Sep 30, 2015

The Men Behind the "Diversity Agenda"

via The Traitor Within

They 'will breed children' with us.In other words, they will breed us out of existence, which, believe it or not, has always been a fundamental objective of the New World Order. Oh yes, the melting pot was never just an airhead song of the sixties.


The Fabian Society, the intellectual wing of the Labour Party, was formed in 1884 after 17 leading Socialists had gathered to discuss a 'Fellowship of the New Life' the previous year. 

Israel Zangwill, who was one of the original seventeen, said this in his 1921 book, ‘The Voice of Jerusalem:’
"Men form one universal brotherhood… their individual lives, their nations and races, interbreed and blend and go on to merge again at last in one common human… This conclusion was in fact the starting-point of Hebrew literature…
This new world order, would… reduce racial frictions to a minimum by the world-policy of the open door…  
Bolshevism may be good or bad, but the United States of Russia would be in greater congruity with World-Peace than a swarm of conflicting nationalities".
Zangwill wrote that 94 years ago and the plan, of course, is considerably older than that.

In a February 1919 essay, Zangwill lets us know where the capital of the New World Order will be.
"With the arrival in France of President Wilson, the champion of the League of Nations, the most momentous episode in all human history begins... Judaism stands to gain… the repossession of Palestine! And if this… could be united with the setting up of Jerusalem as the seat of the League of Nations… the Hebrew metropolis… would become at once the centre and symbol of the new era".
On page 336 of Zangwill's collected speeches, articles and letters, we are told that, when the League of nations is finally established, the policy of 'interbreed and blend' lined up for the rest of us, will not be not for him or his own tribe.
"In such a world… would it matter if we Jews did have a single nationality, if within all these leagued nations there was this still finer core of comradeship?" (Ibid)
So, the Jew 'interbreeds' the rest of us into a happy-clappy, racially and culturally indistinct melting pot, whilst he hovers benignly above the hodge-podge, a distinct 'single nationality.'

Do you think this Jewish gentleman would have wanted to blend in with us khaki fellows when his vision was finally made flesh? Do you think he would be prepared to be a dustbin man in this fawnly similar Utopia? Or do you think he'd still be giving the orders?

Zangwill wrote the hit play of the 1909 Broadway season, of which Wikipedia tells us this:
“The use of the metaphorical phrase ‘melting pot’ to describe American absorption of immigrants was popularised by Zangwill's play ‘The Melting Pot”… It celebrated America's capacity to absorb and grow from the contributions of its immigrants."
Count Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi was the founder, and President for 49 years, of the Pan-European Union, the original incarnation of the Europea

In his 1925 book, ‘Praktischer Idealismus,’ he says this:
"The man of the future will be mixed-race... The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future... will replace the diversity of peoples...

Russian Bolshevism constitutes a decisive step towards this purpose, where a small group of Communist spiritual aristocrats govern the country…

From the European quantity-people… the mass, two quality races rise up: blood aristocracy and the Jews… both of them stick to their belief in their higher mission, of their better blood… In both of these… lies the core of the European nobility of the future…

Modern Jewry surpasses all other peoples in percentage of important men… with Trotsky as the frontrunner of modern politics… The prominent position held by the Jews these days is owed to their spiritual supremacy… Modern anti-Semitism is one of the many reactionary phenomena of the mediocre against the supreme…

As a people the Jews experience the eternal struggle of quantity against quality, inferior groups against high quality individuals, inferior majorities against superior minorities.”
Coudenhove-Kalergi was, himself, mixed-race. His father was an Austro-Hungarian aristocrat, his mother was the daughter of a Japanese oil tycoon.

At war with Japan, Austria and Hungary in WW2, at war with Austria-Hungary in WW1, done over by the Norman aristocracy and their Jewish tax-farmers since 1066, and, in 1925, an aristocratic, mixed-race, Austro-Hungarian Jap, two of whose three wives were Jewish, wanted to breed we ‘inferior’ mediocrities out of existence. After which Communism would be installed as the creed of the Eurasian negroes taking our place, with the ‘superior’ Jew and the 'better blood' aristocrat in charge.

Does this sound at all familiar?

Ladies and gentlemen, 90 years ago genocidal New World Order treachery at its most hair-raisingly in your face, was up and running in the corridors of elite power, at all levels in the Western World.

In his memoirs, Coudenhove-Kalergi says:

"At the beginning of 1924, we received a call from Baron Louis de Rothschild. One of his friends, Max Warburg… had read my book… and wanted to get to know us.

To my great surprise, Warburg spontaneously offered us 60,000 gold marks...

Max Warburg… had a principle of financing these movements… He arranged his 1925 trip to the United States to introduce me to Paul Warburg and financier Bernard Baruch."

The businessman and banker, Bernard Baruch, was the intimate advisor and confidant of no less than four American presidents.


Paul Warburg, the brother of Felix and Max, was the man most responsible for the creation, in 1913, of the Federal Reserve. 

In ‘Warburg, the Revolutionist,' Harold Kellock told us this in the May 1915 issue of Century Magazine:
"Paul M. Warburg is probably the mildest-mannered man that ever personally conducted a revolution… He stepped forth armed simply with an idea and he conquered… He imposed his idea on a nation of a hundred million people…

Warburg does not look like a… revolutionist but he’s played that role for nearly seven years… The passage of the Federal Reserve Act… made his revolutionary ideas the law of the land. There is no doubt that without Mr. Warburg there would have been no Federal Reserve Act.”
On 17 February 1950, addressing the US Senate, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s top financial adviser, James Warburg, said this:
"We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent."
James Warburg was Paul Warburg’s son.

The Warburgs were Jewish.

On 19 November 2012, the European Council website said :
“The President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, was awarded the Coudenhove-Kalergi Prize... to celebrate 90 years of the Pan-Europa movement.

The prize is awarded to leading personalities for their extraordinary commitment in the European unification process…

The idea, which was also at the centre of Coudenhove-Kalergi's work, has lost nothing of its importance 90 years later.”
The melting pot endeavours of Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi on behalf of ‘Communist spiritual aristocrats’ and the ‘quality races’ of ‘aristocracy and the Jews’ were rewarded when, in 1950, he became the first recipient of the Charlemagne (first Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire) Prize.

Other winners of the prize that bears Charlemagne's name have included Winston Churchill; Roy Jenkins; Edward Heath; Bill Clinton; Henry Kissinger, Tony Blair and Angela Merkel.

On 31 August 2015, the BBC told us this:
"Germany is the main destination for migrants arriving on the EU's eastern borders and expects the number of asylum seekers it receives to quadruple to about 800,000 in 2015."
The BBC then quoted Angela Merkel thus:
"Germany is a strong country - we will manage."
She added:
"If Europe fails on the question of refugees, then it won't be the Europe we wished for."
It will not be the Europe WE wished for?

Not the one she, Coudenhove-Kalergi, Israel Zangwill, the Warburgs, Kissinger and those who own the Blairs, the Clintons, the Heaths, Jenkins' and Churchills wished for.

As for us, the unconsidered and wholly despised majority, the 'European quantity-people… the mass,' well, we never did count for much in the eyes of the above, did we?

In the long war being fought to eradicate the white tribes of the world, the Coudenhove-Kalergis, Zangwills, Warburgs and Kissingers are the Generals, the Merkels, Blairs, Clintons, Heaths and Churchills are their captains, the Shekh Muhammad Ayeds are the sergeants and the Muslim hordes interbreeding and blending with our girls are the footsoldiers.



On 31 August 2015, The Daily Mail told us that: more than 100 teenage girls in Rotherham gave birth to their rapists' children

Now multiply that number by 600,000 divided by 1,400.



Or multiply 100 by 1,000,000 divided by 1,400.

However you want to apply the maths, the agenda of those who want us gone is drawing close to fulfilment.

What Happened to the Warrior’s Ethic?: The North Used to Respect the South, Must We Despise Them Today?

via American Renaissance

Back in 2006, my wife and I went to a friend’s house to watch Oscar De La Hoya fight Ricardo Mayorga for the World Boxing Council light–middleweight boxing championship. My wife was unfamiliar with professional boxing and was taken aback by the trash talking between the two foes, which HBO recapped during the intro to the show. “You’re going to be my bitch in my bed anytime I want you,” was one of Mr. Mayorga’s more printable insults.

Mr. De La Hoya won handily with a 6th round TKO, to the delight of many fans and my wife as well. But, to her surprise, the fighters embraced after the fight and appeared to let bygones be bygones. “You are a great fighter, a great champion,” Mr. Mayorga said. “I apologize for everything I said to you.”

How, she wondered, could everything be so easily settled?

The fact is, settling grievances through combat is pretty common. Kids at schools everywhere still “take it outside” and are often friends afterwards. Fighters in the boxing ring, the UFC, and other combat sports routinely find their grievances settled after a fight.

This is sometimes referred to as “the warrior’s ethic.” If a problem can’t be talked out, it can be settled by combat, often followed by mutual respect between winner and the loser.

David Yeagley, who spoke several times at American Renaissance conferences, was a Comanche activist who understood the warrior ethic:
The white man may have taken my land. But he took it like a warrior, fair and square. He never denied our bravery, never besmirched our memory as warriors. When one general surrenders to another they salute each other. It doesn’t mean that there’s no bitterness between them. It just means that a warrior respects his foe.
Like the Indians and the white man, the Confederates had irreconcilable differences with the Union. When time for talk was over, they met on the field of battle and fought like men. Each side respected the other. In A Stillness at Appomattox, Bruce Catton recounts an event at the Battle of Petersburg. It was late in the war: June, 1864. After years of slaughter, had Confederate and Yankees learned to hate each other?
The 39th Massachusetts won an advanced position, losing three color-bearers, and at last was forced back, leaving its colors on the ground. Its colonel asked for volunteers to go out and get the flags. A corporal and a private responded and ran out to get them, and suddenly–and quite unexpectedly–the Confederates stopped firing, allowed the men to pick up the flags, and as they went back to the regiment the Rebels waved their hats and raised a cheer.
The Confederates know how much the colors meant to the enemy; they cheered the men who risked their lives to retrieve them.

At the surrender at Appomattox, a Union soldier felt none of the jubilation he had expected. Instead:
I remember how we sat there and pitied and sympathized with these courageous Southern men who had fought for four long and dreary years all so stubbornly, so bravely, and so well, and now, whipped, beaten, completely used up, were fully at our mercy–it was pitiful, sad, hard, and seemed to us altogether too bad.
Fifty years after Appomattox, a soldier from the Pennsylvania Fifth Corps wrote how he was received when he slipped across the skirmish line and visited the Confederates, their rifles stacked for the last time:
As soon as I got among these boys I felt and was treated as well as if I had been among our own boys, and a person would of thought we were of the same Army and been Fighting under the Same Flag.
The Confederates were a defeated but worthy adversary. They erected monuments and memorials to their dead, and named streets, neighborhoods, schools, and sports teams in their memory. Their former enemies understood and admired their reverence for their dead. In a gesture of heartfelt respect for their former foe, the US Army gave the names of Confederate generals to army bases. Ten still bear names such as Lee, Bragg, and Beauregard.

Dwight Eisenhower–a Kansan with no connection to the South–kept a portrait of Lee in the Oval Office, calling him “one of the supremely gifted men produced by our Nation.”

But now, 150 years after the end of the war, though we still admire the fighting qualities of the American Indian, we are supposed to have nothing but scorn for Confederates. Down comes the battle flag, and monuments must be moved out of sight. Southern soldiers are even dug up and their graves hauled away so as to not offend contemporary sensibilities. Today’s Americans are taught to despise men who were deeply respected by their adversaries. This, of course, is because Southern heritage has been reduced to one word: slavery. American Indians committed shocking atrocities but we still accord them the respect due to warriors.

It started in Jamestown. In 1608, Chickahominy braves lured George Cassen ashore from his canoe by having some of their women gesture alluringly to him. His comrades, from their own canoes, watched what happened next:
The natives prepared a large fire behind the bound and naked body. Then a man grasped his hands and used mussel shells to cut off joint after joint, making his way through Cassen’s fingers, tossing the pieces into the flames. That accomplished, the man used shells and reeds to detach the skin from Cassen’s face and the rest of his head. Cassen’s belly was next, as the man sliced it open, pulled out his bowels, and cast those onto the fire. Finally the natives burned Cassen at the stake through to the bones.
During the French and Indian War, neither side could prevent their Indian allies from torturing and mutilating prisoners.

Here is an account of how Comanche squaws disposed of a score of captured white settlers in 1840:
One by one, the children and young women were pegged out naked beside the camp fire . . . . They were skinned, sliced, and horribly mutilated, and finally burned alive by vengeful women determined to wring the last shriek and convulsion from their agonized bodies.
In December 1866, the Oglala chief Red Cloud ambushed Captain William Fetterman’s troop of 80 cavalry and infantry and took no prisoners:
From the condition of the horribly mutilated bodies, it was obvious Red Cloud’s warriors intended to make a statement. One corpse . . . had 105 arrows in it. Fetterman and his second in command, terrified at the prospect of being captured alive, evidently committed suicide by shooting each other in the head.
After the Battle of Little Bighorn, Indian women came onto the battlefield and mutilated Custer’s men. The General’s brother, Thomas Ward Custer, was scalped, castrated, his heart cut out and reportedly eaten. He could be identified only from his tattoos.

In some cases Indians cooked and ate their enemies, and they routinely made sex slaves of captured women. Their treatment of their own women was often little better than slavery. Should we therefore apply to them the standards we apply to Confederates? Should we rename Indiana, originally meaning “land of the Indians”? Should we change the names of our Comanche and Apache attack helicopters? Should we tear down the Dakota Sitting Bull monument and other statues meant to honor fallen Indian warriors, because they glorify rape and cannibalism? If not, why not?

It is because the Confederates had the great historic misfortune of having mistreated black people. Indians only brutalized white people and each other; these are forgivable crimes. Blacks almost never met Confederates on the battlefield, but it is their sensitivities and those of their white anti-Southern allies that must be coddled. That is why we must no longer accord to Confederates the honor and respect their foes so readily granted them. We must suspend the warrior’s ethic and spit on the graves of the Confederacy’s sacred dead. To do otherwise would offend black people.

Book Review: The True History of the American Revolution

via Henry Dampier

This is a popular book in our little corner of the web, and I took some time earlier this summer to get through it. Foseti wrote about it back in 2008.

You can pick it up for less than a buck in eBook at Amazon or for free from Archive.org.

What’s remarkable about it is that it will probably contradict a fair amount of what you already think that you know about the American revolution, while also bringing to your attention some of the context of English politics during the revolution which you probably would be unaware of unless you happen to be a specialist in this period. In particular, the exact counts of relative force levels between the colonists and the British surprised me. Fisher strongly alludes to the conclusion that the Americans couldn’t have won the war had General Howe actually prosecuted it to the fullest.

Fisher also provides some of the opposing perspective relative to the typical American tale about unfair taxation and duties providing the impetus for the revolution. What was a more significant factor was that the colonists had been flouting British regulation of trade for decades already. What the colonists revolted against was the actual enforcement of those laws. The colonists were eager to have the military protection from the British empire, but far less eager to comply with their obligations to finance it. This coincided with an explosion in popularity of classical liberal thought, most importantly influenced by the popularization of Locke.

American histories tend not to emphasize this. If you knew some details about all the British lollygagging in New York for much of the war, you might have gotten the sense that something was screwy, but seeing the relative force numbers in plain language makes it obvious that the American colonials were, more or less, allowed to win. Another major area of coverage is the social-justice-warrior behavior of the American patriot party. Essentially, the patriots were able to mobilize a highly ideological minority to suppress loyalist opinion and keep moderates on the sidelines:
But the mobs went on with their work in spite of [John] Adams’ protest. All through the Revolution the loyalists were roughly handled, banished, and their property confiscated. Even those who were neutral and living quietly were often ordered out of the country by county committees, because it was found that a prominent family which remained neutral deterred by their silent influence many who otherwise would have joined the rebel cause. Few loyalists dared write about politics in private letters, because all such letters were opened by the patriots. In many of them which have been preserved we find the statement that the writers would like to speak of public affairs but dare not. A mere chance of most innocent expression might bring on severe punishment or mob violence.
These mob techniques are not so different from today’s technologically-enabled mobs, except perhaps the old kind were more eager to use tar and feathers.

This is not, then, a new factor in American life, but instead is a founding tendency which we see periodically re-emerging throughout our history. It also meant the ruination of countless loyalists, who either lived on in poverty or otherwise had to flee back to the home country:
The disastrous effects of the rise of the lower orders of the people into power appeared everywhere, leaving its varied and peculiar characteristics in each community, but New England suffered least of all. In Virginia its work was destructive and complete, for all that made Virginia great, and produced her remarkable men, was her aristocracy of tobacco planters. This aristocracy forced on the Revolution with heroic enthusiasm against the will of the lower classes, little dreaming that they were forcing it on to their own destruction. But in 1780 the result was already so obvious that Chastellux, the French traveler, saw it with the utmost clearness, and in his book he prophesies Virginia’s gradual sinking into the insignificance which we have seen in our time.
When the British began to prosecute the war in earnest after the replacement of Howe in 1778 by General Clinton, it was essentially too late to prevent the entry of the French into the war and the eventual conclusion.

It’s short book, clearly-written, and well worth your time if you’re interested in learning a more balanced view of the American founding.

On Contemporary Opera and Wagner’s "Jewry in Music"

via The Occidental Observer

Kirill Petrenko: “a tiny gnome, a Jewish caricature"
This month marks the 165th anniversary of the publication of Richard Wagner’s landmark essay ‘Das Judenthum in der Musik.’ Almost right on cue the opera scene, particularly in Berlin, has recently played host to a series of episodes that would have the Old Sorcerer spinning in his grave. Back in June Kirill Petrenko, a Siberian-born Jewish conductor, was appointed as music director to the Berlin Philharmonic beginning September 2018. Petrenko was no-one’s first choice. His name apparently came into the reckoning only after 124 orchestra members split down the middle in an all-day election on May 11, half of them voting for the German favourite Christian Thielemann and the other half for the young Latvian, Andris Nelsons. By nightfall, the players were steeped in conflict, forcing leaders to seek a third, compromise candidate. Petrenko, 43, in his second year as music director at Bavarian State Opera, privately signalled his disinterest in the job. However, when called with the election result, he accepted with ‘euphoria and joy’. As a result, he will be the first Jewish chief conductor of the Philharmonic.

Rather predictably, Petrenko’s appointment has been greeted with enthusiasm by Jewish critics and commentators eager to indulge in the usual effort to promote their co-ethnics as geniuses. In my 2013 analysis of the Spinoza cult, I pointed out that
a recurring theme here at TOO has been the monitoring of ethnic networking in efforts to establish Jewish figures in positions of scientific, academic, artistic or cultural pre-eminence. Erudite studies by several writers, particularly Kevin Macdonald (a major theme of The Culture of Critique) and Brenton Sanderson, have shed light on individual cases (e.g., Boas, Freud, Trotsky, Rothko, Mahler) as well as the more generic processes involved in these efforts (e.g., promotion in the elite media and the academic world). Typically these efforts can be said to begin with the veneration by a group of Jews of a Jewish intellectual or artist, and is followed by the creation of an authoritarian cult-like aura around his or her personality. The process reaches its completion, in some cases after the death of the guru figure, in an aggressive Jewish marketing effort to convince society at large that this figure, together with his or her ideas, is or was of national or international—if not cosmic—significance. It is predominantly by this process that the notion of “Jewish Genius” is perpetuated.
More specifically relevant to the Petrenko case, in 2011 TOO’s Brenton Sanderson wrote Why Mahler? Norman Lebrecht and the Construction of Jewish Genius.’ The piece explored the efforts of Jewish critic and author Norman Lebrecht to transform Mahler’s image “from that of a relatively minor figure in the history of classical music at mid-Twentieth Century, into the cultural icon of today.” Sanderson, commenting on Lebrecht’s Why Mahler?, writes that
The focus here is on alerting us to fact of Mahler’s towering genius, and how this genius was inextricably bound up with his identity as a Jew. Overlaying this, as ever, is the lachrymose vision of Mahler the saintly Jewish victim of gentile injustice. Lebrecht’s new book is another reminder of how Jewish intellectuals have used their privileged status as self-appointed gatekeepers of Western culture to advance their group interests through the way they conceptualize the respective artistic achievements of Jews and Europeans.
Given Sanderson’s comprehensive treatment of Lebrecht and his motivations, and the wider context of Jewish ethnic networking, I was unsurprised to see Lebrecht emerge as one of Petrenko’s earliest and most gushing admirers in the aftermath of the diminutive Jew’s election. According to Lebrecht, Petrenko is a “profound and experienced Wagnerian,” who “spares nothing in his musical passions and gives both musicians and audience the feeling that the music could not be performed in any other way.” Lebrecht assures us that Petrenko is “a genuine maestro.”

Next to Christian Thielemann, however, Petrenko cuts a far from impressive figure. By Lebrecht’s own admission Petrenko “is completely unknown abroad, in the territories where the Berlin Phil needs to be number one. A few guest appearances at the Metropolitan Opera, Covent Garden and the Concertgebouw left no lasting impression. He has never toured Japan or China. He has made hardly any recordings.” By contrast, Thielemann is a titan in Wagnerian circles in particular. Thielemann is a regular conductor at the Bayreuth, following his début in 2000 with Wagner’s Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg, and the Salzburg Festivals. In 2003, he was awarded the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany (Bundesverdienstkreuz). In October 2011, he received honorary membership of the Royal Academy of Music in London, and in 2015 Thielemann won the Richard Wagner Award (Richard-Wagner-Preis) of Leipzig. A few months ago, the Bayreuth Festival formally announced the appointment of Thielemann as its music director.

The ‘problem’ with Christian Thielemann has nothing to do with his talent in the pit, and everything to do with his alleged political and cultural beliefs.  Particularly harmful has been the lurking accusation that in 2000 he made negative comments about Jewish conductors in the Berlin music scene. Berlin has one of the fastest growing Jewish populations in the world, and many of its cultural avenues have been falling into Jewish hands at an equally rapid pace. Australian-born Barrie Kosky is one of several Jewish artists heading Berlin’s cultural institutions. As general manager of the Komische Oper, Kosky joins Daniel Barenboim (Berlin Staatsoper), Ivan Fischer (Konzerthaus) and the incoming Kirill Petrenko. Kosky welcomes the growing Jewish monopoly of Berlin culture: “I say the more Jews the better in Berlin — bring it on! If you look at Berlin before the war, all the theatres were owned by Jews, it was like Broadway. They say that half the orchestras were full of Jewish musicians, all the major theatre directors were Jews.”

Barrie Kosky: “I say the more Jews the better in Berlin — bring it on!”
Barrie Kosky: “I say the more Jews the better in Berlin — bring it on!”

The growing Jewish monopoly over German theatre and music has often come at the expense of taste, talent and decency. Kosky’s own repertoire includes a production of Rameau’s Castor and Pollux at the English National Opera that featured masturbation, transvestism, and the copious nudity of obese women. Rather typically, this onslaught on a European classic was praised by the Jewish critic David Karlin, who wrote that Kosky’s perversion “breathed new life” into it.

Against this backdrop of Jewish-inspired filth, in October 2000 a letter appeared in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, written by a former Berlin culture official named Ulrich Roloff-Momin. Roloff-Momin reported in passing that a “leading Berliner” — whom he did not name — had been heard to say how happy he was, “now that the Jewish mucking about in Berlin will be over.” The comment has been alternatively translated as “looking forward to an end to the Jewish mess.” Roloff-Momin was hinting, or the “leading Berliner” was hinting at the anticipated departure of Daniel Barenboim from his position as musical director of the Staatsoper, the Berlin State Opera, when his contract lapsed in the summer of 2002 (in the end Barenboim did not leave Berlin).  Although Roloff-Momin refused to state the identity of the “leading Berliner,” Christian Thielemann was largely touted as almost certainly being the man behind the comment.

Christian Thielemann: “The Jewish mucking about in Berlin will be over.”
Christian Thielemann: “The Jewish mucking about in Berlin will be over.”

Thielemann denied any involvement, calling such accusations “ridiculous’” and suggesting they had been orchestrated to damage his reputation at a tense and confrontational time for Berlin opera. “It is very strange that something like this comes up now,” he said. However, Thielemann has since attracted further scorn from Jews and other cultural Marxists for his cultural conservatism, his barely-concealed nationalism, and his veiled expression of support for the PEGIDA movement in January 2015. Most notably, Thielemann has raised the ire of Norman Lebrecht, who combines a sycophancy for his Jewish subjects with an open and sarcastic disdain for the traditional approach of Thielemann. Lebrecht writes:
The German of 2015 — hailed by some as a man of destiny — is Christian Thielemann, Berlin born and bred, German as bratwurst in a bierkeller. German, and then some. Thielemann, 56, is a musical conservative who shuns atonality and pretty much anything written after the death of Richard Strauss. His outlook is resolutely retro. He likes saying that Germans have nothing to apologize for, a coded phrase that places him on the outer fringe of the democratic right. In January, he issued a diatribe that appeared to show support for the Pegida anti-immigrant movement. A loner, never married, aloof and uncollegial, Thielemann is a powerful if conventional interpreter of Beethoven, Brahms and Bruckner.
Sly insinuations that Thielemann’s repertoire is somehow parochial and unadventurous (i.e. he doesn’t entertain the work of Jewish composers) have provoked the Berliner to defend himself by arguing that: “If you had a Russian conductor and he conducted Russian works, you wouldn’t say a word. Why do people say a word when a German conductor conducts German works?” His refusal to apologize for sticking with German music goes hand in hand with his refusal to apologize for the German past: “I try to value things,” he says. “Never has everything been wrong. There are some very dark points; there are some very good points.” For Thielemann, politics has no place in music. He has been criticized for resurrecting Hans Pfitzner’s Palestrina by those who argue that Pfitzner’s nationalist sympathies and statements about Jews put him beyond the pale. But Thielemann argues that if music is good, the moral character or political affiliation of the composer is irrelevant. “When I first conducted Palestrina in Nuremberg, someone said, ‘This is a nationalistic piece of shit.’ This score, this beautiful, beautiful piece. What has C sharp minor to do with fascism? Nothing.”

Michael Henderson has written that in liberal Berlin there is no room for a cultural conservative like Thielemann, “a man who keeps a bust of Frederick the Great on his desk.” Henderson continues:

There is unease that the conductor’s job should go to a man who has expressed conservative, some would argue reactionary, opinions. He is not, as some have claimed, a neo-Nazi. Such talk is foolish. But the man who keeps a bust of Frederick the Great on his desk is an old-fashioned Prussian of robust views, and many modern Prussians do not share them. When Thielemann gave an interview earlier this year, in which he expressed sympathy if not outright support for Pegida, the anti-immigrant movement based in Dresden, Berliners were appalled. The orchestra immediately placed a poster on the tower of their concert hall, the Philharmonie, which read: “One orchestra, four religions, 124 musicians.”

What Thielemann had in fact stated back in January was simply his earnest belief that “we must finally listen to the questions confronted by the PEGIDA phenomenon.” Regardless of the equivocal nature of Thielemann’s full statement on the PEGIDA movement, it was apparent by May 2015 that he would be denied the advancement his talent demanded purely on political grounds. Or, as Lebrecht put it, “only his penchant for reported rightwing indiscretions can stem his vertical progress.” Against this background, it is difficult to see the election of Kirill Petrenko at the Berlin Philharmonic as anything other than a misguided act of defiance by a clique of left-liberal musicians. What better way to thumb their noses at the conservative Thielemann, than to elect an obscure and mediocre Jew?

Not everyone extended such a warm welcome to the Siberian Hebrew. Sabine Lange of Northern German Broadcasting [NDR Kultur] stated that Thielemann was well-versed in the German sound but that Petrenko was a mere “tiny gnome, the Jewish caricature.” Manuel Brug, a Welt Online commentator made the faux pas of pointing out that the three best conducting positions in Berlin were all now occupied by Jews. Even though numerous Jewish media outlets had made the same point, Brug was a non-Jew, and therefore stating such a fact was, according to Norman Lebrecht “unhelpful and unnecessary.” Brug came in for even heavier criticism for stating that it was “a relief to many” that Petrenko enjoys good interpersonal relations, “as at least one of the female opera singers at this year’s Bayreuth [Wagner] Festival can attest.” This was interpreted as playing upon “the anti-Semitic stereotypes of overly competitive and oversexed Jews.”

Observing this episode and its context, I couldn’t help but reflect on Wagner’s timeless Jewry in Music. After 165 years, the remarkable clarity of its insight retains almost startling relevance. The ascendance of mediocre, if not trashy, Jewish “talent” to the heights of Berlin’s cultural scene was predicted by Wagner who commented:
The Jew, who is innately incapable of presenting himself to us artistically through either his outward appearance or his speech, and least of all through his singing, has nevertheless been able in the widest-spread of modern art-varieties, to wit in music, to reach the rulership of public taste.

Of course, once this rulership has been achieved, we swiftly begin to witness the degradation of European art. Barrie Kosky’s obscene barbarism should be seen as merely the tip of the iceberg in this respect. Even in 1850 Wagner noted the tendency of Jewish “artists” to degrade and cheapen the European cultural heritage, arguing that “we have no need to first substantiate the be-Jewing of modern art; it springs to the eye, and thrusts upon the senses, of itself.”

The gut-reaction of Sabine Lange to the extreme physical dissonance between the 6ft 3in Thielemann and the 5ft 3in Petrenko is also explained by Wagner, who wrote that “the Jew in ordinary life strikes us primarily by his outward appearance, which, no matter to what European nationality we belong, has something disagreeably foreign to that nationality; instinctively we wish to have nothing in common with a man who looks like that.” Contrasted with Thielemann, Petrenko’s foreign, non-European appearance is merely accentuated to an almost comic degree — becoming, as Lange correctly pointed out, a Jewish caricature. Wagner also had prescient comments to make about the likes of Norman Lebrecht and his ilk. These conceited, arrogant, but ultimately blind Jewish intellectuals “stand alien and apathetic in a society they do not understand, with whose tastes and aspirations they do not sympathize, whose history and evolution have always been indifferent to them.”

To conclude, I might add that as well as assaulting the European musical tradition, Jews have used their “rulership” to ensure opera becomes yet another cultural avenue in which criticism of Jews is taboo. One of the most recent victims of the Jewish rulership is John Adams’s The Death of Klinghoffer. First produced in New York in 1991, the opera is based on the hijacking of the passenger liner Achille Lauro by the Palestine Liberation Front in 1985, and the hijackers’ murder of 69-year-old Jewish passenger Leon Klinghoffer. The opera has drawn heavy criticism from Jews, including Klinghoffer’s two daughters, that the opera is anti-Semitic and glorifies terrorism. The primary reason for these accusations is that the creators of the opera attempted to give equal voice to both Palestinian and Israeli voices with respect to the political background to the hijacking. But as we well know, Jews are never content with equality, but only special treatment and protections. The dramatic expression of Palestinian historical grievances in a theatrical context was thus construed by organized Jewry as an expression of sympathy with Palestinian terrorism.

Jews also accused the opera’s creators of anti-Semitism for their portrayal of fictional Jewish-American neighbours of the Klinghoffers, the Rumors, in a scene in the original version. The couple were characterized in a way that organized Jewry deemed to be offensive and “inappropriately satirical.” It was alleged that the scenes involving the Rumors portrayed Jews as self-absorbed, gossiping, bargain-hunting bourgeois materialists without souls. Far from being exaggerated caricatures of the modern Jewish family in America, the scene was actually devastatingly perceptive and accurate as a sociological study of modern Jewish identity. Even Jewish music critic Robert Fink conceded that this portrayal of American Jews was offensive and upsetting to Jewish audiences because it was “akin to standing culturally naked in front of an unflattering music-dramatic mirror. American Jews did not like what they saw.” Regardless of the accuracy of this reflection, the howling Jewish furore that followed the American premiere forced Adams to delete this scene in its entirety while revising his opera for all future productions.

The opera has since had a difficult history. In June 2014, the Metropolitan Opera in New York cancelled an international simulcast and radio broadcast due to “an outpouring of concern” that it “might be used to fan global anti-Semitism.” This ridiculous argument was made by the ADL. Abraham Foxman whined: “While I haven’t personally seen the opera, numerous experts on anti-Semitism and the Arab-Israeli conflict on the ADL staff have, and our objections are based on their analyses and a full reading of the libretto.” In addition to cancelling both broadcasts, the MET agreed to include a statement from Klinghoffer’s daughters in the printed program. Shortly afterwards, the production was also dropped by the Los Angeles Opera. Jewish groups continue to harass anyone attempting to stage it.

In 1869 Richard Wagner published an additional essay which acted as an extension to ‘Jewry in Music.’ At the conclusion of that piece, he wrote:
Whether the decadence of our culture can be prevented by forcible expulsion of foreign elements of pernicious character I cannot say; as powers for this purpose are requisite, of the existence of which I am not aware.
As with his earlier statements, nearly 150 years later not much has changed.

The Wages of Sin: The Death of a Mud Snipe

via Kevin Alfred Strom

Listen Now

She believed passionately, in racial equality — like most White liberals. She worked for Ted Kennedy when she graduated from college in Boston. She was immersed in the work and ideas of Jewish “intellectuals” — working with Studs Terkel and studying under Saul Bellow for several years. She landed a dream job with the book publisher Doubleday, where one of her colleagues was Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. She married the noted composer, arranger, and conductor, the late James Mack. She lived on the glittering heights of Chicago society.

Her name was Sheila Von Weise-Mack. The man she married — the musician — was Black. An extraordinary Black, to be sure — cultured and accomplished and successful, without a doubt. She bore him a mixed-race daughter. Two people of evident quality bringing a child into the world, a child with good genes from both sides, and a child with all the advantages. So both the nature folks and the nurture folks would surely agree, for once: The daughter would almost certainly be a person of quality, too. What does race matter?

James, Heather, and Sheila sixteen years ago
James, Heather, and Sheila seventeen years ago

It is possible that Sheila Von Weise-Mack found out that race matters, but that realization came rather late in her life. The last minute, to be exact. For in that last minute of Sheila’s life, her mixed-race daughter and her daughter’s mixed-race boyfriend bludgeoned her to death with a large metal-and-glass fruit bowl, collapsing her face in on itself and asphyxiating her. They then stuffed her body into an oversized suitcase and left it in the trunk of a taxi, while they decamped to a nearby hotel for some sex and “partying.”

The little darling daughter’s name is Heather Mack. She and her boyfriend, Tommy Schaefer, were eventually caught and convicted of murder. Schaefer was, as you might expect, “an aspiring rapper.” (It’s almost impossible to turn around in many cities these days without running into one of these.) His “street name” in Chicago was “Tommy Exx.”

Their murder of Sheila was cruel, disgusting, and horrifying — with a thick overlay of stupidity.

It all happened in August of last year. Heather and her mother were vacationing in Bali, Indonesia, at a $1,000-a-day resort. Sheila was trying to “repair her relationship” with Heather, who was 19 at the time. “Relationship repair” was something that Sheila spent a lot of time doing with Heather, with no success whatever. Between 2004 and 2013, the police were called to the Macks’ luxurious home no fewer than 86 times. In every case, sweet little Heather was the cause. Heather ran away from home. Heather locked her mother up in a small room and threatened to “f*** her up” unless she got what she wanted. She stole her mother’s money and credit cards and used them to buy liquor and “party” at swank hotels with various mulatto and Congoid males whose names, if she ever knew them, are not important. Heather broke her mother’s arm. Again and again, Sheila refused to make a criminal complaint, refused medical treatment, and promised the officers who arrived that she and Heather would “work things out.” Heather ultimately assaulted Sheila so often and so severely that even ultra-liberal, ultra-tolerant Sheila filed charges. Darling daughter Heather was found guilty of battery and ordered into treatment and “anger management counseling” as part of a “violence prevention program” — which clearly did a lot of good. Heather Mack spent part of 2012 in two different juvenile facilities.

The aspiring rapper
The aspiring rapper
Bringing Heather on the trip to Bali was yet another effort on Sheila’s part to “work things out” with Heather. A few days into the trip, someone using Sheila’s credit card paid for a ticket for Aspiring Rapper Tommy, so he could join them. Just hours after he arrived, Sheila was dead.

After they killed Sheila, Tommy and Heather contorted her mangled, bloody body and forced it into a large metal suitcase. They used duct tape to hold her limbs in position. (An odd thing to bring on a Bali resort vacation, don’t you think?) Sweet Heather sat on the case to help get it closed, but it wouldn’t stay shut, so the pair wrapped it tightly with blood-stained sheets. (No one would notice that, right?) They then took it downstairs along with their other luggage and hailed a cab. They put the suitcase containing Sheila’s body into the trunk of the taxi, told the driver they had to talk to someone in the hotel and would be right back. They never showed again, and after two hours the taxi man looked in his trunk and decided the bloody three-foot-long case deserved the attention of the police.

The bloody suitcase
The bloody suitcase

Meanwhile Tommy and darling Heather hailed another cab on the other side of the hotel and 1) went to the airport and tried unsuccessfully to leave the country without their passports; 2) tried to get Sheila’s valuables and their own passports from the hotel safe deposit box but were refused; and 3) checked into another hotel five miles away, celebrating Heather’s imminent possession of her family’s trust fund by “partying,” having sex, and passing out.

When they were awakened by police a few hours later, they claimed that mysterious vanishing “bandits” had kidnapped them, killed Sheila, and, for some unknown reason, bought them a room at a four-star hotel before disappearing without a trace.

They told a very different story at trial. They admitted that Tommy Schaefer had bludgeoned Sheila to death and that Heather had been his accomplice. They cried on the stand and showed remorse. It was all done in the heat of the moment, they said. Sheila had called Tommy a “nigger,” they said, and had then tried to choke him. Tommy grabbed the fruit dish and swung it to defend himself, never intending to kill at first. Heather, she claimed, was in shock and didn’t know what she was doing as she “robotically” (her word) smashed her mother’s body, forced it into the suitcase, pulled the stupid taxi scene, and then — still robotically, one assumes — tried to leave the country, called her lawyer, and partied past dawn.

They were convicted, but in view of their remorse and the fearsome “N-word” provocation they had to endure, the court showed great leniency. They could have been sentenced to die by firing squad. (This is Indonesia, remember.) Instead, Tommy got 18 years and Heather was sentenced to ten. And she did gain access to that trust fund, too. (Cue “Wonderful World” by Sam Cooke.)

Cousin Robert Bibbs with Tommy
Cousin Robert Bibbs with Tommy
But just this week, a new development cast some doubt on Tommy’s and Heather’s story of a racially-tinged argument that ended in tragedy. Investigators got access to the Facebook and text messages passed between the pair and Tommy’s cousin, Robert Bibbs. Laced with “lols” and brightly-colored “emojis” and interspersed with references to Heather soon becoming a millionaire (and sharing the wealth with her co-conspirators), the trio openly discussed their plans to kill Sheila — weeks before it happened — and various methods they might use to do so. Darling Heather even sent a Facebook message saying “don’t tell anyone I asked you to kill my mother.”

After Tommy arrived in Bali, he sent a text to Bibbs, saying that they had tried to kill Sheila with a drug overdose as Bibbs had advised, but it hadn’t worked. Schaefer’s text reads as follows: “Wasn’t enough bro… ” He sent an emoji of a gun and wrote “definitely need that.” At one point, Heather urged Tommy to kill her mother while she was sleeping. Schaefer texted Bibbs saying “She wants me to right now… while she snoozing.” “Go in,” Bibbs wrote back. “Go sit on her face wit a pillow then.”

Heather today: no remorse, really
Heather today: no remorse, really
What kind of a child kills its own mother? What kind of idiots plan a murder over text messages and Facebook — and then abandon all their plans and kill their victim Stone-Age-style instead? What kind of being is it who mumbles “I’m just like Britney Spears” when photographers shoot her picture just after her indictment for murder? What kind of creature was brought into the world when exemplary Black musician Mack conceived a daughter with smart-but-dizzy White liberal Von Weise?

This is a case of regression to the mean — with a vengeance.

What is “regression to the mean”? It is a mathematical concept with profound biological implications. If two people of near-genius — say, 160 — IQ conceive a child, that child will probably have a higher IQ than the average of 100, but it will also likely be less than 160. The child’s IQ, even with such superior parents, will, on average, fall back somewhat toward the average of the race from which both parents and children sprang. This is true of other genetically-determined characteristics as well: height, for example.

Regression to the mean explains why racial mixing between Blacks and Whites — even when the partner who is a member of the lower race is of exceptionally high quality, like James Mack likely was — still produces beings with many of the worst qualities of the Congoid, like Heather Mack.  Even if the father is the world’s only Black expert on Provencal poetry, the children he sires with a White woman revert to somewhere between the White and Black mean — just like children sired by a gang-banger would. His exceptional superiority to other Blacks avails you next to nothing. Regression to the mean explains why such mixing always destroys the qualities of the higher race, qualities that were acquired over tens of thousands of years of natural selection. The intelligent Black manager will produce children, more often than not, who will end up closer to being “aspiring rappers” and Heather Mack clones than to members of their father’s supposedly exalted station.

And a half-Black child — whose features and mentality are almost always closer to its Black side than its White — will instinctively want to congregate and socialize and choose a mate from others of its kind. So we are not at all surprised that, no matter what upper-crust Sheila did, Heather always “ran with a bad crowd.”

Will this kind of result — a Heather Mack kind of result — always happen? No, of course not. But, where racial mixing is tolerated, as in the United States today — and where racial mixing is encouraged, as it is in the Jewish-dominated media today — this kind of result will become a lot more common. And the general decline in morals and intelligence will have innumerable other consequences too, none of them good.

Now, I could give you reasons like this why racial mixing is wrong all day long — practical reasons, ethical reasons, scientific reasons, aesthetic reasons. And they’d all be true.

But the reasons we must oppose racial mixing go far deeper than just preventing murders or making for happier, more successful children, or better marriages, or fulfilling time-honored traditions, or even maintaining our standards of civilization. These deeper reasons are moral reasons; spiritual reasons.

We, as a race, are still evolving. And that means that we are becoming more and more different from the other races of this planet. We are becoming something new. Apollo 11 was just the start, the first faltering step, on an immense journey whose destination we cannot even guess. The best writers and poets of all our greatest ages are just a hint of what is to come. The scientific knowledge of today is just a bare beginning — it is like the first two parallel lines ever drawn, scratched in the sand on the floor of a cave in Europe 50,000 years ago, compared to what will be — if our race survives.

We must, if we intend to continue existing, acknowledge that the African race is, on average, far more primitive than our own. Primitive in appearance — that is obvious — and primitive in its mentality: less able to solve problems, less able to control its own impulses, less able to defer gratification and plan for the future, and less able — probably unable — to maintain, much less advance, either civilization or its own evolutionary grade. Mixing with such a race is suicide for us. Mixing with such a race will destroy who we are and what we are becoming. Destroying our sacred gene-patterns through racial mixing is the ultimate sin. And Sheila Von Weise-Mack paid the wages of that sin with her life.

Syrian Conflict: Identity and Sovereignty Are Winning

via TradYouth

There’s a temptation among activists whose own projects are slow-going in their own country to LARP on behalf of related projects elsewhere. This has gone especially poorly for a Norwegian identitarian radical, Ole Johan Grimsgaard-Ofstad, whose decision to man up and head to Syria to support Assad quickly resulted in his capture. He’s currently for sale on the black market if you’d like to purchase him from ISIS.

We here at TradYouth have done a terrible job of minding our own business when it comes to the Syrian conflict. I’m pretty sure we’re the only group in America which actually held a well-attended street protest in support of Syrian sovereignty against the war hawks. We didn’t jump on a plane to go fight for Assad in the streets like Ole, but we’ve been courageously and relentlessly holding the line in the crucial social media meme front of the war.

Allahu Akbar!

My reasoning for my love affair with the geeky optometrist “Butcher of Damascus” is that the Syrian conflict is the first truly winnable “hot” engagement of the nascent Traditionalist Bloc of nations aligned against the Modernist Bloc in the world order arising in the wake of the defunct Capitalism vs. Communism geopolitical dipole of the late 20th Century. If Assad can win, then indigenous identitarian sovereignty, third positionist domestic policy, and resistance to Zionist domination will achieve its first definitive victory against the capitalist oligarchs to the left (and West) and fundamentalist universalists to the right (and East).

Disheartened by signals from Moscow that their support for Assad was both weak and wavering, I wrote an article last Spring, Syria Needs a Surge, which was essentially an appeal to Russia to recognize the geopolitical importance of the Syrian conflict. While I doubt I have any influence in the Kremlin, it appears my wish is being granted. I’m not saying that the Ukrainian conflict doesn’t matter, but it doesn’t matter nearly as much for Russia’s long-term geopolitical goals as the Syrian conflict. The outcome of the Syrian conflict will determine whether governments the world over turn to and trust the Russians as reliable allies against Western aggression, subversion, and decadence.
Alexander Dugin has led an entire movement of public intellectuals who’ve arrived at a compelling challenge to the Western “liberal” metapolitical vision, offering hope and solidarity to traditional cultures and identities the world over. A lighthouse beacon has been shown for national leaders who don’t wish for their countries to be stripped down and turned into strip malls by Western financiers have a safe harbor.
I pitched the whole thing pretty hard.
Syria presents an ideal test case for the Eurasianist geopolitical alliance. Assad’s a popular, charismatic, and democratically elected statesman who stands for traditional Arab values across religious and sectarian lines. His opponents couldn’t possibly be any more blatantly a mash-up of mercantile mercenary puppets of NATO agitators and cartoonishly villainous Al Qaeda and ISIS extremists.
As a clarification for our Russophobic readers and caution to our Russophilic readers, my support for “Eurasianism” is conditional on its evolution into a global force for identity and tradition. What “Eurasianism” even means remains fluid, and the Syrian conflict is going a long way toward pulling that definition in the right direction. Criticize Putin all you want, but German patriots are shouting in the street, “Putin to Berlin, Merkel to Siberia!” because of his firm position against the frightful economic migrant invasion. American Presidential frontrunner Donald Trump is confirming that Putin is the man to rally behind to defeat ISIS.

I’ve been trying really hard to be skeptical about Vladimir Putin, but he’s making it really difficult at the moment.

Barring a successful assassination of Assad or some other black swan event, I believe the Syrian conflict is going to wrap up within a few months. ISIS specializes in skirmishes and essentially scavenging in power vacuums. It’s adept at whack-a-mole. This big broad global putsch against ISIS that Putin’s embarrassed the world into initiating will do very little to meaningfully damage their network, but it will shuffle them elsewhere long enough to conclude the civil war. They’ll just fall back and pick right back up where they left off in Iraq and elsewhere. ISIS, Al Qaeda, and pals aren’t tied down by the FSA rebels’ urgent requirement to “capture the flag” in Damascus.

Propelled into a full-blown panic by the “refugee” crisis, the European governments are simply not in the mood to humor American and Israeli appeals to stick with the anti-Assad plan. Merkel’s epic blunder blew all of America and Israels’ cards off the table for the nearterm. They no longer care about elaborate geopolitical schemes. They just need Syria stabilized enough to defuse the moral argument for the immigration invasion and (optimistically) even coax some of the ones who are actually Syrian back home.

The shortest and simplest route to a stabilized Syria is keeping Assad in place, applying some pressure on his exhausted regime to play nice with FSA rebels who lay down their arms, and driving ISIS out of the country. Putin has taken the lead in making that a reality, and Europe’s going to go along with it while America and its Israel Lobby grumble and kvetch. It’s too early to break out the party hats and balloons, but it’s looking at this point like Global Tradition, with its identitarianism and third positionism, may be on the brink of a landmark victory.

The smartest thing the Americans could do is publicly and explicitly hand over control of the Syrian situation to Russia, ensuring he’ll have “ownership” of the situation if it doesn’t go well, then immediately invest heavily in confronting the vagrant jihadists in their likely fallback positions outside of Syria. US foreign policy isn’t that smart, and they’ll keep impotently hissing and spitting at Russia, then they’ll be taken entirely by surprise when the jihadists rally in Iraq and elsewhere shortly after slipping out of Syria.

"Majority Rights" Challenges "TradYouth" to Debate the Merits of Christianity for a Whiter Future

via Majority Rights

If a person browses to the TradYouth website, they will be greeted with a gigantic link to ‘the Orthodox Nationalist’, which is a page which blatantly promotes Fr. Matthew Raphael Johnson.

Can the Traditionalist Youth Network explain why the blatantly Christian Fr. Johnson is a guiding influence for them?

And if a person reads through many of the articles being published by TradYouth and the Facebook timeline of its SoCal chapter, the influence of this individual and the body of tradition behind him is clear to see in their writing, because it flows through just about everything they write about.

On their ‘chapters’ page, they have the image of the ‘Christ-chan nun’ wearing a Christian cross, and the image carries the speech bubble, “Will you ‘Deus Vult’ for me?” That is a Christian battle cry from the Middle Ages. My response to their request is “Fuck No”.

The image I’ve inset in this post, and the alternative kind of cross contained in it, can be considered as a thematic counterpoint to theirs.

Before I began to write this article, I did consider sending the people at TradYouth an email privately to ask them about their logic and their behaviour. But then I realised that there is nothing that I would ask them in private that can’t also be asked in public, so I decided that they should be asked publicly for the sake of transparency.

There is also the fact that TradYouth and Majorityrights are not known for being particularly well-disposed toward each other in the first place, and that would have something to do with the fact that on one hand the TradYouth website is plastered with the symbols of Christian Orthodoxy and the sign of the Christian cross, whereas on the other hand here at Majorityrights we carry the logo of the Fleur de Lise which is the symbol of the Royal Secret whose meaning is the same as that of the Cross of Lorraine.

These are clearly not empty stylistic variations, but in fact represent a clear difference in philosophical and spiritual outlook which has manifested in design choices. TradYouth is pro-Christ. Majorityrights is explicitly anti-Christ and will remain so.

Why even ask for a debate, then?

The gulf of difference between our platforms should not be a reason for debates to be avoided. Nor should the fact that these are ‘religious issues’ be a reason to sideline them from discussion within an ethno-nationalist context. Many people in various ethno-nationalist groups have said that having frank and honest conversations about these things ‘should be avoided’ because they can be ‘divisive’. But in life, contradictions cannot really be papered over, they must be dealt with and resolved, and so we should see these differences as an opportunity for conversation rather than a reason for refusing to talk to each other.

Can anyone at TradYouth explain why it is that they think aligning themselves to Russian Orthodox Christianity is helpful to the peoples of Europe at this juncture in history? I would like to hear their explanations or their rationalisations for why they have chosen to endorse Christianity. Doing this openly would enable people to evaluate the arguments and choose for themselves.

As many of our readers may be aware, I criticise Christianity frequently, there’s a whole category for it.

However, there has been relatively little push-back. Christians and their supporters have been quiet. Almost too quiet. Conversation is needed so that ideas can be further explored.

I therefore would like to invite Matthew Heimbach or Matt Parrot to make contact with me, for the purpose of having an amicable interview and debate on the subject of religion.

Of course, I would make no pretence about my intentions, I would hope that I can convince them of the total and abject poverty of the Christian vision of humans and of the world, that Christianity lacks any kind of European core to it, and that it should be jettisoned as soon as possible. I would hope to have a debate in which all doors are barred in advance. The exits marked with excuses such as “it is tradition” and “people feel comfortable in churches” would be barred in advance.

I would also be happy to discuss the content of the book written by Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, ‘For My Legionaries’, with them. Codreanu and the Iron Guard were, despite the appearance of being Orthodox Christians, persons who seem to have managed to cloak pagan and anti-Christian ideas under what appeared at first glance to be a ‘Christian’ symbolism. This was certainly in the 1930s a very tactically astute way of going about their operations.

From reading the book, one can see that Codreanu in fact instructs his followers to openly defy the Abrahamic god for the sake of maintaining the integrity of the Romanian ethnic group and its sovereignty over its own civic space. Under the dogma of Christianity, this in fact would make them effectively non-Christian. In fact, it would not be unreasonable to say that Codreanu’s dismissal of the striving for the heavenly afterlife, and Codreanu’s veneration of a figure that they referred to as ‘the Archangel Michael’ who was responsible for such instructions, was in fact thematically akin to the figure of Lucifer as described by John Milton in ‘Paradise Lost’.

Just as Lucifer in ‘Paradise Lost’ is depicted as asserting that it is better to rule on earth and rule in the underworld than to chase the ephemeral promise of some crumbs from the table in a supposed heaven, so too does Codreanu assert that it is better to defend the nation and be consigned to the coldness of the outer darkness, which is to say, ‘hell’, than it is to be a good Christian and let one’s nation be thoroughly destroyed by liberals and Jews for the mere promise of ‘heaven’.

I would challenge Matthew Heimbach and Matt Parrot to consider that, and evaluate the situation honestly.

Codreanu’s actually-manifest religious views, his laudable dedication to his people was no different than that of the pre-Christian Brythonic pagan religions of the British Isles who believed that everyone goes to one place, the underworld, and that certain geographical sites allowed for close communication with the ancestors who went there, such as perhaps Stonehenge or Newgrange. That is also not very different from those found in Japanese Shintoism, where there is no heavenly reward, there is only the Dark World which stands behind this world. The boundary between this world and the world we can’t see would be thinnest at certain locations such as in the forest at Yomotsu Hirasaka, and many other places around the globe.

With those kind of thoughts, choosing martyrdom when placed into battle is only logical, as there is nothing to lose.

Old framework, new framework

For a while now, pro-Christians have attempted to use Codreanu’s legacy as an excuse to push their false promises of the afterlife and their false morality.

I posit that Codreanu’s legacy should not be understood as an expression of Christianity, and that Codreanu’s politics should instead be interpreted as a vibrant and noteworthy expression of paganism and Luciferianism, which rises against the tyranny of the Judeo-Christian god, and which rises against the flabby pacifistic ideas of Jesus of Nazareth.

People ought to fight against having all of humanity digested and turned into the shit of multi-racial ‘brothers and sisters in Christ’ in the melting-pot of the fleshy bowels of Christ.

In 1930, being tactful about that outlook and cloaking one’s real anti-Christian views, was politically astute given what the social environment was like. In 2015, with Christianity on a steep decline among pretty much everyone in the west in the 18-29 age cohort, I can see no reason whatsoever for why anyone would still be bothering to be Christian, unless they actually believed in Christian nonsense. There is certainly no political gain that can be extracted from such a pretence.

The demographic which Christian culturalists are trying to appeal to, are mostly a demographic who don’t even believe in Christianity in the first place. Christian culturalists are not only wasting everyone’s time, but also spreading Christian values, values which are deeply harmful to ethno-nationalism. If Europeans are moving away from Christianity, no one ought to be inflicting it onto them again. A move away from Christianity is the correct choice.

For anyone who may be rolling their eyes and thinking that this invitation is excessively provocative and radical, you should not regard this as an example of ‘Kumiko being edgy’. No, this idea of ‘pro-Christian vs. anti-Christian’ is a perspective which is thematically salient, because European society has had—broadly speaking—two modes of thought which have been placed in opposition to each other ever since the rise of Christianity.

The famous French poet Charles Pierre Péguy illustrates this in metaphor, which I will excerpt from:
Péguy oeuvres completes 06, page 291 (emphasis):
Les armes de Jésus c’est la croix de Lorraine,
Et le sang dans l’artère et le sang dans la veine,
Et la source de grâce et la claire fontaine;

The weapons of Jesus are the cross of Lorraine,
And the blood in the artery and the blood in the vein,
And the source of grace and the clear fountain;
Les armes de Satan c’est la croix de Lorraine,
Et c’est la même artère et c’est la même veine
Et c’est le même sang et la trouble fontaine;

The weapons of Satan are the cross of Lorraine,
And it’s the same artery and it’s the same vein
And it’s the same blood and the troubled fountain;

Les armes de Jésus c’est l’esclave et la reine
Et toute compagnie avec son capitaine
Et le double destin et la détresse humaine;

The weapons of Jesus are the servant and the queen
And every company with her captain
And the double destiny and the human distress;
Les armes de Satan c’est l’esclave et la reine
Et toute compagnie avec son capitaine
Et le même destin et la même déveine;

The weapons of Satan are the servant and the queen
And every company with her captain
And the same destiny and the same misfortune;
Les armes de Jésus c’est la mort et la vie,
C’est la rugueuse route incessamment gravie,
C’est l’âme jusqu’au ciel insolemment ravie;

The weapons of Jesus are death and life,
It’s the rugged road incessantly climbed,
It’s the soul up till heaven insolently exploited;
Les armes de Satan c’est la vie et la mort,
Le désir et la femme et les dés et le sort
Et le droit du plus dur et le droit du plus fort.

The weapons of Satan are life and death,
Desire, woman, dice and chance
And the right of the toughest and the right of the strongest.
The two divergent paths spring ‘from the same vein’, because it is a choice, a perpetually-existing conjuncture which is placed before people as to what they will fight for, and how they will live their life. Look at it socially.

All of a people’s original and beautiful traditions, along with its natural self-preserving behaviour, have been labelled as both ‘pagan’—a word which literally means ‘non-Christian’—and labelled as ‘satanic’—a word which literally means ‘adversarial [toward Jehovah]’. We live in a world where that dichotomy has been created due of the advent of Christianity.

If someone were to ask me whether I stand with Lucifer—who Christianity, Islam and Judaism would call ‘Satan’—the answer I would give to that question is of course ‘Yes, I stand with Lucifer, I stand with Satan’.

That would in fact be a logical statement, because whosoever takes up arms against Judaism, against Christendom and against Islam, is ipso facto ‘antisemitic’, ‘islamophobic’, ‘pro-pagan’ and ‘satanic’.

There’s nothing wrong with being ‘antisemitic’, ‘islamophobic’, ‘pro-pagan’ and ‘satanic’. There is no reason to bat an eyelid at such labelling.

Importing War and Misery

via Alternative Right

An eerie, frightening expectancy pervades the air as if something terrible is going to happen. Obtuse and naïve people think 'migration' is finite, but it's an ongoing process with our replacement as the aim. This will not be painless yet governments encourage us to think so. We have a frightening future. On 22 August 1998, the newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat quoted Omar Bakri: "I work here in accordance with the covenant of peace which I made with the British government when I got [political] asylum." This covenant allowed Muslim extremists to plan attacks abroad and develop terror networks here. In 1999 it was reported that each year around 2,000 Muslims were trained in Holy War at camps in Britain run by Bakri's organisation al-Muhajiroun.

In Birmingham and London trainees were taught hand-to-hand combat and survival skills. For military training they went to Yemen and Afghanistan. After the London bombings, The Times reported that "a dozen members" of Al-Muhajiroun "have taken part in suicide bombings or have become close to Al-Qaeda and its support network". In January 2007 Bakri revealed that Islamist extremists were infiltrating the police and other public sector organisations. The Daily Mail exposed eight members of al-Qaeda in the Metropolitan Police. How do our elites miss this? Or is it actually something they want?

Muslim terrorists are welcomed into Britain and financed by state benefits. They don't need to answer questions or show papers to get free education and free health care, while they develop terrorist cells and train bombers for active service in other parts of the world. Some have no legal entitlement to enter this country but are allowed to stay; others are given benefits enough to run cars and mobile phones and decorate their houses.

Paul Weston, arrested for quoting Churchill.
In 2012 Avon and Somerset Police warned two EDL members that intelligence had been received of credible death threats, but the police did not have sufficient evidence to arrest the suspects. Recently Liberty GB joined Anne Marie Waters in organising a "Draw Mohammed" cartoon exhibition in London, but police advised the gallery to cancel the event for their own safety. They know a war is coming but victimise those who are trying to stop it. I have personally had the Counter Terrorist Unit try to fit me up on a false charge. My solicitor warned she could not guarantee my safety and advised me to go into hiding. Liberty GB leader Paul Weston was arrested in 2014 for quoting Churchill on Islam.

Sometimes an avalanche is triggered by a sneeze, and not even the biased media can suppress ordinary people when they get angry. By the time the most gullible people have woken up and realised what their leaders are bringing on them and their innocent children, it's going to be horrible. The Hungarians are now doing what any government concerned about the welfare of its people should do, but its use of police, troops, and tear gas will be twisted by the corrupt Western media.

I've been saying this for eight years, but so many are apathetic or have simply been dumbed down and indoctrinated to self-hate. The ones that do know what's going on feel helpless and can only watch in horror, while their nations are being destroyed from within. People think a change of ownership of a country will be like passing the baton in a relay race. But we don't live in such an abstraction, and reality is cruel. Such a change can't happen without bombings, beheadings, and mass rapes of young girls. It is not tolerance that allows this but vile self-destruction engendered in our people by cultural Marxists.

The mass movements of 'refugees' from the Middle East are an ideal way for Islamic State to infiltrate their combatants into Europe as no papers are required and consequently the first batch of IS Infiltrators are now in Europe. The only question is just how soon their first operation will be undertaken. For anyone of common sense or with the ability to connect their experience of life and human nature with the consequences, the damage the effete and decadent are causing is horrific, and the future is alarming.

"ISIS welcome here."
If we know this, then how much more do the cowardly politicians know? David Cameron and Theresa May have regular meetings and briefings with the top spy chiefs. Civil war is when territories where people live are riven by hatred, killings, misery, and suffering. This is what the politicians, journalists, academics and celebs have brought on innocent people. They have also reintroduced the persecution of Jews. They are very evil people: the murder of Lee Rigby is directly the result of politicians importing terrorists, and they bear personal responsibility for it and all other such crimes.

Confused philosopher Roger Scruton told a recent Traditional Britain Group meeting that these people should be assimilated and we should build houses on countryside for them. What fool who objects to the shortage of housing then accepts we import thousands of migrants? There are thousands of homeless families in the UK who are not helped, including ex-service folk, whom the evil elites ignore or penalise. Economic migrants receive far more concern and help from the state and from unrealistic and emotional people because they benefit global corporations who pay little tax and want cheap labour. They get housed and fed while many of our homeless and ex-soldiers are left hungry on the streets. They are given preferential treatment by the left-wing powers that be over our own veterans who fought for our nation.

Scruton, in favour of ASS-imilation.
The arbiters of opinion include the degenerates of the pop music industry. Bob Geldof, a man who could not even bring his own family up properly, is advising us on how to conduct ourselves!

The pictures of the migrants show few weeping mothers with small children (even if we count the ones that are staged), but innumerable adult males of military fighting age, between 18 and 35. Why didn't they stay and fight for their country's freedom? This isn't just a humanitarian crisis, it's being used to implement a passive-aggressive invasion of Western nations that Muslims call jihad.

Cultural Marxism is based on scapegoating White people for the inability of other peoples to look after themselves. It's quite deliberate. Muslims have probably been instructed by leaders in mosques to travel to Western nations to infiltrate them. So don't be fooled by sentimental manipulation by the media. What will stop the children of refugees becoming fighters against us? Our leaders say our culture will rub off on them, but our culture is being degraded into porn, pop music and televised sport, and Muslims are already actively rejecting it.

Cultural Marxists don't care that the outcome will be the loss of innocent European lives. Their original ideology completely failed as an ideology. Neo-liberal jurisprudence has created a fascistic system where no one can complain, and only one opinion is allowed. It is succeeding in outlawing the nation state and destroying it through globalisation.

Merkel: not interested in removing kebab.
Angela Merkel should have gone long ago. If ever there was a time to get out of the EU this is it. The migrant flood that is here will have to be dealt with. We are going to have to round them all up and process them, and assign them to camps or settlements in the interim, or else we will be victims of a variety of evils. It's a myth that the Cold War ended in 1991 with the collapse of the USSR. The minds of Merkel and other Western leaders were shaped by the ideological arguments of the '60s, '70s and '80s. The decisions they take now as leaders can only be understood when viewed in that light.

I am appalled at their foolishness. "No limit to the number of refugees" has turned Germany into a horror story. These invaders on our streets must be amazed at our feeble, girly leaders, inviting them in and giving them benefits, and the childish fools who invite them into their homes, risking rape, beheading, bombing, or being taken hostage.

Our evil, "useful idiot" politicians should be held accountable. First, it was their illegal wars that initiated this opportunity for invasion, and then it was this mad opening of the borders with no previous plans or foresight in creating holding camps for these people. By the time even the most gullible people have woken up and realised the name of the game, we'll be damned to unnecessary misery, deaths, and the sad tears of widows and mothers. The cultural Marxist, globalist master-plan to destroy national identity is in full swing. I'm not sure it can be stopped by democratic means.

According to the UN there are six million displaced people within Syria, three million refugees who have fled and 230,000 dead. These numbers represent a potential war for Europe. It's a disaster in the making, as happened in Kosovo when Serbs suddenly found themselves outnumbered and abandoned. Europeans don't understand how this works, as they are too long away from what their colonial days taught them about the huge rift between the advanced West and other cultures. It's going to create havoc, and that is why the borders are being closed now, because even neo-liberals are panicking.

German friendliness to the Muslim World
goes back a surprisingly long way.
This is Schengen's first real test and it has failed. This influx of economic migrants has highlighted just how foolish a borderless Europe is. Germany was the first country to 'suspend' Schengen, now other countries are following. If the 20,000 who turned up in Munich recently are genuine refugees then surely they would have been just as safe in Greece as they are in Munich. Why didn't they stay there? Or in Macedonia, Serbia, Hungary or Austria? This is because they are in fact asylum freebooters who ceased to be refugees once they left the first safe country they came to.

Britain is small, and, like Scruton, our useless leaders want to destroy our countryside for the benefit of immigrants. We have enough already without adding to the problem with 'refugees' who will bring their religion and culture with them, and then, with the help of Marxists and middle class liberals, force us to tolerate the changes made to benefit them, as well as the costs of housing, hospital places, schools, and welfare, which will all be loaded onto the backs of our children and grandchildren yet unborn.

Another trick is to propagandise each new influx as if there were no existing problem. Emotive language and emotional blackmail must be resisted, we must be numb to sentimental slush about those who should not be here. Instead of feeling sorrow, get angry when our MPs bring in immigrants or 'refugees,' and give them preferential treatment without the explicit consent of the people to do so. In fact, they impose them on us to destroy our communities while they are free from the inconvenience. It's just been reported that there are zero in Cameron's constituency, while the 20,000 he has agreed to take are being sent up north to working-class areas.

There are the obtuse and timid who reply, "It's too late", not realising this is process that has our replacement as its end. They think the overthrow of reason and simple emotional gushing means they have higher morals, but if their assumptions are challenged they resort to insults and use deceitful propaganda.

The police appear to be in league with Muslim extremists, and although we may disagree over their motives the intentions are plain. I do not accept the standard explanation that the Ideological Caste are just making mistakes or do not realise what they are doing. They might be frightened or decadent but they know exactly what their actions are leading to.

The traditional elites are actively promoting Islamification, and the socialist elites are in league with Muslim extremists. What holds these different elites together is their sharing of central ideas in their ideologies, 'anti-racism' being the main one. The trick is attacking 'racists' or 'far-right extremists' to take the public eye off Muslim extremists. To put it bluntly, they are creating a war for the ownership of our homeland and stealing our children's inheritance.

The Daily Telegraph of August 10th 2009 revealed that the new security "[s]trategy to tackle extremists [is] to focus on white racists." At the same time Scotland Yard warned that such groups could be planning a terrorist "spectacular" to stoke up racial tensions. This was a clear sign by Commander Shaun Sawyer of the new policy of enabling Muslims to carry on developing their terror structures while security services focus on Whites. I'm sure you can see the partiality in that.

In 2002 Louis Michel, then Belgian minister of foreign affairs, told the Belgian parliament that the EU will eventually encompass North Africa and the Middle East as well as Europe. An open plan for a "Mediterranean Union" which will include all EU member states, Mauritania, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, Lebanon, Syria and Turkey was launched in mid-2008, under some concern among Arabs that such a union might normalise their relationship with Israel.

Clear to see which side the establishment is on.
Concurrently, plans have been made for the creation of a "north-south co-presidency" of the EU, a permanent secretariat, and a shortlist of priority projects for the region. The European Commission has proposed the creation of a co-presidency between the EU and a group of Mediterranean (Muslim) countries as part of something called the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership. Incidentally, there is also an EU-Africa Union. Given the tendencies of our leaders, these sinister agreements need careful examining by a trained legal mind.

Islamist ideas are also being spread through Islamic study centres attached to our universities. In 2008 Professor Anthony Glees revealed that eight universities – including Oxford and Cambridge – had accepted more than £233.5 million from Saudi and other Muslim sources since 1995, spreading radicalism and creating separate allegiances for our academic elites. More generally the education system is being used to brainwash our children to excuse and encourage Muslim terrorism.

As far back as 1999 it was reported that around 2,000 British Muslims were being trained in British terror camps, mainly in London and Birmingham. As well as studying Holy War the trainees were taught hand-to-hand combat, survival skills, and advised to get real military training in war zones like the Yemen and Afghanistan.

Why did our security services not see this coming? The Muslim community shelters extremists, an 'enemy within' that does not have to invade because it was imported by our elites, who continue to pour taxpayers' money into their communities in Bradford, Burnley, Oldham, Keighley and elsewhere. Anyone protesting peacefully or opposing Islamification is labelled 'far-right' and spied on by the so-called security services. European governments are collaborating with an Islamic invasion force, so their legitimacy is void. There may come a time when we have no choice but to set up community defence militias to protect our people. And Merkel, Cameron and their cultural Marxist collaborators should be tried for treason.