Aug 13, 2015

It Is No Longer Possible to Speak of a 'Common Law' in Our 'Multicultural' Society

via British National Party

Our judges no longer belong to us – they have been hijacked by International Political Correctness, the new dominant ideology of the West.

They serve the “International Community” (which is an abstract concept) and not the British people. The same can also be said of our politicians.

It is no longer possible to speak of a common law in a multicultural society which recognises all cultures as equal despite their differences.

British culture may be demographically preponderant but the logic of multiculturalism gives it no right to primacy. It also imposes on judges the duty to take account of the sensitivities of other cultures where these diverge from British common law.

Rowan Williams, when archbishop was howled down when he suggested that British law should incorporate elements of Sharia law but he merely stated the obvious.

British governments have established Islam as a force in Britain’s everyday life and the four million British Muslims have every right to expect the law to accommodate their ethics.

Tony Blair was famous for not thinking things through and probably never more so than when he threw open the floodgates to mass immigration despite the damage it might cause to the fabric of the UK.

Of all the consequences, the loss of a common law will be the most grievous to the future of a cohesive society.

This country is trapped in a PC mantra of Human Rights, Racism and Diversity. By this I mean any free speech that did exist has been deposited in the dustbin of history.

Any objection or criticism of the ECHR, immigration (legal or illegal), asylum seekers and cultural flashpoints are met with an immediate volley of ridicule or nasty name calling.

And this counter movement is orchestrated by the far left and common purpose, who will bully any person or group who objects. Just look at the screaming and hissing charity bosses, UN and left wing media’s response to Hammond declaring that increasingly desperate marauding migrants are threatening our existence and standard of living.

I am no fan of Hammond but you would believe from this over excited criticism that he was a cross between Satan and Hitler.

Whom do I blame for this brick by brick, I mean immigrant by immigrant destruction of my country? None other than the political elite.

Time for Trump to Send a Message by Hiring Darren Wilson

via VDARE

As VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow predicted this spring, all it took to change the national conversation about immigration was for one person, in this case Donald Trump, to mention it in one speech.  And now that Ferguson, Missouri appears to be once again sliding into chaos, it’s time for The Donald to do it again—by standing up for law and order. There is already a palpable sense that America is on the brink of breakdown. And the one-year anniversary of the death of The Gentle Giant of Ferguson, the late Michael Brown, proceeded exactly as you would expect:
Remember that name, because (especially if he dies) #TyroneHarris may become the new hashtag that justifies renewed violence in Ferguson.

Even as this is written, St. Louis County officials have declared a State of Emergency and more demonstrations are planned for Monday night [St. Louis County issues State of Emergency, by Joe Millitzer, Fox 2 St. Louis, August 10, 2015]. Before Monday afternoon, 50 protesters had already been arrested [50 arrested in Ferguson protests downtown; state of emergency declared in county, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, August 10, 2015].

These included well known agitators Cornel West, DeRay McKesson, and Johnetta Elzie [Cornel West, Deray McKesson among dozens arrested in St. Louis Protests, by Goldie Taylor, Blue Nation Review, August 10, 2015] Leftist organizers disingenuously claim they want to keep demonstrations “peaceful” But even if we believe them, they have proven they can’t control the forces they have unleashed. Even St. Louis Alderman Antonio French, who has been a vocal supporter of the protests, found his possessions stolen after he tried to give shelter to protesters.

Significantly, while the Main Stream Media shamelessly promotes the protests in Ferguson, there has been almost no mention of the two police officers who have already been murdered since the month began.
8475157_G[1]One Tremaine Wilbourn (right) was arrested for the murder. Wilbourn’s sister alleges he shot the police officer in self-defense, that “Tremaine ain’t a bad person,” and that “things happen, things happen” [Sister of man accused of killing police officer claims self-defense, by Janice Broach, KMOV 4 St. Louis, August 4, 2015].
  • Thomas LaValley of the Shreveport Police Department in Louisiana, was murdered on August 5.
8505223_G[1]The suspect, Grover Cannon, “has an extensive arrest record dating to 2004 with convictions for possession of stolen things, burglary, possession of marijuana, flight from an officer, misdemeanor battery, trespassing, resisting an officer and felony theft.” He also dropped out of school after the 8th grade [Breaking: Grover D. Cannon in custody after daylong manhunt, KTBS 3, August 6, 2015].

LaValley was laid to rest the day this article was written, with hundreds attending [Hundreds turn out for Ofc. Thomas LaValley’s funeral, KTBS 3, August 10, 2015].But in contrast to the burials of Michael Brown or Freddie Gray, the Obama Administration did not send a representative to honor Bolton or LaValley.

Though the MSM all but ignored the story, thousands of flag-waving Americans had lined the streets over the weekend to pay tribute as LaValley’s body was transported home for the funeral [Fallen SPD officer’s escort to S. LA draws thousands paying respects, by Troy Washington, MS News Now, August 8, 2015].

But were they waving the right flag? After all, every police officer in the country now knows if there is an interaction with a black suspect that comes to the attention of the federal government, his or her life will be utterly ruined by the ensuing investigation.

Even in the best case scenario, though Eric (“my people”) Holder’s own Department of Justice finally cleared Officer Darren Wilson in the Mike Brown shooting, Wilson is now “unemployable” for the crime of not allowing himself to be murdered [Darren Wilson: Ferguson made me unemployable, by John Bacon, USA Today, August 4, 2015].

This climate of fear has dangerous consequences. In Alabama, a police officer hesitated after a black man confronted him during a traffic stop. According to the head of the Fraternal Order of Police, the officer feared retribution if he used force against the unarmed man.

As a result, he was pistol whipped and left lying on the ground—while black passerby took pictures, posted them to social networking, and left taunting messages.

The alleged perpetrator was eventually captured, and as you probably have guessed, has a long criminal history including multiple convictions for robbery, assault, and other crimes [‘If the tables were turned… they would be rioting;: cops outraged after photos of bloody, pistol-whipped detective posted onlinewith support for the attack, by Dave Urbanski, The Blaze, August 9, 2015]

Naturally, the Republican Party has been silent on these developments. Indeed, it has decided now is the perfect time to roll out soft-on-crime policies in the hope that re-enfranchised black felons will vote for the party of tax cuts for the rich.

However, Republican frontrunner Donald Trump had a different take on the issue a few months ago:
[W]e have to give power back to the police because we have to have law and order. Hundreds of killings are in Baltimore. Hundreds of killings are in Chicago. And New York is not doing so great in terms of that front,” [Trump] added. “We have to give strength and power back to the police. And you’re always going to have mistakes made. And you’re always going to have bad apples. But you can’t let that stop the fact that police have to regain some control of this tremendous crime wave and killing wave that’s happening in this country. [Trump: We must ‘give power back to the police,’ by Caitlin Macneil, Business Insider, April 3, 2015]
Trump has also shown a willingness in the past to discuss the color of crime.
As with immigration, all it would take to change the national conversation on crime and violence is one speech, backed by some courage. Will Donald Trump fill the political vacuum by speaking against anti-police and anti-White violence?

Of course, the political climate being what it is, such a speech might lead to even more threats against the Donald. He’ll have to hire more security. My suggestion: hire Darren Wilson. He needs a job.

Kali on the Empire State Building

via The Thinking Housewife

The Hindu goddess Kali projected onto
the Empire State Building
WILLIAM writes from the Netherlands:

After the unveiling of the satanic ‘Baphomet’ statue in Detroit, people can now also rejoice in the projection of the Hindu goddess Kali on the Empire State Building.

The Kali projection was part of a visual show on the building’s exterior last weekend, a display on threats to endangered species and Kali was included for “giving mother nature a fierce avatar against pollution.’ I suppose the fact that ‘mother’ nature pollutes the world much more than humans by way of volcanic eruptions or that humans, in the modern view, áre nothing but mammals, i.e. themselves part of ‘mother nature,’ does not make anyone pause for a second.

So now we have the goddess Kali to project ‘change.’ Her name means “black, time, death, destruction” and could be connected with “hell” and the Germanic goddess ‘Hella’ or ‘Holda.’ She, like Kali, was a goddess of death and associated with the (skin) colours blue and black, being the same in ancient understanding.

In recent years, the people who have tatto-ed or body-painted themselves with skeletal features have increased tremendously and Hella was often half skeletal. There is a skeletal goddess or aspect of Kali in Hinduism too (Chamunda).
There was a notorious cult of thieves and murderers in India who considered themselves to be the ‘sons of Kali.” They were ‘Thuggees’ or ‘Thugs’ and are said to have been responsible for as many as two million deaths. The word is in common usage in ‘black/urban culture.’ It seems pop culture has heralded the return of demons, but this cannot be a surprise to anyone, seeing as the roots of pop culture go back to voodoo and people like musicologist Mickey Hart have shown that drumming was used to summon spirits and gods. Well, it seems to have worked.

It so looks like the world is to be transformed into a hell on earth, in which the goddess of hell -together with her faithful- will judge the living. Isn’t it so? All our actions are to be judged by how much damage we do to ‘mother nature.’ Hell was always a place of judgement, even though neo-pagans want to pretend it isn’t. Kali is the ‘great (black) mother’ and don’t we all come from (black) ‘mother Africa’? Even ‘science’ weighs in with the ‘Gaia hypothesis.’
Not much has changed since pagan times.

As a last thought, I’d like to point out that Kali is called “the destroyer of demons” and that whites have of old been called ‘white devils/demons’ by many non-white people. (True, many thought whites to be gods too, but gods and demons do not really differ in Eastern thought.) Today, they are called thus again by many professional agitators, pop artists, professors in universities and some of them openly call for the destruction of whites/white culture/Christianity. On the one hand whites must give everyone ‘equality,’ health and wealth as if it was theirs to give as gods, and on the other hand they are the demons that destroy the world with their technology and culture.

Laura writes:
Artist Sona Mohapatre described the display:

“In a breathtaking heart-to-heart, Ma Kali took New York last night.
The Divine Feminine , Maha Shakti, goddess of spiritual death, destruction and resurrection, rode the zeitgeist straight onto the face of the Empire State Building.
Fierce protectress of truth, she tells it like it is, she beckons us to dive into the dark, to face the stark reality of the global ecological crisis upon us, and to let heartbreak be the ground from which we awaken and serve.

Perhaps it is even too late now, perhaps only calamity can make us silence the ego and hear the cries of the World Soul, perhaps destruction must be our baptism into change, but this is the time and we are the ones summoned to be the shamans of the Shift.

Never underestimate the power of holy darkness to reveal the Soul of all matters. The dark is where illusions are shattered, where false certainties are broken; the dark is where the mind is cut off so that only the heart can see… It is time to let holy darkness be our medicine. The world as we know it must change or perish.

In an unprecedented and awe-inspiring public display of art by filmmaker Louie Psihoyos and his team, Projecting Change, projected onto the NYC skyline , was meant to spark awareness of massive wildlife extinction, and be a chilling call to conservation turning the Empire State Building, New York’s brightest and most recognizable symbol and capitalism’s earliest totem, into the worlds greatest canvas, as well as its most epic tombstone and oracle of the Dark Feminine.”

William adds:
I had forgotten about two other horrible statues I had read about a while ago: the ‘She Guardian’ in London, a statue depicting ‘maternal protectiveness toward her young.’ The last comment in that article is telling: “I for one welcome our new cat-dragon overlord.”

She-Guardian-R2-528x920


The other is the statue of the Assyrian ‘king of the demons of the wind’, Pazuzu. This demon is the one who possesses a girl in ‘The Exorcist’, the ’70s horror movie that had enormous cultural impact.

Iran Nuclear Deal Is 'Exposed to the Elements'

via Koinen's Corner

The 'elements' being elements of:
  • Israel and Israeli perfidy.
  • Jews, Jewish money, and Jewish lobbies
  • Bribery
  • Brainwashing
  • Conspiracy
  • U.S. Congress-members' cowardice and malfeasance
  • Perjury and suborning perjury (involving Israelis, Jews, and complicit U.S. Congressmen)
  • Treason and traitors (the Congressmen who participate and end up doing Israel's dirty work)
Just have a look at these articles pulled from recent headlines:

Here (USA Today):
Big money and ads clash over Iran nuclear deal

Here (The Guardian):
The looming August battle for the Iran nuclear deal

and Here (Fox News):
HOUSE CALL: US pols in Israel hear Netanyahu rebuke Iran nuke deal
THE TRADITIONAL August-recess trip to Israel for House freshmen is emerging as a high-stakes journey this year, with tandem trips for Democrats and Republicans an opportunity for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to press his case in person against the Iran nuclear deal before members return next month for the historic vote.
VIDEO: Netanyahu issues grave warning to Americans about Iran deal
House members' trip to Israel allows Netanyahu to press case against Iran nuclear deal

What outlandish arrogance ('chutzpah') on the part of Israel!  Just think of it:  Israel hauls our Congress people half way around the world to be lectured and have their arms twisted by Bibi Netanyahu.  Although it has been denied (but since when can we believe anything the Jews say?), I can't help but think the Israelis will also try to tell them how to think and how to vote. So I keep thinking of those Congress members who stand ready to forsake their oaths of office and loyalty to our country, and agree to go to Israel and be subjected to Netanyahu's indoctrination (and particularly those who accede to his demands).  Think of all the tens of millions of dollars being spent by Israeli and Jewish lobby organizations such as AIPAC to destroy the rational, peace-promoting deal struck by our government and approved by every other nation involved in the negotiations (and approved by just about every other country that amounts to anything, around the world).  And think about the money being spent by wealthy Jewish oligarchs to persuade and coerce our Congressmen to throw over America's interests for those of the bandit State of Israel and the perennially warmongering Zionist Jews.

After reading these articles, listening to the videos, and giving this matter some thought, I would say it's pretty damned obvious who is in charge here.  Which country is the dominant one (Israel) and which is the submissive and servile one (U.S.).  Which is superior and which is subordinate, at least in the minds of Netanyahu and the Israelis.

This blatant effort on Israel's part to influence if not dictate our foreign policy certainly makes it look as though the United States is little more than the lap-dog of the Jewish State of Israel.  Let us not forget Netanyahu's failed earlier attempt to monkey-wrench the Iran nuclear deal by addressing Congress last March (yes, that's right -- the head of a foreign state getting center stage and prime time to use our Congress to tell us what to do about what to large extent is their perceived problem with another Middle Eastern country.  What are we to make of this situation, other than that when it comes to foreign-policy matters that affect Israel in any way, the real seat of our government, or should I say the seat of our real government, is now in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, rather than Washington?

Perhaps the best way to describe this entire situation, and in particular the relationship between the U.S. and Israel, and stating it in the vernacular of today's degraded and negrified culture to which all too many of our people have become accustomed (so those people also can understand it):  America has now become Israel's bitch.

Let’s Stop Trying to Be Classy

via TradYouth

The name of our upcoming Traditionalist Worker Party has instigated a much-needed debate about the role of class in our struggle, on account of the worker-oriented title and tone of the party. To many, it smacks of outright Marxism. At the very least, it does indeed place the primary focus on the working class.

What role, if any, should class interests and class conflicts play in our political work?

In Scott Terry’s recent post, Tribe Uber Alles, he takes aim at our working class messaging from a consistently traditionalist perspective:
If being a nationalist means we have to accept Eastern European class theory, with all its Marxist presuppositions about “workers” and “owners of capital”, etc. then I’m not a nationalist.
He takes it a step further, going medieval on our rhetoric:
I’m more of a medievalist, a neo-feudalist, or a tribalist. An anti-ist-ist, who envisions a series of decentralized, confederated duchies, where people don’t define themselves in terms of a Marxist financial class, nor in terms of their political and / or religious affiliations (hence the lack of “ists”), nor by the color of their shirt collar; rather they define themselves tribally.
This is a fair critique, but there are two important reasons why a grassroots political movement to advance traditionalist ideals must necessarily focus from the outset on “workers.” It certainly has nothing to do with Marxism, at least not directly. The apparent similarity in our rhetoric to Marxist rhetoric is an artifact of the fact that both Radical Traditionalists and Classical Marxists target capitalists and capitalism, seeking to defend the victims of finance capitalism.

Both Marxists and Traditionalists insist that the merchants are to blame. Traditionalists insist that we must put the merchants back in their proper place in the hierarchy (beneath throne and altar) while Marxists advocate for hurrying up and arriving at the fourth and final stage in the inversion of the varna; a dictatorship of the proletariat. Both Marxists and Traditionalists recognize that we’re in an age of capitalist oligarchs projecting not only their power but their morality and metapolitics as well. We intend to go uphill from there, Marxists intend to go downhill from there.

Throne and altar were the original nemeses of the merchants and financiers long before Karl Marx dreamed up his Utopian ideology. It’s a testament to America’s complete divorce from the history and legacy of Western Traditionalism that a political movement attempting to defend working families from usurious bankers and multinational corporations is mistaken for a Marxist political project rather than a Traditionalist one. The history of support for Bolshevism found on Wall Street and K Street both historically and today contrasts very starkly with their rabid hatred of and consistent opposition to National Socialism, Ba’athism, Falangism, and other political movements which opposed finance capitalists from the Right.

The first reason why a direct and explicit emphasis on workers is imperative is that it cuts through a debilitating problem on the radical right, that of autistic ideologues who can not and will not engage with ordinary folks. Earlier this week, a private conversation in one of the political projects I’m peripherally affiliated with noted the importance of dissociating themselves from “skinheads” and similar riffraff. It’s taken as gospel among the pro-White intelligentsia that working class folks who are indistinguishable from us in all but economic class and subcultural aesthetics must be avoided in absolutely all but two cases: When they can be hit up for money and when they can protect us from getting our asses stomped by Leftists.

Any time a band of people form together to achieve a political goal, there’s a gravitational pull within that band of people toward becoming a subculture rather than a movement. Subcultures are natural and great, save for when the natural tribal compulsion to police the perimeter of the social circle serves to limit the whole point of coming together in the first place, which is to spread a set of ideas and achieve a set of goals beyond that cluster of people. Among White Nationalists, there exist two parallel clusters of mutually-alienated subcultures within the same movement; skinheads and New Right ideologues.

The only predictive difference is economic class, and the TWP seeks to bridge that class divide and develop a united voice for our people across subcultural and economic class lines.

While there are certainly legitimate issues with the skinhead scene to be addressed, what’s rarely addressed is the cowardly and paralytic nature of the New Right’s intellectual scene. They’re allergic to street action, unwilling to invest in, mentor, or support visible activists, and beholden to a narrow spectrum of varied schemes which all share two unifying commonalities: lack of authentic solutions for the white families we purport to be speaking on behalf of and a lack of social courage to promote those solutions.

In my years in these circles, I’ve been clued in on elaborate counter-cyclical investment schemes to save the White race. I’ve been tipped off about diabolical entryist plots to infiltrate this or that institution which sound suspiciously like rationalizations for pursuing secure mainstream jobs. You’ve got your financial Doomers, your peak oil Doomers, your race war Doomers, and many more flavors of Doomer, all of whom intend to eschew engagement with and outreach toward our folks until their particular prophecy unfolds.

And even if these Doomers are right about their prophecies, you need to have a living and breathing political vanguard assembled before whatever event they have in mind. The notion that the political vanguard will emerge and gather around the prophet who called the doomsday scenario is all the more magical thinking which is endemic in our circles.

Contrary to what Scott inferred, sticking the word Worker right in the middle of the party name is actually an attempt to transcend the class problems afflicting our movement by signaling that the project will be visibly and directly engaging with ordinary families, especially those working class families who are most acutely in need of our stewardship and our voice. It’s not that we’re opposed to comfortable and wealthy folks who share our identity. It’s just that they’re not the ones who are suffering right now. They’re not the ones deprived of a political voice.

The second reason why it’s imperative to orient our party around the worker is that a traditionalist vanguard must understand what it truly means to be a virtuous elite. The loyalty of peasants to their lords, soldiers to their generals, and parishioners to their priests must be reciprocated in order for the social order to be authentically traditional. The first step for an elitist intent on reviving authentic traditional elitism in the modern world is stepping up and demonstrating that he’s a thoroughbred and natural steward with his actions.

If we don’t make it clear not only in our branding but in our actions that we’re fighting for them, we’re not going to succeed as a grassroots organizing force for educating and empowering traditional working families. We’re not merely standing for a collection of abstract ideals, our abstract ideals and our party members stand for them.

Decentralization and support for secessionism is a core aspect of the TradWorker vision, so it’s perfectly aligned with Scott’s neo-feudalist agrarian political vision, though I do hope his hierarchical vision for his little fiefdom is one in which his elites have a strong and active stewardship of and support for its struggling families and humble workers.

An Open Letter to Donald Trump

via The Realist Report

Dear Mr. Trump,

I have been closely following your campaign since you announced your intention to run for President of the United States. Like millions of Americans of all political stripes, I greatly appreciate your frankness, your honesty, and your candor. The criticisms you are leveling against the mainstream political and media establishment in America – the corrupt, superficial nature of electoral politics, the disastrous and poorly negotiated international trade deals our “leaders” have pushed on this country, the dishonest, malicious behavior of the “journalists” and “political pundits” covering politics today, etc. – are resonating very deeply across this once great nation for very obvious reasons. Most Americans I know and deal with feel alienated from the political establishment, viewing the career politicians running Washington, DC and the media that serves them as hostile to American political traditions and culture.

Millions of people in this country eagerly wish to live in an America that can be considered “great” once again, and we hope you can lead us there, as your campaign slogan indicates.

In my opinion, you are running a brilliant campaign. You have great talking points and you handle the (oftentimes hostile and venomous) media extremely well. Your performance in the Republican debate the other night was outstanding. You dominated, and most people I have personally spoken to about this clearly recognized that fact. According to the polls I have seen, most people who took the time to watch the debate agree with my assessment – you crushed.

Your response to Megyn Kelly’s contention that you may be part of the alleged “war on women” was just fantastic. You didn’t back down or apologize, as everyone else would have, and stuck to your guns. “I think the big problem this country has is being politically correct,” you correctly stated, before explaining that America does not have time for political correctness anymore. Indeed, political correctness is destroying this country, and more and more people are recognizing this fact with each passing day.

You embody the type of leader America has long been craving for. You come across as confident, bold, unswerving, and genuine, while the rest of the presidential candidates – both Republican and Democrat – are the exact opposite. The rest of the presidential candidates are phonies. They are career politicians who have accomplished little despite their contentions to the contrary. They have no backbone or genuineness, and epitomize everything wrong with American politics. All clear thinking people see through the various Republican candidates and Hillary Clinton, correctly viewing all of them as dishonest, spineless politicians willing to sell their soul to the devil for even more political and economic power as well as personal aggrandizement. The other candidates are pathetic, and we all recognize it.

populism vs plutocracyYou appear to be running as a populist, which has a rich history in America. I understand populism to mean “rule by the majority of electors for the benefit of all, not for the benefit of minority, special-interest groups,” as it is defined in Populism vs. Plutocracy: The Universal Struggle. Populism is about running the government for the benefit of the people, of the nation, rather than for the benefit of organized special interests. And we all know America is run by special interests – the exact opposite of populism. Based on your speeches, media interviews, and comments during the debate, you seem to want to do what is right for the country and for the American people. You are bringing up issues that no one in the mainstream is willing to openly discuss, including illegal immigration, our disastrous trade policies, and the stifling effects of political correctness, to name only a few. You are making all sorts of extremely important points about a variety of critical topics in a very powerful way. I salute you and hope you stay true to your word, never backing down to the tyrants controlling our media and political establishment.

All of that having been said, there are a number of items I would like to bring to your attention.

On numerous occasions, you have openly stated that America is being governed by incompetent people who are destroying the country. We lose in our trade deals; we lose in foreign policy negotiations (such as the Iran deal); we lose when it comes to immigration policy.

You claim we have poor, incompetent negotiators and public policy-makers who don’t know what they are doing. While I do agree that the federal government does indeed have incompetent people in positions of power and influence, incompetence alone does not explain the disastrous policies this country has implemented in recent years. America, a nation founded and built by White European-derived people, is governed by an elite that is entirely hostile to the traditions and people of the West (i.e., White people), and is actively seeking their disenfranchisement and displacement. The disastrous, counter-productive policies you have cited – our immigration policy, our international trade deals, etc. – are not merely the result of incompetence; they are the result of the machinations of a hostile elite that is seeking to undermine, pervert, and ultimately destroy Western civilization and everything it has stood for over the centuries.

The simple fact of the matter is that the hostile elite undermining and destroying America is largely Jewish, with non-Jewish puppets in key positions of power and influence in the federal government, mass media, and other important institutions. The federal government is a tyrannical empire masquerading as a democratic republic that is managed by Jews and anti-White liberals and #cuckservatives in order to advance, first and foremost, Jewish financial, political, and cultural interests in the West and around the world.

I understand you have many Jewish connections and have pledged your loyalty to the Jewish state of Israel. I don’t expect to see or hear you openly challenge or criticize Jewish power, the pro-Israel lobby, or the subversive, destructive nature of Jewish-promoted popular American culture. I recognize that doing so would be extremely unpopular, and would likely cost you the election (not to mention your business and familial connections).

I’m assuming you recognize that the factual reality I just explained is strictly verboten in mainstream American society. You rightly rail against political correctness, but even you allow yourself to be controlled by political correctness when it comes to the reality of Jewish power and influence in America and the war on Whites. If we are ever going to truly solve the countless problems facing America, we have to be honest about the fact that Jews have and continue to play a major role in destabilizing and subverting America – politically, economically, and culturally – while using the political, financial, and educational institutions we developed and built in this nation to advance their own unique ethnic interests at the expense of us. I hope you realize this ugly reality, and plan accordingly. A Trump presidential administration could easily make moves to address these issues in a discreet manner.

The second issue I’d like to bring up relates to America’s disastrous immigration policy. You have proffered some very powerful and straightforward criticisms of illegal immigration, which the vast majority of Americans understand is entirely out of control. America is being flooded by illegal aliens. Rather than arresting and deporting these criminals, our local, state, and federal government(s) offer them sympathy, rewards, and benefits (See here). The situation is simply outrageous.

However, in my view, legal immigration poses an even greater danger to the future of America than illegal immigration, and I have not heard you once discuss your views on legal immigration into the United States. (Maybe you have, and I totally missed it.)

Most people recognize illegal immigration as fundamentally wrong and immoral; Americas view legal immigration as just and right, despite the fact it is fundamentally transforming the demographics of this once 90+% majority White nation. America was founded and built by White people of European descent. It became an advanced, highly civilized and developed nation as a result. Do we really think we can maintain our advanced, sophisticated civilization with millions of non-White Third World immigrants flooding into our country?

The fact of the matter is that America does not need any immigration, legal or illegal. Currently, over 1 million immigrants legally enter the United States every year. Others are granted work and student visas, with many of them overstaying their officially sanctioned visa allowances. This is pure madness. Why on earth are millions of immigrants legally and illegally entering our country every year? You and I both know our military, law enforcement agencies, and border patrol are perfectly capable of locking down the border, identifying and arresting illegal aliens, and ending the outrageous financial and political exploitation of our country by foreigners – legal and illegal – with the greatest ease.

We need leaders who have the political will to confront these problems in a straightforward, honest fashion. Many of us are hoping you are the man for the job.
That said, what are your views on legal immigration into the United States? If you believe our current policy of allowing over 1 million immigrants legally into this country is sound, please explain why, especially considering the fact that millions of Americans are currently out of work and the vast majority of immigrants entering the United States have few skills, little to no education, and almost no capital (human or financial).

Finally, you have portrayed yourself as a defender and champion of the American military and veterans. You were and remain highly critical of the Iraq war, and have correctly criticized the way in which the federal government treats and cares for its veterans. At this point, most people – at least those who can read – understand that the Iraq war was based on bald-faced lies. American foreign policy is counterproductive to American interests in virtually all respects. Since 9/11, America has launched an endless war against a faceless enemy, resulting in the death and destruction of millions of people, including thousands of American troops, and entire nations. Our foreign policy is truly a disaster.

You’re a smart man Mr. Trump, and no doubt you’ve learned by now that 9/11, the event that initiated and justified the foreign policy disasters America currently finds herself in, was in fact planned, organized, and executed by Jewish criminals operating at the highest levels of the U.S. federal government, City of New York, and mass media, working in conjunction with their ethnic counterparts in the Jewish state of Israel. 9/11 was used to officially launch the “Global War on Terror,” a paradigm of foreign policy entirely concocted by Jewish neocons and Israeli military and geopolitical strategists designed to advance Zionist hegemony in the Middle East using American military, financial, and human capital. The various wars, invasions, and foreign meddling initiated as a result of 9/11 – Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, etc. – have all been instigated and promoted by Jewish neocons and their non-Jewish political and media puppets.

What better way to champion and defend the interests of the American military than to tell them the truth about the entirely unjustifiable and immoral wars they are waging on behalf of Israel and international Jewry? Again, these are fundamental truths that need to be publicly declared and dealt with if we are ever going to “make America great again,” as you pledge you’ll do as president.

I understand I am relaying many controversial and unpopular facts and points of view. I just want you to be aware of this information, and I hope you take seriously the questions I’ve asked and perspectives I’ve offered.

Sincerely,

John Friend

Emma’s Dilemma: Defend Europe or Destroy Europe?

via The Occidental Observer

Antarian Jew and influential
mouthpiece, Emma Barnett
In “Attitudes on Immigration,” I looked at how Jewish attitudes differ depending on whether Jews are a minority or the majority in a population. In European-majority nations, they tirelessly promote open borders; in Israel, they build big fences and drape them with razor-wire. One of the Jewish journalists I looked at was Emma Barnett of the Telegraph, who wrote the following about the aggressive, low-IQ Blacks and Muslims currently trying to force their way into Britain via the French port of Calais:
Calais crisis: Screw British holidaymakers. What about the real victims?
Britain’s desperation for a booze cruise [trip to buy cheap alcohol] is blinding us to the true human cost of the Calais crisis, writes Emma Barnett. …
While I do have sympathy for anyone stuck in the traffic jam that’s cost UK industry millions, I’m reserving my compassion for a group who really could murder a slice of cake. Just 21 miles from Britain there is a jungle. Or to give it its full name: Jungle Camp. This is where hundreds of displaced people from all over the world live in some of the most wretched conditions. Stuck in a no-man’s land in Calais, they are living in temporary cardboard structures and surviving on porridge made out of milk and soggy bread. Not that you will probably have paid them much attention over the last week.
The “Calais crisis” as it’s being referred to, is mostly being reported as a transport or business story. Actually, it’s a humanitarian timebomb. On Tuesday, one man died trying to get through the Channel Tunnel. We don’t know his name. He is the ninth this summer. …
Even the language that’s being used to describe the mostly male Eritreans, Ethiopians, Afghans and Sudanese trying to live in Europe is mechanical at best, and dehumanising at worst. Emergency government meetings are being held to ensure there is “upstream management of illegal migratory flows”. Excuse me? These are real people, with hearts, families and lest we forget it, human rights. What if they were children instead of young men? Would we feel differently? …
We must also face the facts. The UK isn’t a soft touch when it comes to “letting everyone and anyone in”. According to the UN Refugee Agency, at the end of 2014, the population of refugees, pending asylum cases and stateless people made up just 0.24 per cent of the UK population. That’s 117,161 refugees, 36,383 pending asylum cases and 16 stateless people.We take fewer asylum seekers than many other countries. Turkey has the highest number at 1.6m, followed by Pakistan at 1.5m.
This country has a proud history when it comes to taking in the needy. Let’s not let ourselves down because we’re impatient for a holiday or a booze cruise. It’s time to see the bigger picture and stop the lamentable narrowing of our horizons. An island nation we might be, but that doesn’t have to mean our mentality must follow suit. (Calais crisis: Screw British holidaymakers. What about the real victims?, The Telegraph, 30th July 2015)
Emma Barnett: Three cheers for open borders!
Emma Barnett: Three cheers for open borders!

So Emma Barnett “reserves her compassion” for Blacks and Muslims rather than the mean-spirited White British. What would happen if the UK followed her advice about “taking in the needy”? We would be importing more of the pathologies that the so-called “victims” in Calais are fleeing: more tribalism, more violent crime and more corruption. Another Jewish journalist, the ex-communist David Aaronovitch claimed in the Times about Calais 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.”

Like Barnett, Aaronovitch is promoting ludicrous fantasies. What is the capacity of these “rangy, scary young men” to become “electrical engineers”? Far less than that of the White British. What is the capacity of these “rangy, scary young men” to become murderers, rapists and fraudsters? Far greater than that of the Whiter British. Michael Faraday, perhaps the world’s greatest ever “electrical engineer,” was White British, not Black or Muslim. It’s a profession that requires a high IQ, after all.

David Aaronovitch: Turn them into electricians!
David Aaronovitch: Turn them into electricians!

It also requires an ability to grasp objective reality. That is not something that David Aaronovitch or Emma Barnett possess. For further proof, let’s take a look at Ms Barnett’s reaction to the terrorist murders in Paris earlier this year:
Somewhere between the Holocaust and 2015 it became OK to blame Jews again
British Jews feel a new sense of unease as a fashionable form of anti-Semitism spreads unchecked
When I heard the news that four Jews had been murdered last week on European soil by an Islamist gun-toting terrorist, my blood ran cold; my hands started sweating. Dazed, I found myself in the work toilets shedding a silent tear. And then I realised why I needed to be alone: I felt scared.
For the first time in my life, as a British Jew, 70 years on from the liberation of Auschwitz, I felt anxious and bewildered at how this assault had happened just across the Channel. While I was stunned and enraged by the murders of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists and writers — both as a journalist and citizen — it was the murder of my fellow Jews that left me feeling personally exposed. …
It would be irresponsible to overstate the risks that Jewish people presently face in Britain – although the spokesman from CST [the Community Security Trust] grows quiet when asked what’s being done about the possibility of copycat terrorist attacks. … Today in Britain the wider society seems unwilling to grasp, denounce and crucially understand anti-Semitism. The Jewish community needs more outward solidarity as the tide slowly turns against us once more.
Jews themselves, who are on the whole brilliant at assimilating, need to get better at publicly calling out anti-Semitism — instead of trying to distance themselves from the problem in embarrassment. My husband, for instance, wasn’t sure about me writing this column — fearing the backlash. There may be only 260,000 of us in the UK but if we don’t lead, how can the rest of society follow? (Somewhere between the Holocaust and 2015 it became OK to blame Jews again, The Telegraph, 15th January 2015)
No matter how many times you read that column, you will not find Ms Barnett mention the words “Muslim” or “mass immigration.” Nor does she point out that, like murder, rape and corruption, anti-Semitism is far more prevalent among Muslims than among White Europeans. Remember how she feels compassion for the Blacks and Muslims massing in Calais, who are “real people, with hearts, families and lest we forget it, human rights.”

Some electricians in action

They’re also people with ideas. Does she think that “Eritreans, Ethiopians, Afghans and Sudanese” are likely to be philo-Semites or anti-Semites? Feminists or misogynists? Passionate supporters of LGBQT rights or committed homophobes? Those questions answer themselves, which is why Jewish journalists like David Aaronovitch and Emma Barnett don’t raise them. Instead, Aaronovitch & Co. promote mass immigration into the West by the most violent, corrupt and intellectually backward groups on earth.

Meanwhile, Israel’s response to “Eritreans, Ethiopians, Afghans and Sudanese” is completely different: it firmly refuses to grant them the right of entry. If you want to understand the ethnocentrism behind these stark differences in Jewish attitudes between the “Diaspora” and Israel, the late Larry Auster is an excellent guide:
Just the other week I was telling a secular, leftist Jew of my acquaintance, a man in his late sixties, about my idea that the only way to make ourselves safe from the specter of domestic Moslem terrorism is to deport all jihad-supporting Moslems from this country. He replied with emotion that if America deported Moslem fundamentalists, it would immediately start doing the same thing to Jews as well. “It’s frightening, it’s scary,” he said heatedly, as if the Jews were already on the verge of being rounded up. In the eyes of this normally phlegmatic and easy-going man, America is just a shout away from the mass persecution, detention, and even physical expulsion of Jews. Given the wildly overwrought suspicions that some Jews harbor about the American Christian majority who are in fact the Jews’ best friends in the world, it is not surprising that these Jews look at mass Third-World and Moslem immigration, not as a danger to themselves, but as the ultimate guarantor of their own safety, hoping that in a racially diversified, de-Christianized America, the waning majority culture will lack the power, even if it still has the desire, to persecute Jews. (Why Jews Welcome Muslims, Front Page Magazine, 22nd June, 2004)
Emma Barnett talks loudly about her “compassion” for the “victims” of Calais. She’s deluding herself. Compassion is nothing to do with it: she supports open borders for Blacks and Muslims because she thinks open borders are good for Jews such as herself. She obviously doesn’t care about the pathologies that follow, from epidemics of child-rape to mass surveillance by the state. Those are costs that she’s happy for the White majority to pay. Remember her claim that Jews “are on the whole brilliant at assimilating.” I think she needs to look “assimilate” up in a good dictionary. Assimilation would mean that Jews like Barnett and Aaronovitch chose to defend Europe, not destroy it.

Latvians Take Message of White Genocide to the Streets of Riga

via Fight White Genocide

On August 4, hundreds of Latvians and their Baltic allies armed with signs saying “Stop Genocide Against Latvians” and “Stop Genocide Against White Nations” protested against a plan to bring non-white so-called “asylum” seekers to Latvia. The protests took place in the Latvian capital of Riga at the Cabinet of Ministers Building.

Ukraine Today quotes protester Bruno Legzdins: “I came with an aim to exclude the influx of refugees which endangers Latvia’s security and which could continue as an avalanche-like process, as has already happened in other countries, in particular in Western Europe.”

eu_poll_immigration_workingAs reported by Public Broadcasting of Latvia, in a poll taken in the fall of 2014, 79% of Latvians were against immigration from outside the EU.

The European Union (EU) is pressuring ALL white countries in Europe to accept non-white invaders. The Latvian government has agreed to take in 250 ”refugees” (for now). With such an overwhelming majority of Latvians opposed to non-EU immigration, why is their government even proposing this? This is more proof that the people never voted for white genocide, just their traitorous leaders, and that so-called “democracy” is a sham. Of course, they don’t take polls like this to judge the will of the people and act in accordance with that will. They take polls like this to determine where they need to allocate their propaganda and police state resources to brainwash or force the population to accept conditions of white genocide. The protesters know perfectly well that the the anti-white elites in power have no plans to stop at 250 “refugees.”

riga_mapWe know the intention of European elites to turn Europe non-white based on their own statements. Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, founder of the Pan-European movement, first recipient of the Charlemagne Prize, and considered one of the founders of the EU, wrote in his 1925 book Practical Idealism: “The man of the future will be of mixed race.

Today’s races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals.” In 2008 while president of France, Nicolas Sarkozy said in a speech given in Palaiseau, France: “The challenge to race mixing in the 21st century is not a choice, it’s an obligation, an imperative. We cannot do otherwise. If republican voluntarism doesn’t work, it will be necessary to move on to more coercive measures.”

riga_protest_102We also know their intentions based on the fact that they are flooding Europe with millions of non-whites and jailing people who oppose this policy. The Kalergi Plan is being implemented before our eyes by force. How can anti-whites possibly say there is no intent behind white genocide?

The natural consequence of mass non-white immigration and forced assimilation in ALL white countries is to force blend white people out of existence. Imposing conditions that lead to the elimination of a race is GENOCIDE under international law.

riga_protest_105There is nothing new about turmoil and poverty in brown and black countries. There is no temporary “crisis.” What’s new is people in brown and black countries have been emboldened to enter Europe by anti-whites in power who let them in and give them free food, housing, health care and oppress anyone who speaks out against this invasion.

If pro-whites win this struggle, Africa will still be full of blacks, China will still be full of Chinese, and Europe will be still full of white people. If Kalergi’s successors win, Africa will still be full of blacks, China will still be full of Chinese -but there will be no white people in Europe.

We applaud our Baltic comrades and their brave actions supporting the global struggle against white genocide and bringing proven, effective memes to the street. Anti-whites didn’t take power with bullets. They took power by imposing terminology, and we will bring them down by destroying that terminology and imposing our own.

riga_protest_104Antifa and social justice warriors pretend to be rebels, but they’re just storm troopers for the anti-white establishment in Brussels. We are the real revolutionaries.

Links to additional related articles:
http://www.dailystormer.com/hundreds-of-baltic-people-protest-white-genocide-in-riga/
http://www.baltictimes.com/anti-refugee_rally_takes_on_latvian_government_26807166755c21627948b7/
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2015-08/05/c_134481108.htm
http://sputniknews.com/europe/20150804/1025394958.html
http://www.dw.com/en/as-migrants-die-at-sea-latvians-protest-against-quotas/a-18628206
http://news.yahoo.com/latvian-protesters-call-brake-immigration-194902967.html
http://www.bns.lv/en/topic/1905/news/49846288/
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/04/us-europe-migrants-latvia-idUSKCN0Q920I20150804

Additional Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FkHnXtkRMs

Ethnocentric Dominance and the Failure of Free-Riding

via EGI Notes

Yet another block in the crumbling edifice of anti-Salterism has been overturned, see this article, which is discussed by Kevin MacDonald here. This paper is particularly important to address one oft-cited anti-Salterian stupidity – that ethnocentric behavior is not “evolutionarily stable” because it gets hijacked by “free-riders.”  Let’s look at what the data say about that.

The abstract:

Recent agent-based computer simulations suggest that ethnocentrism, often thought to rely on complex social cognition and learning, may have arisen through biological evolution. From a random start, ethnocentric strategies dominate other possible strategies (selfish, traitorous, and humanitarian) based on cooperation or non-cooperation with in-group and out-group agents. Here we show that ethnocentrism eventually overcomes its closest competitor, humanitarianism, by exploiting humanitarian cooperation across group boundaries as world population saturates. Selfish and traitorous strategies are self-limiting because such agents do not cooperate with agents sharing the same genes. Traitorous strategies fare even worse than selfish ones because traitors are exploited by ethnocentrics across group boundaries in the same manner as humanitarians are, via unreciprocated cooperation. By tracking evolution across time, we find individual differences between evolving worlds in terms of early humanitarian competition with ethnocentrism, including early stages of humanitarian dominance. Our evidence indicates that such variation, in terms of differences between humanitarian and ethnocentric agents, is normally distributed and due to early, rather than later, stochastic differences in immigrant strategies.

I’ll like to comment on relevant excerpts from the abstract as well as the paper.
 …ethnocentrism, often thought to rely on complex social cognition and learning, may have arisen through biological evolution. 

Now, as I’ve stated many times, the utility of EGI does NOT depend on the evolution of any behavior, including ethnocentrism. It simply requires that ethnocentrism, which can be acted upon by rational thought mechanisms, be adaptive, which it is (as emphasized by this work).  That said, it is interesting to note that ethnocentrism, being evolutionarily stable once enacted, may in fact be an evolved behavior (likely to varying extents in different population groups).

… ethnocentric strategies dominate other possible strategies…

That should come to no surprise to any honest person with a triple-digit IQ.

Selfish and traitorous strategies are self-limiting because such agents do not cooperate with agents sharing the same genes.

Free-riding in its typical form (selfish) and its most virulent form (traitorous) is an evolutionary failure.  Read it and weep, HBDers.

Traitorous strategies fare even worse than selfish ones because traitors are exploited by ethnocentrics across group boundaries in the same manner as humanitarians are, via unreciprocated cooperation.

This applies not only to White leftists and globalist humanitarians, but to cuckservatives and, yes indeed, to White HBDers, who are exploited by Asiatics (including Jews) to betray the European race and Western civilization and sacrifice their racial-cultural patrimony on the Altar of Asia. There is good reason why some of us were calling White GNXPers “the extended phenotypes of Asiatics” a decade ago.  This paper explains it well.
The fact that traitorous and selfish genotypes perform just as badly against humanitarians as they do against ethnocentrics, and the lack of any mediation effect of free-riding contradict the alternative mediation hypothesis that only ethnocentrics out-compete selfish free-riders. Although ethnocentrics can exploit selfish agents in neighboring clusters, the self-limiting properties of defection against the free-riders' own gene pool tend to diminish this advantage. Under many conditions, there are not enough free-riders to allow this potential ethnocentric advantage to be widely used.

Take home point: free-riding strategies are the worst possible, so bad that they perform badly even compared to humanitarians!  The idea that ethnic nepotism is “not stable” because of free-riding is not supported by the data.  Quite the opposite: it are the free-riders and their genes that will be weeded out; they can’t even prosper against humanitarian milksops. Free-riders will be so few in number that they won't even be efficiently exploited by non-ethnic ethnocentrists. Free-riding is a genetic dead-end.

Notice that the dominance of ethnocentrism over humanitarianism, and the marginalization of selfish and traitorous strategies, can be explained purely via individual selection, without recourse to group-selection mechanisms.

This is an important point, because the anti-Salterian HBDers would have attempted to discredit these data by suggesting they are wholly dependent on group selection and, thus, "unreliable." No, sorry, individual selection is sufficient to explain the dominance of ethnocentrism and the pathetic failure of free-riding.

Unlike selfish free-riders, traitorous agents have the additional problem of being exploited by the very out-groups they cooperate with. This explains why traitorous genotypes typically do even worse than selfish genotypes, despite the traitors' greater capacity for cooperation…strategies that fail to cooperate with their own kind (selfish and traitorous) never gained much of a foothold.

Treason never prospers. White leftists, White cuckservatives, White “race-realist” HBDers are all headed for the genetic rubbish heap.  Unfortunately, due to their social and political power, they will drag ethnocentric Whites along with them, unless we leverage our ethnocentrism against the System and save ourselves.
Ultimate take-home message: anti-Salterians are liars and ignorant frauds. HBD – hostile to (White) ethnocentrism – is an anti-scientific fraud. Concern trolling about free-riding is politically/ethnically-motivated mendacity. Salter is proven correct once again.

Hermann Keyserling’s America

via Counter-Currents

Count Hermann Keyserling
Counter-Currents Editor's Note: A half-forgotten German philosopher’s profound analysis of the United States.

When the German philosopher Count Hermann Keyserling, the centennial of whose birth was celebrated last year by a very small but dedicated band of followers, made a four-month lecture tour of the United States in 1928, it was his second visit to the country. The first had taken place before World War I, in the midst of a trip around the world, and was duly noted in his erudite bestseller, Travel Diary of a Philosopher. The book he produced after his second visit to the States, which he wrote in English, was America Set Free (Harper and Brothers, New York, 1929). In the introduction he was careful to point out that this “is not a book on America, but for Americans . . . the productive effect it may have depends primarily on my readers adopting the right sort of attitude from the outset.” The work, he insisted, should not be considered an exercise in criticism. “I have,” he emphasized, “tried to disentangle America’s truth from untruth . . .”

Keyserling judged the average American to be a fair psychologist who, nevertheless, often encounters difficulties in understanding ways of living that differ from his own. This difficulty arises in part from the average American’s limited contact with other nations, a circumstance which later changed after masses of Americans in their numerous twentieth-century wars had the opportunity to come into personal contact with many foreign peoples. From this viewpoint war is not exclusively negative. It often helps to build bridges to foreign nations, some of them long-time enemies.

Emigrants, Keyserling believed, often preserve their original race character. Accordingly, an American with a distinctly American physique and a distinctively American soul could not appear overnight. How could an American soul take shape when no gods, except Manitou, had been born on U.S. soil? The birth of a national mentality derives from a range of emotions linked to the earth and not to the asphalt of the city. The variety of immigrants who came to America with their varied religious denominations from several parts of Europe turned the United States into a sort of New World Balkans. But this variety could have a positive effect. In the same way that what is good for Europe often depends on its multiplicity, the American melting process contains a large number of “vital roots of creativeness.” The narrowness of isolated countries cut off from the world can lead to degeneration.

Being an admirer of Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Keyserling was very much aware of the importance of heredity and eugenics and, as he calls them, the laws of blood. “The Jew,” he asserted, “cannot easily become part of a new nation. Since he is essentially ‘spirit-born’ and has no support from the forces of the earth, his process of denationalization only too often leads to moral putrefaction. . . . The ability to preserve the original character of a race after it emigrates to a foreign land seems to be an occupational specialty of the Jews. They have had no really native country for thousands of years; they have spread all over the earth, settling down in almost all countries; having become a fundamentally parasitic nation . . . they have lived in closer touch with ‘environment’ than most autochthonous races. And yet they have always remained, even as a physical type, what they were originally. This is due to two causes. Firstly, to the unequalled understanding the Jews possess of the laws of the blood. Second, to the Jewish mentality. For the Jew the law of his religion is always his real ‘environment.’ Since he had to practice Judaism with the utmost strictness, consistency and severity, his life was psychologically determined. Owing to this, he has proved stronger than nature. He has maintained his original type in spite of the varying influences brought to bear on him. On the other hand, if the Jew ever becomes unfaithful to his law, the result is truly disastrous. Such a disaster has been avoided only where he has immediately succeeded in becoming part of a new national body, as in Spain and to a certain extent in Italy” (pp. 26–27).

The psychological determination Keyserling has attributed to the Jewish people, however, he also ascribes to the Anglo-Saxon Puritan. Puritanism represents a typical reincarnation of the spirit of the Old Testament, by which a link had been established between Jewish and Puritan traits. Also, in the case of the typical Puritan, his spiritual force resisted the influence of the American environment and helped to preserve the original ancestral type. Gradually, as the Puritan and the American pioneer merged into one, Puritanism became the very essence of American politics, of American military tradition and of American business, the latter embodying a synthesis of religion, work and enterprise. The New England culture founded by the Puritan fathers, however, was from the very beginning extremely narrow in comparison to the aristocratic tradition of Virginia. But time, Keyserling stated, still works for the American of the Virginian type, a superior stock which is represented by the “cavalier” and which will gradually assure the future predominance of the American South. Meanwhile, the moralistic New Englander will become obsolete, while the Middle Westerner will be considered the true reflection of the American spirit and both the real and symbolic cornerstone of the American nation.

Keyserling saw the average American as a child of unlimited horizons. The sense of continental vastness seems to lead to the American goal of the “spiritual Americanization of the world,” since the American “is always a missionary, no matter whether as a preacher, a salesman, or a headlining newspaper writer” (pp. 9–10). It was this missionary spirit which caused Americans to try to make the world safe for democracy and thereby open the door to an “American century.”

But America, Keyserling pointed out fifty years ago, faced a number of great dangers as “the majority of the population constitutes what under the Indian system would have formed the lower castes. The spirit of the conquering race still rules, but the race has changed” (p. 33). The Puritan spirit began to vanish in the North in the same way as the spirit of the Nordic invaders of old India gradually disappeared.

As with many foreign investigators of the American scene, Keyserling was alarmed by the Negro problem. “For if the white American continues on his present line of development then America may end up by becoming the Black Continent of post-modern times. We know today that from palaeolithic days onward there have been at least three great civilizations in Africa, the original representatives of which were not black. . . . But the ruling races eventually lost their vitality; they lived too much aloof from Mother Earth. So the Negro, although inferior, had the last word.” Keyserling went on, “I do, of course, not really believe that America will end as the Black Continent of the future, but I thought it wise to over-stress at this point the dangers of urban civilization, because as yet Americans do not seem to be at all aware of them” (pp. 41–42).

The author compared America to Rome and Greece, which he characterized as heroic and individualistic, but which gradually dissolved into the populations of the original settlers, as the laws were made “by a race not belonging to the ruler-type” (p. 71). Similarly in America, the vital pioneer impulses gradually weakened.

An overmechanized, overstandardized economy can easily lead to an end of the technical era and a collapse of man himself. When Keyserling wrote America Set Free, the North was undergoing a growing industrial restlessness and expansion, while the South seemed to be half asleep. Today the South, once characterized by an aristocratic type of life, is running the risk of being dominated by a materialism which both directs and represses the cultural evolution of its inhabitants. The American South had hitherto been more influenced than the North by the forces of the soil. Matter and intellect, according to Keyserling, belong together in the same way as the soil and the soul. Only by joining the worlds of the intellect and emotions, mind and feeling, is modern man able to help us solve the problems of a world which is now being formed more by matter than by man himself, who has become a prisoner of matter. Logic, mathematics and reason are found on the side of dead matter while life itself is symbolized by the emotional world. Reason, intellect and law, as represented by ancient Rome, are the antithesis to the Greek world of beauty. Above all, it is the soul that creates man and fixes his character, not mind and reason. Today the world of matter rules not only in Communist states, but also in the Western world. That is why Keyserling emphasized the importance of a synthesis of the intellect and soul and values so highly a culture of being as opposed to a culture of merely knowing, having and doing (“eine Kultur des Seins anstatt einer Kultur des Könnens”).

A wholly mechanized world must sooner or later lead to a fiasco for mankind. “If man is rightly adjusted within the cosmic scheme as an animal only, he is actually not rightly adjusted. He does not live out of, nor up to the intrinsic meaning of his life; and since what I call ‘meaning’ stands for its very wellspring, not unlimited progress, but devitalization and, eventually, the end of the civilized race would be the inevitable outcome if the process were to continue much longer. This is the all-important point. . . . It is not a question of human nature in the all-embracing sense of the word. A civilization without spiritual roots consciously realized as real is not only incomplete—it is actually without roots. It resembles at best the blossom in a vase. The great task, then, of the centuries to come is to develop a new spiritual life on the foundations of the Technical Age” (pp. 585–86).

Hand in hand with technology, Keyserling saw a worldwide conformity taking place. Man becomes more and more a collective being adapted to mechanical devices and is beginning to resemble a cog in a machine. And there is no great difference between the collective man in the United States and in the Soviet Union. “The difference between the facts of Bolshevik Russia and America . . . only amounts to a difference in prosperity; the standard is different, but the standardization is identical. . . . America expresses its socialism in the form of general prosperity, and Russia in the form of general poverty. America is socialistic by means of the free cooperation of all, and Russia by means of a class rule” (pp. 253–54).

Keyserling was very pessimistic about America’s influence abroad. He believed President Wilson’s Fourteen Points “have really wrecked Europe and imperilled the position of the whole white race. They are the spiritual parents of Bolshevism because, but for the idea of the self-determination of nations and Wilson’s utter disregard of historical connexions, the Bolsheviks would never have succeeded in revolutionizing the whole East and never even dreamt of attempting the same in Europe” (p. 84).
In World War I the Allies liquidated the psychological foundations of the old social order. In the United States a new type of man emerged—a more violent man, full of vitality and empty of culture. At the same time the ancient ideal of man was born or reborn. With Charles Lindbergh, “a modern Siegfried,” another Americanism took shape, a new consciousness of the American soul. Keyserling characterized this new America as “a decidedly intelligent nation” and the new Americans as “good psychologists, no thinkers, intelligent, but not intellectual.”

“Spirit,” Keyserling had already written in the Travel Diary of a Philosopher, “can manifest itself on earth only by means of material tensions, precisely as tightened strings only can produce musical sounds.” Comfort can never create true culture, which only develops where beauty is the highest value. The spirit of competition helps to create a part of the tension that makes men aspire to something higher. Uniformity, however, cannot create any culture. Only an innate emphasis on privacy, Keyserling called it privatism, may help reveal to Babbitts what a true American civilization can and should be.

Biographical Note

Hermann Keyserling was born in July 1880, at Könno, Estonia, then as today a Russian province. Having attended the universities of Geneva, Dorpat, Heidelberg and Vienna, he acquired a Ph.D. in geology in 1902. Before leaving for an extended visit to France, he worked on his father’s estate in Estonia, where he did some original research in farming methods. During his Paris years he published his first book, Das Gefüge der Welt (1906), in German and his second in French, Essai critique sur le système du monde (1907). The same year he became a professor of philosophy at the University of Hamburg. His lectures there were subsequently published under the title, Prolegomena zur Naturphilosophie (1910). In 1911–12 came his trip around the world and Travel Diary of a Philosopher (Reisetagebuch eines Philosophen). The New York Times compared it to Dante’s Divine Comedy, while the London Times called its author “a Buddha among philosophers.” Hermann Hesse, later a Nobel laureate, wrote, “this book of a European thinker of our time . . . is going to exercise the strongest influence on this epoch.”

In 1919 Keyserling married Countess Godela Bismarck, the granddaughter of Otto von Bismarck, who bore him two sons, Manfred and Arnold, both of whom became philosophers and psychologists. The latter is a professor in Vienna and the author of fifteen books.

After the confiscation of his estates by the government of Estonia, Keyserling was invited by Grand Duke Ernst Ludwig to move to Darmstadt, Germany, where in 1920 he founded his School of Wisdom. Internationally known scholars lectured there, among them Rabindranath Tagore, Carl Jung and Leo Frobenius. At the school he wrote several of his later works, which are too numerous to mention here. After the destruction of his house and library at Darmstadt by Allied bombers in World War II, Keyserling left Germany for Austria. He died at Innsbruck in the spring of 1946. “He is not,” French critic Pierre Frédéric said in 1946 at Keyserling’s death, “like Bergson, Leibnitz or Berkeley, the creator of a derivative philosophical system; he is instead a searcher after the great spiritual currents which traverse and reform our planet—a Pythagoras or Socrates at the threshold of the twentieth century.”

The great bulk of Keyserling’s correspondence has not yet been published. Among his epistolary friends were Bernard Shaw, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Claude Debussy, Auguste Rodin, André Gide, Albert Schweitzer, Bertrand Russell, Oswald Spengler, Sigmund Freud, Miguel de Unamuno and José Ortega y Gasset.

Hermann Keyserling propounded a synthesis of the deepest wisdom of the Occident and Orient. His universality reached from philosophy, religion, psychology and history to biology, geology, economics, astronomy and the world of music. It was his lifetime desire to help man find a fundamental reason for existence. Frank Thiess, a modern European writer, said about Keyserling, “He became what Nietzsche always had aspired to be.”

What mankind needs, Keyserling repeatedly stressed, is to forge an unbreakable link from the intellect to the soul. The predominance of one or the other has always led to chaos and disaster. We must come to revere something higher than mere materialistic aspirations and moral values. In a generation which revels in materialism, egoism and the ugliest elements of modernism, it is our duty to emphasize the distinctly superior sentiments that flow from an aristocratic mind.

Hermann Keyserling said that his family, which many centuries ago had gone to the Baltic States from Germany as knights and governors, were veritable giants in height. They were also giants of the spirit. One Keyserling was the friend and benefactor of Johann Sebastian Bach. Another was the closest friend of Immanuel Kant; another the chief adviser of Frederick the Great. Count Alexander Keyserling, Hermann’s grandfather, was a leading member of the Baltic nobility and, as a geologist, helped discover much of the mineral wealth of Czarist Russia. Bismarck was referring to this Keyserling when he said he was the only human being whose mind he feared.

Arnold Keyserling wrote about his father:

In order to understand man, he had to start from the unity of the globe, and to transcend the barriers between East and West, as well as between the different religions. The School of Wisdom he created was meant to shape the ideal of the ecumenical man, whose time was to come after the period of the great wars. It was his opinion that only through delving into both origins, the terrestrial as well as the spiritual, could man finally attain integration and self-realization.