Aug 27, 2015

Getting the Pro-White "Movement" Moving

via EGI Notes

I am not much interested in sports, especially Negro-dominated American football, which features simian behemoths colliding on a field in front of cheering crowds of inebriated jock-sniffing White fans.  Nevertheless, football contributes certain phrases that help visualize action, such as "moving the football down field," as an analogy for consistent progress toward a goal.

My cursory knowledge of that sport is that there are two main approaches to "moving the football" - the more aggressive and risky passing game and the more conservative and limited running game. As a "movement" analogy, passing is "vanguardism," and running is "mainstreaming."  Vanguardism is long on vision and long-term goals, but ignores shorter term objectives and is particularly weak on pragmatism; it is all "ends" and no "means." Conversely, mainstreaming lacks vision, confuses means with ends, and lacks any inspiring "the outcome justifies the sacrifices" long-term goals.

One can compare European nationalist groups, but for now, I will focus instead on post-WWII (actually, post-"Civil Rights era") American activism. On the "passing game" side we have the vanguardist National Alliance founded by William Pierce, and on the mainstreaming "running game" side we have Taylor's American Renaissance and associated groupings, such as the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC). I argue here that both extremes are sub-optimal, just as any football offense that is too heavily focused on passing or running becomes vulnerable to the defensive strategies of opponents.

Pierce had a vision (albeit one some may consider highly flawed), but zero pragmatics. The history of the National Alliance makes this clear, the lack of any progress for the ~30 years or Pierce's leadership, and the grotesque collapse of even that small-scale "success" after Pierce's death.  Currently, Pierce's extreme vanguard approach has evolved into tragicomedy. A wild passing game, heaving footballs in the air with no plan (and no open receivers) is a recipe for failure.

But has mainstreaming succeeded?  Has the cost of a lack of vision been compensated by some sort of sustained practical success?  In football terms, has the running game ground out those yards, a few at a time, setting us up for the touchdown?  Or must we punt and give the ball to our opponents, time and time again?

Amren started out on C-Span, and ended up being run out of conferences to the indifference or delight of the White masses.  Currently, Amren is a website with no print journal (the ending of which is another "mainstreaming success" I presume), which holds conferences at a government facility protected by police.  The closely associated CCC, which is a "council" of "conservative citizens," primarily a group of white-haired men who wave Confederate flags and decry "Black crime," has had their conference reservations cancelled.

After a full generation, a full quarter-century of such "running game" mainstreaming, it can be argued that the state of the "running game" today is worse than it was in the 1990s.  Yes, the vanguardists have failed but so have the mainstreamers. To point the finger at one while making excuses for the failure of the other ("they just need more time! 25 years is not enough to show even one small success or any progress whatsoever") is laughable special-pleading.  The other side can make the same excuses as well.

One can argue that the mainstreaming failure is even worse than the vanguard failure, because the mainstreamers have failed precisely in that arena that was supposed to be their strength - pragmatic "nuts and bolts" small scale activity and mainstream appeal. The mainstreamers cannot even hold a conference outside of an armed camp government facility, they have less mainstream access than they did during Bill Clinton's presidency, they've gone backward in many aspects (conferences, print journal, quality of writers, the abysmal quality of the commentators on the website) - so what's the payoff?   The vanguardists have their vision and goals coupled to failed pragmatics, and the mainstreamers couple their failed pragmatics with no real vision at all.  It appears that the "mainstreaming quarterback" is "getting sacked" just as often as the "vanguardist quarterback."  If there is no payoff for the sacrifices and compromises of mainstreaming, and if the only riposte is "we need more time" (which is exactly what the vanguardists would say), then where is the empirical evidence in favor of mainstreaming - other than mere personal preference?  And this is no apologia or promotion of the pure vanguardist approach, since I've made clear that has failed as well.

This post is not about making suggestions about what should be done, although I'd strongly suggest the "movement" consider the Codreanu Legionary model for some clues, as well as check out certain modern European nationalist parties, which typically integrate electoral politics with real-life community activism with youth groups with solid propaganda and with useful theorizing. I have also made suggestions here and elsewhere on that blog (see "The Fundamentals" sidebar there).

All of that is just the beginning of the conversation and not "The Answer." One thing I can definitely suggest is that the "movement" really needs leadership that thinks things through, has contingency plans, uses long-term strategic thinking, with a healthy dose of common sense. Do the CCC folks really need to be told that with all the Amren conference cancellations and the controversy of the Roof shooting, that their own meeting may not go as planned?  Do "movement" organizations really need to be told that if they give "the keys to the kingdom" to guys who call themselves on the Internet something like: "SuperHitlerNaziwerewolf1488swastikalonewolfSSManUltraAryan" that there is a good chance that person will be a defective lunatic?  That he may shoot some place up? That he may walk out with a bunch of files and hand them over to a "watchdog" group?  Do we need to tell "movement" "leaders" that 25 years of failure is probably sufficient to at least prompt serious questions about whether the approach used is sound?

Ironically enough, both ends of the "movement" spectrum denounce affirmative action. Talk about a lack of self-awareness - a certain biblical passage concerning motes, beams, and eyes comes to mind.  "Movement leadership" should look in the mirror on that.

An Alternative Definition of the Jew

via The End of Zion

The character of the Jew has been described in many ways: “Ethnocentric gentile-hating supremacists.” “Rat-like parasites.” “Vermin.” Etc.

All pretty accurate.

Salty Bleach, in a comment on The Daily Stormer, gives us an interesting alternative definition:
Jews see themselves as superior, exalted beings. In their minds, they are morally unimpeachable, uniquely admirable, superior to all others in every way. And the natural order of things, in this Jewish worldview, is for the entire world to accept this idea, not only without questioning it, but without even noticing it. To accept the idea of Jewish supremacy the way we accept gravity or the weather.
This is, of course, the natural consequence of their idea that the Goyim are beasts of burden, born to serve the Jews. Obviously, to us, this idea is abhorrent, but to a Jew, I’m not sure much outright malice is involved. They truly believe that they possess the Divine right of kings, and the remainder of Earth’s people are their subjects. It’s not something they have to think about; rather, it is so deeply ingrained in Jewish thought that it is simply an unconscious, reflexive reality for them. It’s “the way things are.”
So, for a Jew, any criticism, or questioning, or any randomly motivated negative action against even one of them, is in a sense, an act of insurrection. How dare the Goyim refuse to recognize their “rightful” place as the eternal servants of the divine Jews? It doesn’t matter what “complaints” the stupid Goyim believe they have; at the end of the day, they are the subjects, Jews are their superiors in all ways, and that’s that.
If Jews explained it in this manner, what do you suppose the world’s response would be? Instead, they simply shout “anti-semitism!” Because most of the world is ignorant of this deeper dynamic, they think an “anti-semite” is a person who hates Jews. But in reality, calling someone an “anti-semite” is a way of marking that person as someone the Jews ought to hate, as an enemy of ALL Jewish people, someone who potentially poses a threat to Jewish supremacy. The average non-redpilled goy, hearing about “anti-semitism”, thinks, “haven’t the Jews suffered enough?” The average Jew thinks, “that person should be killed.”

Little Things Mean a Lot

via Koinen's Corner

Yeah, yeah, I know.  I get it.  We White people have all kinds of truly serious problems to contend with these days.  Some of them are aggravating to say the least, some are infuriating, and some even generate stronger feelings of anger and hatred.  Things like Black intellectual shortcomings, affirmative-action preferential treatment, low impulse-control, and criminality; and especially the totally out-of-control Black-on-White violent crime rates.  Things like the Mestizos taking over (and absolutely ruining) so many parts of our country. And things like the Jews' efforts to degrade and negrify our culture, their trying to get us to fight more wars for them, and their doing everything they can to genocide us out of existence.

All those things are bad enough, but you know what really gets to me?

No?  Well, I'll tell you.  It's when two of my favorite web sites, sites I depend on for truthful news of all the crap that is going on these days, and sites which I totally respect for all the good work they do, have such visually flawed banner images on their home pages.  These websites are supposed to be leaders in the White Nationalism movement, so you would think they would want to make the best 'first impression' possible.  Why then would they want to put up images like these?:

(1) Daily Slave:

What exactly do you suppose the name of this website is?

Do you think it would be asking too much for the webmaster to just slide the Y over to the left a tad so it would read 'DAILY SLAVE' instead of 'DAIL YSLAVE'?  A small thing, you say?  Well maybe so, but it damn near drives me nuts every time it hits my brain.

(2) Daily Stormer:

And how about this one?  Is this the way to generate respect for the great symbolic eagle of the NSDAP?

dailystormer.com

C'mon, Andrew -- can't you dignify the eagle just a little by letting him stand up straight and proud? So he doesn't look like he'd blow a .16 if pulled over on the highway?
                                             

Just a little constructive criticism, guys -- with all good intentions, and all in good humor.  But I do think it would put a better face on your excellent websites if you could fix these things, minor as they may seem, because they are so glaringly obvious every time a reader clicks on your home pages.

Thanks, and thanks for all your good work!

V.K.

Talmud and Taboo, Part 2

via The Occidental Observer

Part 1

Alexandre Gabriac: Unlikely to be seen
waving Israeli flags any time soon
In the sphere of Continental right-wing populism, the trend has been no less pronounced. Observing the creeping Islamic invasion of Europe, several key leaders on the European Right have carelessly abandoned centuries of wisdom gained from their forefather’s interactions with Jewry, and have adopted a worldview in which Islam is the primary enemy of the European people. Ignoring the well-documented role that Jews have played in opening our borders and silencing honest racial discourse, these leaders have instead moronically reached out to Israel, which they see as being at the front line of a “Judaeo-Christian” holy war with Islam.

Examples are plentiful. The Front National (FN) in France has expressly distanced itself from “anti-Semitism” and its leaders have even portrayed themselves as “the only true protectors of Jews in Europe.” Since assuming party leadership in 2011, Marine Le Pen has worked to “modernize” her father’s party — essentially the process of purging its anti-Jewish, anti-Zionist elements. Le Pen demoted party figures like Christian Bouchet for his support of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and expelled Alexandre Gabriac for the drunken indiscretion of giving a taboo salute during a party.

As early as 2009 Le Pen began distancing herself from Alain Soral, relegating the vocal anti-Zionist to an “honorary” position in the 2009 European election campaign before the latter decided to cut his losses and leave the party. An “honorary” position was also, of course, bestowed upon Le Pen’s father, effectively rendering him a figurehead devoid of actual power or influence.

Quite apart from these purges, Marine Le Pen has made a series of overtures to organized Jewry. In 2011, during a trip to the United States, Le Pen managed to get a well-publicized meeting with Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, Ron Prosor, who attended a gathering she hosted at the United Nations. Although Israel’s foreign ministry later rushed to explain that the meeting was based on a “misunderstanding,” Le Pen made much of the evening’s press releases, which depicted a smiling Prosnor standing next to her. But to what gain or reward?

If, as some commentators have suggested, Le Pen is merely playing an excellent game of political strategy, has it paid off? Does it even show any signs of succeeding? Is pandering to the Jewish vote, upholding the taboo on discussing Jewish influence, and apologizing for “anti-Semitism” the way forward for populist politics? Is this how the West is to be reclaimed?

As with the case of the BNP there is much evidence to indicate the negative on every count. As TOO’s Peter Stuyvesant noted in 2012, “No matter how hard Marine Le Pen tries to reach out for Jewish approval, she is not going to get it and never will.” The FN has enjoyed no real increase in support from French Jews. Even setting aside the lack of electoral support, French Jews remain as committed as ever to depriving the party of any kind of platform in which to disseminate its ideas, even post-purge. In March 2011 Le Pen wrote in Le Point that “the Holocaust” was the ‘summum of human barbarism.” This was an obvious, and possibly calculated, departure from her father’s oft-repeated description of Jewish casualties during World War Two as “a detail of the war.” The French Jewish radio station, Radio J, soon scheduled air time for her, claiming she would be subject to a “no holds barred” interview. In the end, however, Le Pen wasn’t even granted the privilege of running a Jewish gauntlet. The Union of French Jewish Students demonstrated against the invitation, and Richard Prasquier, the head of the Council of Jewish Institutions of France, condemned it as “unacceptable.” The interview was cancelled, and this was followed by further action when the Jewish council played a leading role in preventing Le Pen from participating in a public debate at the University of Paris. Thus, French Jewry responded to Le Pen’s silencing of elements in her own party not by rewarding her with support, but by muzzling her even more.

The French lessons have been lost on smaller right-wing populist parties in Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium and Scandinavia, where Jewish populations (and therefore votes) are so paltry that pandering to Jewish sensibilities and disavowing “anti-Semitism” can only be interpreted as pathetic attempts to embrace the philo-Semitic cultural zeitgeist. These right-wing populist parties are extremely keen to point out that increasing anti-Semitism is directly linked to expanding Muslim immigrant communities. To my knowledge, none of these parties have displayed the fortitude necessary to convey to the voting public that, like us, Muslims have legitimate grievances against Jews, but that our interests lie neither with Muslims nor Jews. Indeed, sizeable Muslim populations represent a clear and present sociological problem for the West. But none of these parties have acknowledged this and stated that Islamic terror will cease to be a problem in the West if we repatriate these populations and cease to identify ourselves with Zionist goals. None have pointed out that Islam’s threat to the Western way of life is given its only real potency by immigration and growing internal constituencies with alien interests. None have had the courage to state that Israel could be consumed by the Islamic Middle East with little or no lasting impact on the West. None have been truthful enough to make it clear that the fate of the West is not linked to the fate of Israel other than when Israel directly manipulates the politics of the West for its own benefit. None have pointed out that the State of Israel is even younger than the Korean American Football Association, and that the territory of Palestine had been relatively peaceful for centuries prior to the Jewish invasion and ethnic-cleansing of the area.

Instead these parties have bought into the idea that we must choose a side in this “war with Islam,” and side with the other part of the “Judeo-Christian” alliance. The alliance, of course, is an extremely uneven one, consisting largely of the West pouring endless money, arms and resources into the coffers of Jewry. As part of the bargain, our reward seems to consist mainly of witnessing tear-jerking homecomings of our troops in flag-draped caskets.

Despite the banality of pro-”Izruhl” logic, ostensibly right-wing groups and populist politicians have been competing with each other to win Jewish affirmation. PEGIDA’s demonstrations, like those of the EDL, are littered with Israeli flags and proclamations of loyalty to the interests of the Jewish state. I’ll honestly state that I feel ill-equipped to declare PEGIDA controlled opposition, because at the time of this writing I lack a sufficient amount of relevant facts to make a careful judgment. However, I do interpret PEGIDA’s pro-Jewish posturing as, at the very least, a clumsy attempt to navigate the boundaries of German political correctness. By muting any critique of Jews, PEGIDA has managed to form a coalition of race realists, anti-immigration activists, concerned “middle of the road” citizens, and even leftists who fear that the liberties they associate with liberal democracy are under threat from radical Islam. But simply forming such coalitions cannot be an end in itself. What can the coalition accomplish, and what are its prospects beyond protesting the specific issue of Islamic encroachment in Europe? Has the exclusion of the wider racial-historical context, and the focus on a single issue, helped slow immigration? Has it helped bring about cultural change? Does it do anything other than reinforce the presence of the pro-Israel position on the Right? Can this rag-tag coalition achieve anything while lacking serious internal ideological consensus?

Another Example of Cuck-Populism from PEGIDA
Another Example of Cuck-Populism from PEGIDA

Again, the answers appear to be largely negative. The political discourse on the Populist Right has descended into occupying itself with bleating about protecting Jewish interests instead of placing the interests of the European people front and center. Marine Le Pen, leader of the Front National, is on record as having said “It’s the rise of Islamism that hits, hurts and kills. … It’s time to fight the danger threatening French Jews.” What about the twin dangers posed to the French by Jewish influence and non-White immigration in general? Geert Wilders, leader of the Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV), once wrote in an open letter that “the more Islam grows in the Netherlands, the more anti-Semitism grows.” What about the fact that the growth of Islam is a demographic as well as religious phenomenon, and one that will in time threaten the sovereignty of the Dutch on their own soil? In Belgium the Flemish Interest (Vlaams Belang) party operates on the assumption that conflicts between Jews and Arab immigrants, and Jewish fear of Muslim anti-Semitic violence, will help it to attract Jewish votes in local elections. UKIP leader Nigel Farage once stated in a radio interview: “I have detected quite a sharp rise in anti-Semitism in Britain and across the EU. What’s fueling it is there are many more Muslim voices and some of them are deeply critical of Israel and some of them question Israel’s right to exist.”

Perish the thought that anyone could be deeply critical of Israel! This is Cuck-Populism. It is populism that strains to qualify itself via philo-Semitism, and therefore via foreign interests. It has no place being even remotely linked to identitarianism, ethno-nationalism, or White advocacy.

Within European nationalism, muting the discussion of Jewish influence and publicly condemning anti-Semitism hasn’t just been done under legal duress, in misguided attempts to gain bourgeois respectability, or as part of a simple-minded overture to the Jewish vote. Such moves have also been employed as a tactical consideration in attempts to win over coalition partners who otherwise might refrain from cooperation. In Austria, the center-right Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) formed a coalition with the nationalistic, anti-immigration Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ) between 2000 and 2005 in order to form a government. Although beating the ÖVP in the 2000 elections, the FPÖ distanced itself from “anti-Semitism” and made a number of Le Pen-like ideological and staffing concessions in order to make itself a more “palatable” coalition partner.

The results were uniformly negative. Firstly, the Austrian government was subjected to several months of unprecedented EU sanctions against a member state simply for the ideological past of the FPÖ. The other fourteen member states suspended bi-lateral political co-operation, maintaining only “technical” diplomatic relations pending the removal of the FPÖ from the government coalition. Israel and the United States recalled their ambassadors from Vienna.

Far worse, however, was the impact that sitting in government had on the tamed FPÖ. The party made numerous concessions to mainstream conservatism, taking on the appearance of being part of the establishment and rapidly losing its edgy status as a protest party in the process.

And despite muting discussion of Jewish influence, the FPÖ continued to come under sustained Jewish assault. The World Jewish Congress waged ceaseless public relations warfare on the FPÖ for its “anti-Semitism and racism,” and party leader Jörg Haider was sued by Ariel Muzicant, the head of Vienna’s Jewish community, for the “anti-Semitic” crime of pointing out the irony of the oft-perspiring Hebrew sharing his first name with a brand of laundry detergent. The cumulative impact of these developments translated into a fairly rapid electoral decline.

A final explanation for the taboo hanging over the Jewish Question in modern right-wing discourse deserves some reflection. The Jewish narrative of World War II is successfully entrenched in White minds, where it is germinated from the earliest age possible. The hallowed “lessons” to be derived from the “Holocaust,” in effect the blueprint for the destruction of homogenous White society, make any dissent from the Leftist norm tantamount to the severest form of social delinquency. Invoking any criticism or theory that is antithetical to Jewish interests will inevitably carry even the faintest echo of the Horst Wessel Lied, at least for the time being. This is unavoidable, and in today’s engineered social climate, likely to put one beyond the pale or, in some countries, even behind bars. This is the case despite the soundness of your mind, the pureness of your morals, or the dignity of your character. Additionally, regardless of the extent of our race realism, our opposition to immigration, and our dedication to the cause of White ethno-nationalism, many of us have internalized the impact of the Jewish narrative of World War II on some level — whether its material content, or its lasting educational, societal, or legal legacy.

A great deal has been written on overcoming this legacy and what needs to be done to reach a point where the Jewish Question can once again be confidently brought to the forefront of the West’s political discourse. Back in 2012 Greg Johnson published an interesting and debate-provoking article here at TOO on “Dealing with the Holocaust.” Johnson summed up his argument by writing:
White Nationalists need to deal with the problem of the Holocaust. I have argued that the root of the problem is our people’s willingness to accept unearned guilt and punish ourselves for it. The problem, in short, is psychological and moral, not historical. Thus Holocaust revisionism is not the answer. It is not necessary for White Nationalism. At best, it can supplement an essentially moral argument for White Nationalism. At worst, it distracts us from dealing with the deeper roots of Jewish power and White weakness.
I wish to end with a few words from Jonathan Bowden, who has been a major inspiration for what I have written here. When an exponent of White revival is asked, “Well what’s your view of the Shoah then?” Bowden recommends simply saying: “We’ve stepped over that.” Meaning that we have overcome it, that we are moving forward, that the future calls, and we are a people who wish to have a future again. We recognize that the Holocaust is being used to abort that future. To the retort, “What do you mean you’ve ‘stepped over’ that? Are you minimizing its importance to humanity?” Bowden counsels the reply, “We are minimizing its importance to our form of humanity!”
Thus, ultimately, we are not so much saving our people as becoming a new people. Hence “our form of humanity” consists specifically of Whites who have, through a Nietzschean revolution in values, overcome Jewish power and White weakness at their roots, thus becoming Whites who, once again, have a future.
This certainly reads well, but I’m not entirely convinced that the need to either “deal with” or “confront” the Jewish narrative of World War II will even be a permanent fixture among the difficulties facing White advocates of coming generations. With the rapidly dwindling number of “Holocaust survivors” telling lampshade tales to High School students around the country, Jewish leaders, academics and political figures are increasingly forced to confront the impending “historicization” of National Socialist Germany and the wartime atrocities it is alleged to have committed.

This is essentially the inevitable process whereby events in living memory eventually pass into a more neutral and purely historical interpretation, devoid of emotional power. In their hubris, Jews, like King Canute, have attempted to hold back the tide. Indeed, they have been fighting this development since the 1980s, when Jewish historian Saul Friedländer responded to the German scholar Martin Broszat’s call for the historicization of National Socialist Germany by attempting to draw an esoteric aura around the entire subject. According to Friedländer’s Nazi Germany and the Jews, written primarily as a response to Broszat, Germany under Hitler represented “the negation of all life,” and the period 1933–1945 was unlike any other in history.

Other historians whose works assisted the historicization of that era, such as Ernst Nolte and Andreas Hillgruber, were simply denounced as “Nazi apologists.” Nolte’s crime was to engage in the otherwise encouraged historiographical methods of comparison and contextualization, specifically his argument that the German mass execution of Jewish partisans was a quite obvious response to Soviet Gulags and terror.

Jews continue their attempt to hold back historical inevitability, but all the money in Jewry won’t stop the world turning, or time progressing. Eventually, not soon but eventually, the name of Hitler will resonate no more deeply with our youth than does the name of Napoleon or Genghis Khan.

Jews have always appealed to putative past persecution in attempts to obtain immunity from criticism in the present. In Germany they bewailed their treatment at the hands of the Tsar. In Holland they pointed to the expulsion from Spain. In Restoration England they grumbled about the thirteenth-century Edict of Expulsion under Edward I.

Jews may cling to the “uniqueness” of the “Holocaust,” but we must not fall into the same way of thinking. Jews live in an eternal present when it comes to their perception and historical memory of persecution. To them, the imagined massacres of the Crusades may as well have occurred yesterday. We, for our part, would err greatly to think that we face any different a task than those who came before us, and who raised the Jewish Question regardless. Like every atrocity propaganda ploy, it cannot resist eventual historicization. With each passing day, the “cloud” that World War II places over us dissipates a little more. In this respect at least, the future looks brighter for us, and not for them.

Of course, we ourselves are not blessed with time. In perhaps fifty years, if current demographic trends in our lands are not challenged and reversed, the challenges facing White ethno-nationalists will be perhaps insurmountable. To my mind, this urgency makes the need for directness all the more acute. This directness requires the abandonment of the taboo on the Jewish Question. Where legal restrictions are in place, every effort must be made to devise sophisticated discourses that circumvent and subvert the central aims of anti-White legislation. The truth must get out in any form possible. If existing laws prevent clumsy, overly abusive, or volatile speech, we must see the positive in that. Such circumstances will simply force the production of more refined, careful, and precise indictments of the pernicious influences destroying our people. If this material, more palatable perhaps, induces the support of some of the bourgeois “respectable” types then that is an added bonus.

All those who claim to support the right of European peoples to exist and exert sovereignty over their borders and territories must abandon outright any support, feigned or otherwise, for the outlaw State of Israel and its supporters in the Jewish Diaspora. There can be no room for Israeli flags at the demonstrations of true ethno-nationalists. The presence of such paraphernalia at our rallies dilutes our message, links us to elites that do not serve us or our people, and provides support to a nation that will simply never reciprocate.

We oppose all non-White immigration, not just Muslim immigration. Our opposition to the mass movement of foreign peoples into our lands is racially-based. It is not cultural and it is not religious. We cannot be ashamed to see the world in real terms: a world composed of races and ethnicities, each with interests that will conflict and collide as one of life’s inevitabilities. We embrace the reality of this struggle. We refuse to be reduced to a footnote in the DNA of a mongrelized future mankind.

All efforts by the Right to pander to the Jewish vote should be ridiculed from within and objected to in the harshest terms. These efforts are inherently amateurish and betray a wilful ignorance of the interaction between Jews and the West. Such efforts are an embarrassment to the cause of our people. Our concern is not protecting Jews from Muslim immigrants. Our concern is with protecting our own people from harmful minorities who are seeking to satisfy their own interests while our own people are led to believe they don’t have any interests of their own. We must not ever be diverted from this task. Like the presence of Israeli flags at our rallies, speeches urging the protection of Jews from invading tribes should be ridiculed from within and objected to in the harshest terms. The political leaders of our movement should be preoccupied with the well-being of only one people — their own.

If parties allied to our cause are successful in getting into coalition government, they should not dilute their message or pander to the banality of political compromise. This tactic will fail to give these parties the anticipated “breathing space” in which to grow. The entire system will be brought to bear on them, as occurred in Austria, regardless of any concessions they may offer to the beast. Austrian support for the FPÖ actually increased because of this pressure, but the fatal error came when the FPÖ attempted to “normalize” its politics. It was not the attack of the system that lowered the FPÖ vote — it was the perception that the FPÖ had in fact become a part of the system. When such breakthroughs come in the future, compromise should be refused. The identity and position of the party must be rigid and clear.

In short, and to conclude, we need a few more people like David Duke, or indeed the editor of this site, who simply refuse to follow the taboo over Jewish influence. Our case has never been better documented. Our position is morally upright. Our people need our honesty and our knowledge. So break the taboo today. Raise the subject with a relative, a friend, or a colleague. Start the discussion. Who knows where it might lead.

How Google Destroyed the Internet

via Amerika

The internet was created to resolve a simple problem: in communications networks, any central node through which all messages passed was immune to attack or takeover. Instead, engineers designed a network where any node would pass messages to other nodes, routing around any damage.

Then came commerce and the democratization of the internet. Under this model, frightened sheep flock to certain central sites that provide the services they need, and avoid everything else lest it be politically incorrect or upsetting.

Enter Google. This company made its fortune on a simple premise, which was that picking the most popular sites allowed them to rank all other sites based on whether those popular sites linked to them. Guess what this does? It eliminates the small sites. We are back to centralization.

Consider Wikipedia. When Google had trouble with its algorithm often missing the best results, it came up with a simple idea: have thousands of internet volunteers plagiarize all of those other sites onto one big site, call it The People’s Encyclopedia, and use that to generate “accurate” search results every time.

Fast-forward, and a few big sites — among them Google, Amazon, Apple, Wikipedia and Facebook — dominate most of the traffic on the internet. The days of independent thinkers putting quality information online are mostly gone, simply because 99% of the traffic will type in a search and click on the most obvious result, and go to one of those corporate-controlled sites.

Writing from a more political, than economic, viewpoint, one article points out the problem of internet consolidation:
The Internet, like other computing resources, operates on a pendulum swing: from centralized to decentralized, from rampant innovation to predictable results, from controlled to transparent processes. Some speakers at this year’s Black Hat conference were publicly concerned about an ever-more-centralized Internet and what we as an industry need to do. Otherwise, they fear, the Internet turns into TV, and the people who least understand the environment will control it.
…Technology used to enforce existing power structures, Granick said, but we discovered that people have not learned how to protect themselves. So we have centralized with choke points where regulation can happen. The problem is that, in the next 20 years, these policies will be created by governments with local concerns, not global concerns. And by powerful players with money.
The problem of this internet is that complaints rule the day. Businesses are interested in profit, and so they take down any content which will obstruct that goal, which includes exactly the type of content which “free speech” was created to protect: unpopular material that contravenes the dominant paradigm, but nonetheless could represent either insanity or an alternative to our current methods which are not working.

When the six large sites which control the internet see something which might reduce the tendency of others to use their services, they remove it. Google has so far avoided removing content from the internet, but acts out an even worse future by prioritizing that which is popular and burying the unpopular on page ten of the search results. Bing does the same. The result is a self-referential, self-confirming masturbatory hugbox that eliminates what it is afraid of, including what it should pay attention to.
Similarly, Google influences the direction of business, and points those toward ideological objectives in the guise of business expansion:
Page estimates that only about 50 investors are chasing the real breakthrough technologies that have the potential to make a material difference to the lives of most people on earth. If there is something holding these big ideas back, it is not a shortage of money or even the barrier of insurmountable technical hurdles. When breakthroughs of the type he has in mind are pursued, it is “not really being driven by any fundamental technical advance. It’s just being driven by people working on it and being ambitious,” he says. Not enough institutions – particularly governments – are thinking expansively enough about these issues: “We’re probably underinvested as a world in that.”
What this shows us is the internet, both as a network and a market, consolidating and centralizing. In other words, it is doing exactly what it was designed to avoid. This will have consequences for speech not so much through governments, but through the tendency of government to avoid things that offend people. The future is a world where every complaint leads to censorship, only mainstream ideas are tolerated, and under the guise of “free speech” they are marginalized through search engines and business logic that scrupulously avoid anything but the popular interpretation of the dominant paradigm.

I have found it fascinating for years how humans fail by succeeding. Any enterprise — business, civilization, group, rock band, committee, church — that begins to succeed quickly destroys itself by becoming self-referential based on what people want to think is true because that is the perceived method of its success. That in turn sabotages its actual method of success, which is delivering results contrary to whatever the herd is thinking. Thus Google goes from liberator to tyrant, democracy turns into authoritarianism, Metallica becomes a pop-rock band, churches are taken over by the Joel Osteens of the world and committees become echo chambers. Humanity is its own worst enemy.

Why Are Social Justice Warriors’ Complaints so Bizarre?

via Counter-Currents

We’ve seen a lot of weird social justice warrior tricks lately . . . in fact, they seem to have gotten even more aggressively off-putting since Gawker started to tank.

More violent, even: we have privilege-screeching rich girls throwing beer bottles at Roosh V. for exercising what’s left of the right to free speech in Canada.

And more disgusting: period-blood art used to be confined to awful modern-art museums, but now we’ve got the outdoor attention whore who ran a marathon with no tampon in. Part of me suspects this little stunt started as a laundry detergent commercial that the sponsor backed out of when they saw just how repulsive the brackish bodily fluids looked on television.

But I don’t think she was as tactically retarded as she was socially retarded: that bloodstained narcissist might very well have squished her way out of having to do a real job forever.

And I think that’s the point.

Social justice warriors, in my conspiracy-theory-inflamed mind, do not actually believe they are saving the world or anyone else. They are trying to save themselves—from a life of cubicle-ratting or marginal freelance work. They are getting attention for themselves in a way which they think (some of them rightly, others wrongly, but they might as well try) will get them a cushier career than they would have enjoyed otherwise.

The Left, after all, is big business, or at least big public teat. Becoming a stand-out member of the SJW crowd can get you ahead in the media, or at least the academic, rat race.

And let me play the devil’s advocate: to what extent can you blame them?

In the past couple of decades the U.S. has lost its manufacturing base to the global economy, its service jobs to immigration, and now we’re even losing tech jobs to H-1B visas.

Most people’s jobs, assuming they can get a job, are increasingly low-paid, humiliating, menial, overworked, useless, crazy-making, insecure, and worst of all, fundamentally useless. The likelihood of finding work that is either meaningful or reasonably lucrative—forget about getting both, silly—is slimmer and slimmer.

Who wouldn’t want to escape a lifetime of account management at an ad agency for clients whose corporate bureaucracies are indistinguishable from the government in their cumbersome sloth?

Who wouldn’t want to quit being Kafka?

Granted, the Twitter riots that SJWs spread in order to destroy people’s lives are reprehensible. But like anyone else, they’re rats on a rat pile, fighting for a scrap of another, deader, rat.

Sure, decent people would rather preserve their dignity and moral integrity than make maroons of themselves to get ahead. And many of us survive on peanuts rather than dirty our hands.

For those of us who live this way, the fact that the SJW rewards system is breaking down provides hours and hours of Schadenfreude. Don’t let the door bruise your flanks on the way out, Gawker staff!

But their behavior is not necessarily an evil mystery. There is a pattern; unless they “suffer” from a personality disorder, people don’t do insane things for absolutely no reason. Sure, college kids work themselves into a groupthink froth with ease. People that age always do, and they tell each other they’re being meaningfully rebellious.

But why is the froth so particularly ridiculous these days? Because the market for “real” jobs—the sort of drone work you get if you haven’t called mass attention to yourself by bleeding down your leg in public—is particularly awful.

The available work is as insecure as it is meaningless. Even if your writing is a disgusting string of bull, any sort of public declamation feels like a more existentially satisfying way to make a living than wasting your days as a bank teller—or at least it’s thus for people who don’t mind bloviating.

Folks on the Left might note my hypocrisy, in that the same principle applies to the Right; they would be correct. It very obviously applies to the mainstream Right—like the Democrats, Republican candidates for public office will say anything to keep from falling back into the vicissitudes of the private sector.

But it’s also true in the Alternative Right; there are dozens of articles and, indeed, entire “writers” which present either caricatures of their own views, or views they don’t even hold, in order to make a splash, get a foothold, and duck the day job. People with no vocation for writing are drawn in everywhere by the fact that no other job gives them a feeling of purpose, much less the glamor which they, as lifelong media-fed creatures, crave.

Perhaps if the available jobs for professional SJWs dry up, as the tremors in the Gawker empire’s foundations indicate they might, then the stream of nonsense and viciousness will slow down.

It would make public discourse more civil, and leave more freedom of speech for the rest of us . . . but then what the heck are we going to do with all these English majors?

Cripes, if we keep importing H-1B indentured servants, we won’t know what to do with our STEM graduates, either. Our only recourse will be, once again, Schadenfreude: when they come for the managers who kept shilling for more immigration. The kids who didn’t go to college won’t be too thrilled about handing over their burger spatulas, though. Ah, it’s a wicked world.

A Court without Law, Part 4

via National-Socialist Worldview

Justinian I
National-Socialist Worldview Editor's Note: Nullum delictum, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali -- it means that no action can be considered an offense and no penalty can be imposed unless there was a pre-existing law that both defined the offense and declared a penalty -- is an ancient legal principle respected throughout the West. Francis Wharton, prefacing A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States (1874) wrote:
Nulla poena sine lege, an axiom constantly recurring in our old English books, is as ancient as the Quaestiones Perpetuae. In the later Roman jurists it is thus expanded: Nullum delictum, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali.
In the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg this is particularly important in regard to the accusation of "waging aggressive war," which had never been considered a crime under international law. This in fact had been pointed out at the London conference where the charter for the tribunal was established, by the French delegate, Dr. André Gros.

The argument against ex post facto law has no bearing whatsoever on any accusation about gassing Jews, since a specific accusation like that could have been prosecuted under Germany's own laws against homicide. Never was it made legal in National-Socialist Germany to kill Jews without provocation.
 


Self-Refutation

At first, the defense-attorney Dr. Stahmer had to accept the taboo-declaration of the “high court." In his pleading for Reich's Marshal Goering however he repeats his attack and renews his argument to the judges and prosecutors against the legal foundations of the proceedings. He dares to demonstrate to the tribunal that even National-Socialist legislation essentially retained the principle: without law no punishment. The Third Reich issued no retroactive laws, but merely applied existing laws with increased punishment. Even this state did not dare to violate the legal principle: nulla poena sine lege praevia.

Precisely the liberal worldview of the signers of the charter would require them to treat the legal principle nulla poena sine lege praevia as especially sacred, Stahmer stresses:

“This is also apparent of course in the fact that the [Allied] Control Council for Germany has newly impressed this principle upon all Germans most acutely by removing analogy again from criminal law, in §2a of the criminal code.”

All the more incomprehensible is it for the German sense of justice when this principle now is not supposed to be valid toward Germans, who are accused here. To the French prosecutor he counters that one cannot begin to strengthen the idea of law by violating it. He admonishes the English chief prosecuting attorney that he himself had called ex post facto legislation one of the most abominable doctrines.

He attacks Jackson even more sharply. He poses the question:

“May a criminal court that wants to effect justice apply concepts of law that, to the accused and to their people's legal scholars, are entirely alien and always have been alien?”

Attorney [Gustav] Steinbauer, Dr. Seyss-Inquart's defender, also opposes with total resolve the construction of retroactive laws. He cites the American weekly periodical Time, which on 26 November 1945 attacks an essential element of the tribunal's legal fictions:

Whatever kinds of laws the Allies attempt to set up for the purposes of the Nuremberg Tribunal, most of these laws did not yet exist at the time when the deeds were committed. Punishment ex post facto has been condemned by jurists since the days of Cicero.
The French national assembly too, on 19 April 1946, thus exactly three months previously, had affirmed in Article X of the Charter of Human Rights:

Law has no retroactive force. No one can be condemned and punished except in accord with law that has been proclaimed and published before the deed to be punished....
On 25 July 1946 the defense-attorney for Rudolf Hess, Dr. [Alfred] Seidl, also attacks the abuse of beginning a renovation of international law with such questionable means: it must have unforeseeable consequences if a principle is violated that is an integrating component of international law – the principle that an action can only be punished when its punishability had been specified in law before the action was committed. A violation of the principle nulla poena sine lege necessarily makes the idea of law in general questionable, he said.

Girly "Men" of the Cross

via Radix

In the "Song of Roland," a heroic French poem about the Battle of Roncesvalles in 778 during the reign of Charlemagne, one cannot help but be impressed by Archbishop Turpin. A Moorish invasion of Charlemagne's kingdom is taking place and his retainers do not hesitate to take up arms. Archbishop Turpin, although a man of the cloth, arms himself, splitting a head or two of the invaders.

That was then.

Today we have a similar invasion taking place. The Third World is pouring into Europe (Africans, Middle Easterners, Indians) and into the United States (mestizo hordes from Mexico and Central America) but the religious leaders today have taken nearly an opposite position. Instead of opposing the invaders, Christian leaders whine about mistreatment of the invaders and have actually sided with them.

This treason ranges from Pope Benedict siding with African invaders against Europeans to Cardinal Timothy Dolan supporting open borders to Protestant leaders like Richard Land and Russell Moore supporting the Third World invasion of the United States.

Clearly, as others have noted, these men suffer from both both ethnomasochism and pathological altruism. Channelling Roissy, one cannot help from noticing that these men are often pathetic beta males.

Christian leaders today are effeminate, as is seen in the emotional tactics used by people like John Piper in cajoling white people into adopting non-white babies. In discussing the recent Christian fetish of transracial adoption, Christian HBD blogger Generation5 notes that this impulse in part derives from a complete feminization of Christianity.

This feminization is probably nowhere more apparent than in male leaders of the pro-life movement, where it is not uncommon to see grown white men crying like little girls in public because some black person unknown and unrelated to them somewhere is getting an abortion. (Contrast this to alpha male Michael Corleone whose anger at his wife is not because of some abstract concern about abortion but because she reduced his inclusive fitness.)

Here is some telling visual evidence.

Maudlin evangelical leaders praying for poor immigrants:


Or beta male Matthew Soerens, US Church Training Specialist for World Relief, whose panties are in a knot over whether some black child is unadopted or some illegal immigrant is mistreated.


God help us.

Roanoke Massacre Shooter, Bryce Williams, Said that He Wanted to Spark a Race War

via New York Post

The suspect in the deadly on-air shooting of a reporter and a cameraman in Virginia said the Charleston church massacre made him snap — telling ABC News in a rambling manifesto that he wanted to spark a “race war” between blacks and whites.

“MY NAME IS BRYCE WILLIAMS. Why did I do it? I put down a deposit for a gun on 6/19/15. The Church shooting in Charleston happened on 6/17/15,” wrote Vester Lee Flanagan II, a former on-air reporter who worked at Roanoke affiliate WDBJ under the name Bryce Williams.

“What sent me over the top was the church shooting,” he wrote in a 23-page fax sent to the news outlet. “And my hollow point bullets have the victims’ initials on them. As for Dylann Roof? You (deleted)! You want a race war (deleted)? BRING IT THEN YOU WHITE …(deleted)!!!”

Williams added that Jehovah spoke to him, telling him to target on-air reporter Alison Parker and cameraman Adam Ward during a live TV segment in Moneta, Va.

. . .

In his manifesto, Williams quoted the Virginia Tech mass killer and expressed admiration for the Columbine High School shooters.

“Also, I was influenced by Seung–Hui Cho. That’s my boy right there,” he wrote. “He got NEARLY double the amount that Eric Harris and Dylann Klebold got…just sayin’.”

. . .

At one point, Williams even dubbed the document a “Suicide Note for Friends and Family” as he listed several reasons why he was lashing out against white people.

. . .

Below is an excerpt from Williams’ manifesto:
MY NAME IS BRYCE WILLIAMS
Why did I do it? I put down a deposit for a gun on 6/19/15. The Church shooting in Charleston happened on 6/17/15…
What sent me over the top was the church shooting. And my hollow point bullets have the victims’ initials on them.
As for Dylann Roof? You (deleted)! You want a race war (deleted)? BRING IT THEN YOU WHITE … (deleted)!!!
Also, I was influenced by Seung–Hui Cho. That’s my boy right there. He got NEARLY double the amount that Eric Harris and Dylann Klebold got … just sayin.’
Yes, it will sound like I am angry…I am. And I have every right to be. But when I leave this Earth, the only emotion I want to feel is peace…
The church shooting was the tipping point…but my anger has been building steadily…I’ve been a human powder keg for a while … just waiting to go BOOM!!!!

Drifting Deeper into Unreality: THE NEW YORKER's Dwindling Case for Sanity

via TradYouth

The New Yorker's Evan
Osnos, antarian Jew
Evan Osnos was affable and well-mannered enough when he joined us at home to watch the first Republican Presidential debate with us. They almost always are. I remind myself to remain friendly and respectful with the media contacts who aren’t friendly and respectful to me, because those are the honest ones. They all believe that the ideas we stand for are not merely incorrect and not just immoral, …but outright crazy.

Some are just better than others at disguising their contempt.

Osnos’ goal in meeting with ourselves and several other White Advocates could not have been more predictable or formulaic. The story was already written before his plane touched the tarmac; Smear Donald Trump with guilt by association with racism by schmoozing with a bunch of prominent racists and confirming the obvious. Evan Osnos confirmed his keen journalistic hunch that men who favor secure borders and a better future for White Americans have a generally positive impression of Trump’s campaign thus far.

The title, “Donald Trump and the White Nationalists,” feels like the kind of working title one gives to an article before arriving at a more subtle and clever title. At this point in Trump’s meteoric rise to the very top of the political stage, the anti-Whites can’t be bothered with subtlety. Absolutely everybody he interviewed offered only intelligent quotes, and with the exception of one accidental inflammatory novelty coffee mug, everybody managed to avoid any triggering symbolism.

Mindful of the article’s likely thesis, I refused to hand him an endorsement of Trump. I love what Trump’s saying and how much he’s upsetting the political establishment’s applecart as much as the next guy, but I intend to retain a respectful arm’s length distance from civic nationalism. This is doubly true when there’s a Jewish liberal New Yorker in my living room, eagerly hoping for it.
Matthew Parrott, a Web developer who was sipping coffee from a cup adorned with a swastika, said, “He was sassy without being comical. He struck exactly the tone he needed to give the people supporting him exactly what they want more of.” He went on, “The political system hasn’t been providing an outlet for social-conservative populism. You had this Ron Paul revolution, and all the stuff about cutting taxes, small government, and that’s just not the electrifying issue that they were expecting it to be. Simple folks, they want the border secure. They want what Donald Trump is mirroring at them. I think he’s an intelligent businessman who identified what the people want to hear. He’s made a living finding these sorts of opportunities.”
Evan’s self-indulgent but admittedly well-researched and polished article encapsulates the thinking in elite circles about what’s happening in flyover country. For the Manhattan hillbilly, none of what’s happening is real. Their only exposure to what actual Americans are actually thinking, unfiltered, is through blog comments and perhaps, for the less faint of heart, an irregular visit to the Drudge Report. For Osnos, ordinary White Americans are dehumanized to a degree that’s only appropriate for a war footing. Our ideas are all insane, our concerns are all invalid, and our protests are tuned out because they’re “hate.”

Much Fancy

For Osnos, hate speech is any speech that he hates. Hate crimes are crimes committed by people he hates. Hate groups are groups that he hates. We can guard every word we say, demonstrate year after year that we’re not violent or criminal, and be more mindful of our dinnerware in the future, but it doesn’t matter. The “hate” Evan and his cohorts are kvetching about doesn’t radiate from us, but from him.

Evan’s all over every blip of “hate” in America and is even pioneering anti-anti-semitism with his groundbreaking reporting on Chinese people who haven’t yet received the memo on how to (not) speak about Jewish influence. He can’t, however, be bothered to notice or comment on the one country in the world which happens to share his ethnic identity, unapologetically builds walls to protect its population from uncontrolled immigration, confidently asserts its identity, and even sterilizes unwelcome immigrants.

According to Osnos, we’re the ones drifting into “unreality,” but who’s really out of touch with the world? The New Yorker has been fiddling on about haute cauture and droning on with their neurotic hipster fixations while everything we’ve been predicting has come to pass, every one of our “fears” and “frustrations” have been validated by objective metrics, and the once-monolithic mass of Americans who once respected and obeyed the traditional media’s analysis and spin are defecting in droves.

The New Yorker is among the last standing in the killing field of snobby leftist publications because its private owners persist in publishing it at a considerable cost to themselves. It’s certainly not remaining in business because of the foresight of its political essays or its resonance with contemporary political discourse. If anything, it takes pride in its dissociation from the Zeitgeist, in its ponderous introspection, and in its refusal to reconcile itself with the hoi polloi.Osnos can be expected to continue condemning the Trump campaign and us insurgent identitarians for being out of touch with reality. But whose reality are we out of touch with? We’re certainly closer to objective reality than he is. We’ve been predicting race riots, economic instability, the steady rise of nationalism both at home and abroad, and increasing tribalism while The New Yorker clique have been predicting racial harmony, economic prosperity, advancing globalism and multiculturalism, and the end of everyone’s tribalism…save for Evan’s.

In the wake of the Trump debate, Evan Osnos and the rest of the elites thought Donald Trump was finally done for. Megyn Kelly had sprung a trap on him and this whole silly Trump 2016  fever dream was coming to an end. He confirms this in the article, sharing their surprise that their model of reality wasn’t working. Over and over again, Trump has bet against their “conventional wisdom” and come out ahead every time.

Personally, I consider the ordeal a draw, as I ruined everything for everyone with my coffee mug, but my post-debate analysis that Trump did well in the debate and would continue growing his campaign nailed it. And we’ll continue nailing it while he continues being surprised, because identitarians and traditionalists have a superior model to The New Yorker’s cloistered elites for how the world works and what the future holds. We’re not the ones drifting into unreality.

Adoption Reconsidered, Part 2: Reexamining the Contemporary Trend of "Multicultural" Adoption

via Faith & Heritage

Part 1

Madge with "her" kids

The last article was an introduction to the issue of adoption and my concerns with the contemporary practice of adoption. My initial concern was specifically with the practice of whites adopting children from different races, but this led me into an investigation of adoption in general. My conclusion is that adoption, as it is currently practiced, is not in conformity with biblical teachings concerning the hereditary nature of the family and charity to orphans. My suspicion is that the modern phenomenon of adoption is rooted in a desire for Christians to seek approval from the world by emulating a current social trend. Adoption has gained social prominence largely because of the example set by pop culture celebrities who seek to adopt non-white children. This is not to deny the loving, generous motives of many who do engage in adoption – only to note the fairly perspicuous social motives animating this trend as a whole.

Another influence that I believe drives transracial adoption is white ethnomasochism. Whites are bombarded by anti-white propaganda virtually everywhere they go. The world’s evils are blamed on whites, and adopting non-white children might be considered an excellent way to repel accusations of racism. These efforts are still largely unsuccessful, and the prominence of whites in adopting children of other races is often met with even more accusations of racism, since whites are perceived as wanting to turn other people white through forced assimilation. While it is impossible to judge everyone’s motives for seeking to adopt children of a different race, there are issues that need to be addressed. In this article we will look at how adoption and inheritance are addressed in the Old and New Testaments.

Adoption in the Law

In order to understand adoption from a biblical perspective, we need to see how the concept of adoption is applied in the Bible. It may come as a surprise that the word “adoption” is mentioned relatively few times in the Bible, and these are confined to Paul’s epistles. While the specific word “adoption” isn’t used frequently in the Bible, related concepts are certainly perceivable in both the Old and New Testaments. In fact, it is necessary to understand the Old Testament background and context concerning inheritance in order to understand the applications made by the Apostle Paul in the New Testament concerning adoption. Historically and biblically, adoption, properly speaking, does not refer to caring for orphans by taking them into one’s home and raising them as one’s own children. This drive to care for orphans fundamentally by incorporating them into one’s household and daily domestic life is, historically, a very recent development. Adoption, instead, has principally involved inheritance – the designation of a legal heir – usually in the absence of an heir among the natural children of a family, but also in the event that a closely-related orphan needs a home.1

The Israelites practiced a system of inheritance that genuinely recognized the immediate family, but did so within the family’s larger tribal identity. Property was divided among individual families who were grouped together according to their tribe. Property was passed on from the father to the sons, with the chief portion of a family’s estate being inherited by the eldest son, a double portion relative to the other heirs (cf. Deut. 21:15-17).2 Within this context, consider a case law involving Zelophehad, a man of the tribe of Manasseh. The book of Numbers catalogs the heads of the families that settled Israel after the Exodus. Zelophehad lacked a son to inherit his property (Num. 26:33), so his daughters requested that they be allowed to inherit their father’s estate before it passed to more distant male relatives (Num. 27:4). Moses brought the matter before God, and the daughters of Zelophehad were granted their father’s inheritance (Num. 27:6-7), as were all daughters without brothers (Num. 27:8). This resolved the problem for Zelophehad’s daughters partially, for they emerge again later in the book of Numbers.

Since Israel was a patriarchal society where property was predominantly held by the patriarch and passed down to his sons, there was a concern that property passing to daughters would upset this tribal balance if heiresses married into different tribes, since their ancestral property would pass into their husbands’ hands and, as well, these women’s sons – their heirs – would belong to their fathers’ tribe (Num. 36:3-4). This would create tribal confusion, effectively depriving the women’s tribe of its collective inheritance within one generation. The solution was to stipulate that the women who were to inherit should marry only within their father’s tribe (Num. 36:6-9). This does not itself constitute adoption, but it does demonstrate a weighty concern governing Israelite considerations of inheritance: the inheritance was not to be doled out to outsiders, not even to tribal outsiders within the people of God. Similarly, any act of adoption, since adoption necessarily involves inheritance, must accord with this principle restricting inheritance to one’s extended family and kin.

Another way in which an heir could be provided was stipulated within the law of levirate marriage, as stated in Deuteronomy 25:5-10. When a man died without any children, his brother would marry his widow, and the firstborn of the union would be posthumously deemed the heir of the deceased father. “If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her. And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.” (Deut. 25:5-6). This new child would, we presume, inherit not only the father’s name but also his full material, proprietary, and landed inheritance. Like the law of Numbers 36, the levirate law presumes bequests to be most properly given to one’s own bloodline: in Numbers, the concern was to keep inheritances within the tribe; here, it is to keep inheritances within the family, so that the widow would not carry the assets to a new husband. The nominal and material inheritance of this childless man was to be continued in the offspring of his wife and biological brother, i.e. in his biological nephew (or, if he lacked a biological brother, a similarly close child), not just in anyone. Thus the levirate law reaffirms the Mosaic principle governing inheritance: that it ought to be reserved fundamentally among one’s own kin for the common good of the family and extended family (tribe), as well as the nation.

From the precepts developed from the cases of the daughters of Zelophehad and levirate marriage, we can reasonably explain how the Old Covenant people of God would have understood adoption. Since adoption involves not merely the admittance of another person into one’s family’s domestic life, but also the designation of that person as a true child, having a right to inheritance alongside the natural-born children, it follows rigidly that adoption must be circumscribed by considerations of inheritance. This is true regardless of moderns’ prevalent emphasis upon providing daily domestic benefits for an orphan – a higher standard of living, greater vocational opportunities, and most importantly, parental affection and love – rather than upon providing that orphan with an inheritance. For even though moderns focus upon providing orphans with a superior quality of life rather than upon providing them with an inheritance, they still must concede that adoption necessarily involves inheritance. If an orphan is not made a true child but merely placed within one’s household’s daily life, then he is not truly adopted, as we will see is clear from the New Testament texts on adoption (and as is admitted by moderns when they strongly affirm the equality of adopted children with biological children). Consequently, even though the Law does not explicitly discuss adoption – incorporating a child born to other parents into one’s own family, legally designating him as one’s own child – its discussion of inheritance starkly demarcates the permissibility of adoption only to those cases where inheritance-transferal is permissible. And as we just saw, the Law’s emphasis to reserve inheritance for one’s kin – one’s family and tribe first – limits this discussion. Though other objections will arise in defense of modern adoption practices, a potent prima facie case against such practices is evident from the Mosaic Law’s limitation upon inheritance.

This prima facie case is strengthened by the fact that although most modern Christian adoptive practices are motivated by a concern of charity for orphans – indeed, they frequently cite such passages as lucid justification – the Old Testament’s heavy emphasis upon the care for the fatherless or orphans is never linked conceptually or practically with adoption. We will discuss these passages on orphans in a subsequent article, but for now note that the simultaneous presence in Israel of legislation restricting inheritance to one’s kin and of legislation requiring care for the fatherless constitutes an even stronger argument that the Israelites would have discouraged, if not forbidden, the adoption of unrelated orphans; for it implies that Israelites ought to have charitably benefited orphans without dividing their inheritance among them. We can then expect, given these legal restrictions, that any adoption practiced among Israel would have involved only the adoption of relatively close family members, e.g. of a close cousin or nephew or niece without parents. As we will also see, there is at least one specified instance of adoption in the Old Testament, as Esther is adopted by her older cousin Mordecai. This case confirms our points concerning adoption among one’s near kin.

The Law, merely by its discussion of inheritance, clearly precludes the idea of transracial, transnational, and even transtribal adoption. We can therefore judge that contemporary adoption as practiced by whites generally, and white Christians specifically, is rooted in error. First, Christians have divorced the biblical injunction to care for orphans from the familially- and socially-oriented biblical precepts restricting inheritance to natural children or, when necessary, to close relatives. Second – and what is likely an even stronger argument, even if Mosaic case laws do not explicitly discuss it – many Christians have ceased to think of the family as being thoroughly linked to heredity. I have seen it argued by multiple Christians that there are two separate but valid ways to form a family, either by natural birth or by adoption, the latter making possible a multiracial family. (Secularists likewise argue that adoption allows for the possibility of sodomitic and other bizarre, antinatural households.) But this clearly does not comport with what the Bible teaches concerning the family. Far from being a normal or even preferred way to form a family, the practice of adoption should be performed with a mind to inheritance and therefore to close family connections. Because the purpose of adoption is to join an outside child to one’s own natural-born children, adoption is to mimic the basic and normative pattern of ordinary procreation, and therefore must respect hereditary considerations. Adoption is limited by concerns of blood precisely because it is meant to approximate the ordinary generation of natural-born heirs. It is not to be established as a completely disconnected yet equally valid means of children-acquisition; such a view would deny that the family is ideally and normatively hereditary. This hence contradicts the theory that adoption is a conceptually separate alternative to natural birth, for such a theory confuses the biblical teachings on the family.3 The practical result of this would generally limit adoption to one’s close relatives according to their need – a conclusion which harmonizes with the independent argument for hereditary adoption from the Mosaic laws governing inheritance.

If Christians are to properly understand the true nature of adoption and the family, then any idea that suggests that the family need not be hereditary in nature, or that adoption can or should occur between people of different nations and races, must be discarded. God cares about preserving the inheritance of the tribes and nations whom He has created (Deut. 32:8-9; Acts 17:26-27). The inheritance laws given in Numbers and Deuteronomy are convincing evidences of this fact, as is a simple consideration that the family is normatively hereditary. The reason for much of the confusion over the concept of adoption has to do with several New Testament passages that deal with adoption. It is to these passages that we must now turn our attention.

Adoption in the New Testament

Adoption in the New Testament must be understood in light of what has been established by the Old Testament, and as we will see, we find a great harmony between them. The word “adoption” appears exclusively in Paul’s epistles, although the concept is not entirely foreign to the Gospels (cf. John 1:12-13). Paul declares that God made Abraham heir of the world (Rom. 4:13), and that all Christians are through faith the seed of Abraham and thus co-heirs with Christ (Rom. 8:16-17; cf. Gal. 3:26-29; 4:5; Eph. 1:5). These verses form the heart of the belief that Christians are all, in some sense, spiritual orphans whom God has adopted for the sake of His Son Jesus Christ. We are, as it were, without any spiritual father or inheritance until the Father draws us into His household and entitles us to the eternal inheritance of the Kingdom. Hence Paul strongly links adoption and inheritance – as the Old Testament does, and as the term historically signifies – and moreover the rest of the New Testament speaks of our salvific inheritance (Matt. 25:34; Acts 20:32; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 3:18; 5:21; Eph. 1:11; Col. 1:12; 3:24; Heb. 6:12; 9:15; 1 Pet. 1:4; Rev. 21:7). Although Christ is the only-begotten (John 3:16) and firstborn Son of God (Col. 1:15), and therefore heir of all creation in His own right (Heb. 1:2; 2:10), Christians are made sons of God alongside Christ: we are, through faith, made to be sons of God by grace analogously to how Christ Himself is the only-begotten Son of God by nature, and we are entitled to the same eternal heavenly inheritance which Christ merited.

Christians in favor of modern adoptive practices will sometimes cite these verses speaking of our spiritual adoption as having obvious reference to the common practice of foreign adoption today. But I contend that this reading is mistaken. As stated above, adoption would not have been practiced among the ancient Israelites except in rare cases to bring in an heir or to tend to the needs of an orphaned relative, for inheritance was restricted to one’s kin. Similarly, the practice of ancient Rome at the time of Christ quite intentionally connected inheritance with adoption, using adoption to attain heirs for childless patrician families. There simply was not a historical practice of charitably adopting unrelated orphans into one’s home, and therefore there was no such practice which Paul meant to reference in his description of our spiritual adoption. Any attempt to justify modern adoptive practices from these New Testament texts must find supporting argumentation, as Paul is certainly not referring directly to these practices.

To supply this argumentation, modern Christians more frequently use these passages to justify such practices as an overtly clear picture of the Gospel. God adopted orphans from all tribes and nations into His household; therefore we ought to do the same, bringing foreign orphans into our own household. The divine example, it is argued, makes foreign adoption to be not merely permissible in principle but highly commendable and even obligatory, providing the onlooking world with a painting of redemption.

The main problem with this line of thought is its confusion of physical and spiritual realities. Orthodox Christianity recognizes the validity of both categories, and the New Testament amply speaks of these glorious spiritual realities: thus, for example, Christians are in a very real sense the members of one household of faith (Gal. 6:10) and of one holy nation (1 Pet. 2:9). But one unfortunate way to confuse these two categories – physical and spiritual – is to unduly draw practical conclusions by stretching the spiritual analogies past their intended meaning. If we were to take 1 Peter 2:9 as implying that all Christians should form into a singular nation – form a one-world government! – or, worse, if we were to take Galatians 6:10 as implying that all Christians should be treated as part of one household, all Christian children being interchangeable, we would clearly be guilty of abusing these spiritual truths. Identifying the community of believers as one family or nation is intended to communicate the deep unity we ought to have – the unity and cooperation proper to a household or nation – not to abolish distinctions among physical households or nations. When Christians then suggest that our “real” family or our “real” nation is the Church, from the verses above, they not only draw absurd conclusions but contradict verses that speak to the continued importance of physical families (e.g. 1 Tim. 5:8) and physical nations (e.g. Acts 17:26-27; Rev. 21:24-26).

We can draw further absurd implications from this physical/spiritual confusion. As an analogy of salvation, we, through faith, are said to be incorporated into one body with many members (1 Cor. 12:12-27). Should we take this as instructing us to pursue a sick medical procedure linking all believers’ bodies into one? Again: Scripture teaches that we are, in the Church, the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:22-32). Should we then argue for the practice of “communal marriage” in such utopian societies as the Oneida Community? Or should we argue for sodomite marriage, given that the Church includes males? Should we argue for incestuous marriage, as the Church includes some of Christ’s own family members? Clearly, we should not stretch these spiritual analogies to morally govern the physical reality to which the spiritual analogy refers; we should let the intended points of connection in the text guide our usage of the analogy without autonomously extrapolating unintended features of the analogy to apply to physical realities.

But this is precisely what modern Christians do in arguing for modern adoptive practices. The text always depends upon the reader’s prior familiarity with the nature and norms of various physical realities – households, nations, bodies, marriages – to help the reader grasp the nature of our salvation, so it would be foolish to take these spiritual analogies as fundamentally supplying the moral norms of that physical reality itself – and especially foolish to take them as supplying new moral norms. We do not take this to be true for the moral norms governing families, nations, bodies, and marriages; we should do the same with adoption. The New Testament, while it assumes that adoption is indeed intrinsically permissible, nevertheless designs its references to adoption to evoke in the reader the nature of ordinary cases of human adoption: where an orphaned child, lacking parental protection and any inheritance to support himself, is aided by relatives who generously share their household and inheritance with this child. Given the norms governing inheritance and the nature of the family as normatively hereditary, this is how adoption should generally look. Scripture then takes these relevant facts of orphanhood and inheritance, as situated in ordinary cases of adoption, and describes our glorious salvation in such terms. But Scripture never points to the foreignness of the orphans as a relevant or (much less) ideal feature of the adoption in consideration, and consequently it is a nature- and Scripture-twisting misuse of this beautiful attestation to our spiritual adoption, to take it as justifying foreign adoption.

The modern movement within Christianity promoting the adoption of ethnic and racial foreigners and severing the concept of family from heredity and procreation stems from the error of considering physical reality unimportant because in Christ we are constituted as one spiritual household and nation. This error downplays the importance of physical families as a means of exalting the supposedly greater unity present in the Church, but there is no need for Christians to do this. God has achieved this unity through the internal ministry of the Holy Spirit, and this unity exists whenever true Christians call upon the name of the one true God. Denigrating our place within our own families and nations in order to demonstrate our loyalty to the Church would be like denigrating our relationship with our spouses in order to demonstrate our loyalty to Christ. It should be obvious that our physical and spiritual identities are not in competition with each other, but both serve to complement the other. As important as Christian unity was to the Apostle Paul, he never renounced his loyalty to his physical nation (Rom. 9:3) and continued to teach that the family and clan have a continued importance in Christian society (1 Tim. 5:8). Christian unity is best expressed in homogeneous societies in which trust can flourish. Ethnic and racial heterogeneity creates an atmosphere of distrust and unhappiness, and is thus opposed to Christian unity. Once homogeneity is achieved in Christian nations, these nations can then extend charity and encouragement to other Christian nations in the knowledge that their own identity will not be threatened.

Conclusion

This concludes our discussion on the biblical understanding of adoption as it is established by the Law and applied in the New Testament. Adoption must always be understood within the context of other biblical teachings, such as primogeniture and tribal property ownership. The fact that these principles are being forgotten at a time when adoption, especially transracial adoption, is greatly popular should alert us to the unscriptural character of modern adoption practices in most cases. The Law, through its restriction of inheritance to one’s kin, implicitly allows for adoption only as an accommodation to circumstances in which a related heir is needed or in which a household can support a related orphan. Adoption is a blessing in that it preserves the inheritance that God has given to our respective families (2 Kings 18:31; Isa. 36:16), but is not principally considered a means of charitably benefiting the world’s orphans.

The New Testament similarly uses the language of adoption in conjunction with concerns of inheritance. Adoption makes us co-heirs with Christ, the only-begotten Son of the Father. Spiritual adoption is not intended to substantially alter our understanding of natural adoption, just as the unity of the “household of faith” (Gal. 6:10) and of the “holy nation” of believers (1 Pet. 2:9) is not intended to replace natural families or ethnic nations that exist due to heredity and lineage. Adoption as it is taught in both the Old and New Testaments is rooted in the idea that heredity matters and is important, for heredity is proper to the family itself. Never is there any hint that adoption nullifies the importance of our hereditary relationships with our tribal kinsmen; rather we see that heredity is assigned paramount importance as something worth preserving. In our next article we will discuss the biblical teaching on care for orphans, which is a separate concern from adoption.

Notes:

  1. As stated in Part 1, the Roman practice of adoption was explicitly for the purposes of inheritance.
  2. See this article for a decent overview of primogeniture in the Bible.
  3. This especially contradicts the view, held by Bojidar Marinov, that adoption, as a “judicial” choice to incorporate a person into one’s household as heir, is the basic and universal practice, and that adoption frequently (but not necessarily) occurs on the occasion of procreation. Such a view completely inverts the biblical and commonsense understanding of familial relationships.