna, and for that reason, I believe the profilers of Projektor’s were merely projecting themselves.

Sexual projection is for the most part mild to non-existent in non-Jews, but amongst the Jews themselves there is ample evidence showing that this may just be a glimpse into their alien psychology. The collective subconscious represented in the pornography Jews create has a perfect parallel to their activity in the political world.

The defiled Shiksa is the Occident, the black is cultural barbarism, the procreative interracial sex is our ethnic cleansing; the cuckold–by far the most viscerally offensive of them all–represents the born-to-lose channel of demoralized and paid for scripted resistance offered. The Jew behind the curtain directing the film is the Jew behind curtain directing our politics.

Explanation For Disconnect Between GOP and Its Base Is Quite Simple

Every last GOP candidate has its own Cable Rosenberg telling him how to vote, what to say, and how to betray their country. Some mild-mannered conservatives have pointed out that mysterious “donors” are indeed the reason why the Republicans are constantly selling out their constituents. Apologists for the cuckservatives actually pretend that the same Republicans who boldly skirt federal sedition laws to sabotage the President of the United States’ attempt at diplomacy with Iran are simply responding to “demographics” or have their “hands tied” when it comes to issues whites actually care about like illegal immigration.

Fortunately for those milquetoast cuckservatives , the names of these GOP donors and their agendas are public record, and I don’t have money-tape over my mouth like the ladder climbers do. Here is the current crop of top cuckservative candidates along with their owners:

Marco Rubio
Marco Rubio
Marco Rubio

Owner(s): Larry Ellison, Norman Braman, possibly Sheldon Adelson

The Jews have bestowed great favor on Rubio, and have made it clear that they would actually prefer him to run over even Bush III. Rubio’s most famous anti-white act was his role in sponsoring the Gang of 8 bill (along with other high profile cuckservatives Lindsay Graham and John McCain) which sought to replace American workers with a flood of cheap H1-B imports.

Larry Ellison, Rubio’s Jewish billionaire patron, just so happens high profile lobbyist in favor of more third world immigration in the STEM field.

Sheldon Adelson, one of the most influential of the Jewish shareholders in the GOP, has not yet made up his mind, but is leaning heavily towards Rubio. Adelson has called Rubio the “future of the Republican party” due to the o at the end of his name. Adelson is one of the loudest voices calling for “immigration reform” in America, and anyone who he bankrolls will naturally support the same.

Rubio, on the instruction of his benefactors Ellison, Adelson, and the used car peddling Jew Braman, is a hardline supporter of Jewish racial ultra-nationalism in Israel. Rubio can often be seen launching full-throated attacks on everyone from President Obama to Pope Francis when it comes to Jewish hegemony in the Middle East:

Ted Cruz


Owners: Nicolas Muzin, Robert Mercer, & Koch brothers

Ted Cruz is one of the biggest warmongers for Israel trying out in the dog and pony show. His relationship with the corrupting Koch brothers, who are not Jewish but support the Jewish globalist agenda, has been well-documented (mostly doing favors for their oil business), but the key in his campaign is a Canadian-Jew neoconservative named Nicolas Muzin. Aside from the issue of plutocracy in and of itself, why is a foreign Jew allowed to try and buy an American election?

Cruz has gained a limited following for his election year flip flop in the field of immigration (he supported massive increases in “legal immigration” in 2013, as if the legality of it makes a difference to American workers and demographic problems in general). Muzin’s money has bought him the position of one of the top Republican “advisors”, who has declared his mission is to quash the GOP’s already light opposition to abortion and gay marriage in order to “appeal to minorities”.

Cruz’s mostly Evangelical supporters are probably not aware of this. Contrary to popular belief, not all Evangelicals believe in Jewish Supremacism. The reason they vote for pretend-Evangelicals like Cruz is because the social issues they care about (abortion and gay marriage) needlessly come with Zionism in a bundled package. In practice, these candidates do hardly anything about gay marriage and abortion, yet manage to spam Congress with pro-Israel bills, including those that severely undermine the foreign and domestic interests of the United States.

Rand Paul
Rand Paul

Rand Paul

 
Owners: Still on the Market

Rand is a whore, but more of a clock watcher than Judah’s expected Girlfriend Experience. Regardless, things were looking up for him, he even was able to convince Jew Richard Roberts to take steps towards financing his run.

But after the March “controversy”–ClapGate–his job application suffered a tremendous setback. Jewish controlled media such as National Review ripped Rand Paul for lacking sufficient enthusiasm during his 50 or so standing ovations for Benjamin Netanyahu in the US Congress. The Jewish President Factory, already angry at him for being the son of Ron Paul, eliminated the fragile prospect of even entertaining support for him. Richards was the exception, but after Rand turned down a meeting with world Jewry because he was busy campaigning for the allegedly important Iowa Caucus, Roberts took his money elsewhere.

Jeb Bush
Jeb Bush

Jeb Bush

Owner(s): Henry Kravis, Miguel “Mike” Fernandez, Paul Singer, Miscellaneous

Jeb has blown away all the other candidates in terms of funding, starting with what was called a “Shock and Awe” kick-off that broke records in the President-buying business.

Bush III’s stance on a number of issues are strange to the ears of the GOP’s base to say the least. He is a staunch supporter of Common Core, in fact, he even has a “non-profit” dedicated to implementing it. A release of financial records related to his pro-Common Core organization reveal that with the exception of Bill Gates and the Waltons, the moneyed backers are mostly Jews and their globalist corporate “philantropic” wings such as Eli Broad, Michael Bloomberg, Leona “Queen of Mean” Helmsley’s (Rosenthal) trust, and Paul Singer.

Bush III has also hinted that he supports queer fetish-marriage. This isn’t surprising, the Jews Henry Kravis and Paul Singer are major financial benefactors of homosexual lobbies like the Human Rights Campaign. Kravis’ biography one “LGBT” NGO One Equal World’s website states:
“Perhaps surprisingly, Kravis is also a proponent for same-sex marriage and equal rights. He has attended high-end fundraising events that included faces like Chad Griffin of the Human Rights Campaign, Paul Singer of the Manhattan Institute, and many other well-known figures on Wall Street. Kravis’s support of the LGBT movement puts him ahead of many of his fellow Republicans, who have been reluctant to add their support.”
The aforementioned Jews also share a consensus on Jeb’s cuckservative and unpopular view on non-white immigration. Mike Fernandez is to my knowledge an Iberian-descended Cuban, but he too has been a factor in the capitalist and Jewish alliance to destroy America’s jobs and demographics. He is also a philo-Semite, whether this is genuine or for business reasons is up for debate. He made a thinly veiled nod to Jewish power-through-“philanthropy” in a 2012 interview with the Miami Herald:
“Now Fernandez says he is more in the give-back phase of his life, and his philanthropic efforts are centered on healthcare and education. He admitted that it took a while to fully get on board with this, and credits his Jewish friends as role models. “The more you give, the more you get.”
Fernandez lobbies plenty for policies that benefit his MBF Capital Partners private equity firm and is also a supporter of “immigration reform”.

Cuckservatives In Denial

You don’t have to outright arrange to personally participate in Western decline to be a cuckservative. Men who know their fatherland is being defiled by vampiric Oriental parasites, but pretend it’s our fault, should have the stigma over their heads as well.

In my personal view, Jared Taylor’s open letter to cuckservatives is a self-parody. At first, I found it to be a pleasant surprise to see Taylor interacting with such working class style conceptualizations, but his take on it was quite disappointing. One of the major attributes of a cuckservative is their treasonous collaboration with Jewish power, which as I have demonstrated are the conduits conveying anti-white policies across the political spectrum: this is integral to the word’s meaning and absolutely not up for debate. Yet, in his letter, Taylor writes:
“Do you support Israel? Mexicans, Haitians, Chinese, and Guatemalans don’t.”
In this case, the Mexicans, Haitians, Chinese, and Guatemalans are right, and the cuckservatives are wrong. The above stated non-white populations are hostile to Jews because they live in close proximity to them in major American cities (Miami, Los Angeles, New York City), unlike the majority of white Gentiles, many of whom have never even met a Jew.

Ignorance is power.

Some argue that I am misinterpreting Taylor, but his ardent support for Jews and Zionism is a matter of public record. I’ve found American Renaissance to be a major factor in undermining racial ideology in the Anglo-sphere, and in a subtle way, this one sentence alone undermines the power of the cuckservative scarlet letter.

My point with this aside is that talking about race, nationalism, or the modern crisis of the West (to which the coinage of cuckservative is a response) without mentioning Jews is like watching a Joe Pesci mob-movie rant censored for basic cable: you ruin the dialogue.

While the elites ideally prefer different, they will conditionally allow the cuckservatives to talk about black crime and outright encourage people who work the clash of civilizations (with Islam) angle (as it inevitably leads to working with Jews). This is why the most powerful Jewish groups invest more time and energy in attacking and harassing Daily Stormer’s Andrew Anglin and TradYouth’s Matthew Heimbach than they do in the organizations which studiously avoid the Jewish Question.

Jared Taylor’s essay raises a challenging question: Were do we the draw the line in naming the cuckservatives?

I’m not saying the uprising should start targeting AmRen like it is doing to far more offensive and influential Jew-bought figures in the cuckservative movement. But I will suggest being thoughtful when it comes to your time and dollars. The work Trad Youth and Daily Stormer are doing is far more difficult and much more important. Real change and a truly uncensored movement to save our race can only come about with our expansion.