Oct 5, 2015

The National Revolution of 1940

via Counter-Currents

Translator’s Note: The following extracts are translated from Dominique Venner’s Histoire de la Collaboration (Paris: Gérard Watelet/Pygmalion, 2000), 103-12. The early hopes of the French State of Vichy offer a striking example of how rapidly a corrupt old order, in this case the Third Republic, can be discredited and overturned. These events are also an example of the power of ideas. The National Revolution never had the means to fulfill its promises – France having three-fifths of her territory occupied, paying crushing reparations to the conquerors, and under constant threat of British and German attack – but that is neither here nor there. The title is editorial.

After the disaster of June 1940, the former regime,[1] already strongly contested during the previous years, lost all credibility and legitimacy. A veritable fever for change, but also for reprisals against those presumed guilty for the war and the defeat, took hold in a part of the country. Parliamentarians of the Third Republic, Freemasons, and Jews were denounced pell-mell. It is from this trauma that emerged the Vichy regime, the National Revolution, the laws of exclusion [against Freemasons and Jews], and Collaboration. [. . .]

The historian is spoiled for choice in citing the best minds of the time, expressing their disgust for the former regime and their hope in a radical change. It is from this that the “National Revolution” was born, more by spontaneous generation than deliberate intention. “My consolation,” wrote [the playwright] Paul Claudel in August 1940, “is to see the end of this vile parliamentary regime which, for many long years devoured France like a metastasized cancer. It’s finished for the Popular Front, the CGT, the marches with raised fists, the strikes, the manifestos signed pell-mell by the communists and Catholics, of the squalid tyranny of bistrots, Freemasons, metics, hall-monitors, and professors . . .”[2]

Awareness of French decadence had long existed. It went back to the other great defeat, that of 1870 which had inspired Renan to write his damning Réforme intellectuelle et morale de la France. The hard-won victory of 1918 had, for a time, made people forget the reality of a slow erosion of French energies, until the crisis of the 1930s reawakened them. It was first of all evident in the collapse of fertility: 518,000 births in 1940, whereas there had still been 1,022,000 in 1876. In the face of 80 million Germans, France, which on the eve of the Revolution [of 1789] had been the most populous nation of Europe, had only 41 million inhabitants, including 2.5 million foreigners. This collapse in vitality was felt by the more lucid as a crisis of civilization, worse, an admission of decline. They sometimes looked with a sympathy mixed with anxiety towards Italian Fascism, or even towards German National Socialism. For many of them, the collapse of the Third Republic was the conclusion of an old deterioration which they had condemned. Even before the defeat, a mind as subtle as Jean Giraudoux, appointed Commissioner for Information by Daladier on the eve of the war, wrote without causing a scandal: “The country will only be provisionally saved by armed borders: It can only be definitively saved by the French race, and we are in full agreement with Hitler in proclaiming that a policy reaches its superior form only if it is racial, because that was also the thought of Colbert and Richelieu.”[3]

For the more audacious minds, the defeat created a paradoxically thrilling situation, that of the tabula rasa. The old world was torn down. All was to be rebuilt, everything seemed possible. “The month of June 1940 has marked the history of our country with a crisis before which everyone today must man their post,” wrote Emmanuel Mounier of the magazine Esprit[4] in November 1940. “All of the slogans spread today among the youth of France in a pledge of hope, [. . .] we have been going further and spreading them for years. [. . .] Amidst the dust raised by the collapse of a world, in the inextricable confusion of what is already being born and what is still dying, a few expressions of life emerge in which we recognize the dominant traits of our heritage: The struggle against individualism, the sense of responsibility, the sense of community, the restoration of the role of the leader, a renewed sense of the nation. [. . .] That all these expressions are still tied up here and there with contradictions, is that a reason to distance ourselves, we who had been among the first to proclaim them, from this living adventure which they will now inaugurate? Certainly not.”

It is difficult to see something other in this text, at this date, than an implicit rally to what would soon be called the National Revolution. Nothing in these lines prefigures a future dissidence, rather everything suggests a will to participate in a resurrection. There is also no trace of the bitterness of a vengeful right, to which Mounier was perfectly foreign.[5] [. . .]

The General Discredit of the Old Regime

In November 1940, [Henri] Frenay[6] published a Manifesto where the appeal to a revanche was still compatible with approval of “all the great reforms” of the National Revolution. The text states that: “Jews will serve in our ranks if indeed they have fought in one of the wars,” a restriction which coincided with the provisions in the first Statute on Jews of October 3, 1940. The Manifesto concludes with these words: “May Marshal Pétain live long enough to witness the crowning achievement of our struggle.”[7]

The influence of the National Revolution was felt as far as London among those close to General de Gaulle. On January 18, 1941, the leader of Free France sent a questionnaire to all the members of his Conseil de la défense de l’Empire on the political orientation of the movement. General Catroux, Admiral Muselier, General de Larminat, Governor-General Éboué, Physician-General Sicé, René Cassin, Navy Captain d’Argenlieu, and Colonel Leclerc were consulted.

What should be done if the Vichy government were to move to North Africa to resume the armed struggle against Germany? Their answers can seem surprising today. In such a hypothesis, the leaders of Free France said that they would recognize the authority of the Marshal and his government. They would get over the Statute on Jews and the anti-republican measures. These also did not seem to trouble the future General Leclerc, a disciple of Charles Maurras, who defined his personal program thus: “Eliminate all the men responsible for the defeat by their prewar policy. Eliminate all political parties. Promise to conserve some of Marshal Pétain’s useful measures, in particular those which strengthen central authority and promote the family.”[8]

The discrediting of the former parties and disgraced politicians was such that resistance movement would almost always remain hostile to them. This would be one of the causes of conflict with Jean Moulin who, despite the opinion of his movements, would return to the parties an unhoped-for legitimacy by imposing their presence with the National Council of the Resistance (CNR). In a message addressed to London in November 1943, the executive board of the MUR [United Movements of the Resistance] and of the Central Committee of the Resistance expressed their dismay: “The presence in Algiers of certain political personalities we had thought to be permanently removed from the political scene (Pierre Cot, Queuille, Mendès France, Vincent Auriol) has made a very unfortunate impression even among the militants of the Resistance.”[9]

Delusions and Realities of the National Revolution

In the second quarter of 1940, despite the chaotic situation which followed the defeat and despite the occupation of the northern zone, France entered for a certain time into a revolution. A cold, cautious revolution, without the guillotine, a revolution from above and limited from above, without vociferous mobs, but a revolution still. What other word can be used when such a sudden and complete reversal of values occurs, such a clean institutional break accompanied by a set of reforms which overturn the political scene? What other word could be adequate when there was such a large turnover in leadership positions? And when there was a (bloodless) purge of categories deemed most representative of the deceased system, Jews and Freemasons?

Certainly, many artisans of this revolution stemmed from the old regime. That had already been the case in the time of the first French Revolution. [. . .]

It is in his doctrinal message of October 11, 1940, prepared by [Gaston] Bergery, that Marshal Pétain used for the first time the word “revolution.” Everything suggests that he did not like the word. Yet, he repeated it four times to characterize the “new order” to be built. A firm, voluntarist text, arguing for an authoritarian State prevailing against private interests and for a vigorous modernization of the economy. A text in no way reactionary or clerical, which already expressed the hope in a Franco-German collaboration in the new Europe.

Later, Pétain would only rarely refer to the National Revolution, an expression coined in 1924 by Georges Valois, in the days of the Faisceau,[10] as the title of one of his essays. The idea of revolution, even a national one, was quite foreign to the Marshal, a man of order above all. Laval, for his part, as an old republican, was irritated by it. He would hurry to bury it upon his return to power in April 1942. Neglected by the founders of the new regime, the National Revolution was nonetheless a very real aspiration in 1940, an aspiration followed by effects.

Recalling Maurras’ exclamation hailing the birth of the Pétainist State as a “divine surprise,” the historians of Vichy typically write at length on the influence that the old Action française is supposed to have had on the National Revolution. And no doubt this influence must be taken into account, even though the movement was already on the decline. [. . .] This influence must therefore be put in perspective relative to that of others, particularly of the left, too often ignored. Former communists were present at Vichy [. . .]. Socialists and trade-unionists were also numerous [. . .].

Many of the reforms of the time – pensions for seniors, the May 1 holiday, sports education in schools, health check-ups in schools, the first university cafeterias, medical colleges, demographic studies, the system of advances on receipts for films, would survive the Liberation or would be adapted to the needs of the cause, such as the comité social d’entreprise instituted by the Labor Charter of October 4, 1941. Its creation is prescribed for all companies of more than 100 employees to manage social works and rule on disagreements between employers and employees. [. . .]

It is at this time that a real policy of national solidarity was developed to help those made homeless by the war and the disadvantaged. It relied upon Secours national,[11] an organization founded in 1914 to help populations who had suffered from the war, reconstituted in October 1939 and placed under the authority of Marshal Pétain by a decree of October 4, 1940. It appealed for an abundant charity effort. This policy was launched by the Marshal’s appeal in favor of the Winter Relief on November 11, 1940. The appeal was spread in all schools so that pupils could participate in the collection and storing of clothes. Its organizer in the Paris region was the philanthropist Gabriel Cognacq, president of the Samaritaine [department store]. Secours national’s first appraisal, published in 1941 for the occupied zone alone, indicates that it distributed to war-homeless and refugees 65,000 pieces of furniture, 40,000 cookers, and more than a million pieces of kitchenware. It also served 40 million rations in 3,700 school cafeterias. During that same winter, community restaurants, the “Rescos,” prefiguring the “Restos du cœur,”[12] fed 200,000 destitute Parisians.

Much later, in his Mémoires de Guerre, General de Gaulle himself would credit the Vichy regime for having wanted to “renovate the economy in order that it serve the community before providing profits for private interests [. . .]. If, in the financial and economic area, its technocrats acted with undeniable skill, in addition, the social doctrines of the “national revolution” – corporate organization, labor charter, promotion of the family – included ideas that were not without appeal.”[13] [. . .]

The regime born of the disaster of 1940 and of the bankruptcy of the Third Republic was authoritarian, at once traditionalist and planiste.[14] It was antiliberal and communitarian, but was certainly not “fascist.” It relied upon the Church, the great bodies of the State, and the prefects, which it declined to replace by those “totalitarian” institutions which are for example the single party and the single youth group. It granted on the contrary a more important role for clerical influences and for Catholic action groups in the education of the youth and in the School, normally the sole preserve of any fascist regime. The press itself, in the free zone, despite the exceptional circumstances of the war, retained a relatively pluralist character. Nonetheless the “values” put forward by the “night of August 4”[15] of July 10, 1940[16] were a radical break with parliamentary democracy and Anglo-Saxon liberalism. Training leaders for example became one of the recurring themes of the National Revolution, along with devotion to the country and self-sacrifice. The ideas inspiring the time were drawn from the common foundations of the ideas of the “third way,” on which fascism did not have a monopoly [. . .]. 

If the Vichy regime was not fascist, a number of “national revolutionaries” of the year 1940 dreaming of a sort of French fascism gravitated around it and were often opposed to it. But that is not the same thing.

Notes:
1. Venner here repeatedly uses the expression ancien régime, normally used for the pre-1789 monarchy. – GD
2. Quoted by Gérald Antoine, Paul Claudel (Robert Laffont, 1988), 320. Despite his anti-Nazism and his later rallying to Gaullism, Paul Claudel seems to prefigure the words that Alfred Rosenberg, the National Socialist theorist, would state in Paris, at the Palais Bourbon, on November 28, 1940: “Whatever opinion the French may have on the great defeat of 1940, they will admit one day, if they are honest, that the German army defeated the French army but at the same time Germany liberated the French people from its parasites which it had not been able to free itself from by its own means.” (Quoted by Alfred Fabre-Luce, Anthologie de la nouvelle Europe [Paris: Plon, 1942], 257-58.)
3. Jean Giraudoux, Pleins pouvoirs (Gallimard, 1939).
4. An iconoclastic publication not sympathetic to fascism and later banned by Vichy. – GD
5. Venner is referring to the mainstream interpretation of the National Revolution as motivated by the revenge a bitter, reactionary Right long-suffering under the Third Republic. – GD
6. Later a prominent member of the Resistance. – GD
7. This Manifesto, rediscovered by Daniel Cordier in the National Archives and published in Le Monde of November 7, 1989, sparked a big kerfuffle [. . .].
8. Quoted by Daniel Cordier.
9. Quoted by Henri Noguères, Histoire de la Résistance (Robert Laffont), volume III, 144.
10. A short-lived French fascist party directly inspired by Italian Fascism. – GD
11. National Relief. – GD
12. Contemporary French soup kitchens. – GD
13. Charles de Gaulle, Mémoires de Guerre (Plon, 1989, single-volume edition), 690-691.
14. That is, undertaking state-led modernization plans. – GD
15. A key moment of the 1789 French Revolution, during which the self-proclaimed Constituent Assembly abolished the old feudal privileges. – GD
16. The day the Third Republic’s National Assembly overwhelmingly voted to give the pleins pouvoirs to Marshal Pétain – in effect making him an emergency dictator in the Roman tradition – and, though there is controversy on this, empowering him with constituent powers to shape a new regime. – GD

How Muslims Did Not Invent Algebra

via Enza Ferreri

Continuing on the theme of what Muslims did - or more likely did not do - for the world, there is a widespread misconception that they "invented algebra". Maybe this fallacy is due to the fact that "algebra" is a word of Arabic origin, but historical questions are not solved by etymological answers.

Yes, the English word "algebra" derives from the Arabic. So does "sugar" (from the Arabic "sukkar") but that doesn't mean that Muslims invented sugar.

The word "algebra" stems from the Arabic word "al-jabr", from the name of the treatise Book on Addition and Subtraction after the Method of the Indians written by the 9th-century Persian mathematician Muhammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī, who translated, formalized and commented on ancient Indian and Greek works.

It is even doubtful whether al-Khwārizmī was really a Muslim. The Wikipedia entry on him says:
Regarding al-Khwārizmī's religion, Toomer writes:

"Another epithet given to him by al-Ṭabarī, "al-Majūsī," would seem to indicate that he was an adherent of the old Zoroastrian religion. This would still have been possible at that time for a man of Iranian origin, but the pious preface to al-Khwārizmī's Algebra shows that he was an orthodox Muslim, so al-Ṭabarī's epithet could mean no more than that his forebears, and perhaps he in his youth, had been Zoroastrians."
In all likelihood he was a Zoroastrian who was forced to convert (or die) by Muslim rulers because Persia had been conquered by the Islamic armies and that was what Muslims did (and still do wherever they can). That could easily explain the "pious preface to al-Khwārizmī's Algebra".

Wikipedia also says:
In Renaissance Europe, he [al-Khwārizmī] was considered the original inventor of algebra, although it is now known that his work is based on older Indian or Greek sources.
There is archaeological evidence that the roots of algebra date back to the ancient Babylonians, then developed in Egypt and Greece. The Chinese and even more the Indians also advanced algebra and wrote important works on the subject.

The Alexandrian Greek mathematician Diophantus (3rd century AD), sometimes called "the father of algebra", wrote a series of books, called Arithmetica, dealing with solving algebraic equations. Another Hellenistic mathematician who contributed to the progress of algebra was Hero of Alexandria, as did the Indian Brahmagupta in his book Brahmasphutasiddhanta.

With the Italian Leonardo Pisano (known as Leonardo Fibonacci, as he was the son of Bonacci) in the 13th century, another Italian mathematician, Girolamo Cardano, author in 1545 of the 40-chapter masterpiece Ars magna ("The great art"), and the late-16th-century French mathematician François Viète, we move from the prehistory of algebra to the beginning of the classical discipline of algebra.

Even Bertrand Russell, who in no way is a critic of the Islamic world, writes in the Second Volume of The History of Western Philosophy:
Arabic philosophy is not important as original thought. Men like Avicenna and Averroes are essentially commentators. Speaking generally, the views of the more scientific philosophers come from Aristotle and the Neoplatonists in logic and metaphysics, from Galen in medicine, from Greek and Indian sources in mathematics and astronomy, and among mystics religious philosophy has also an admixture of old Persian beliefs. Writers in Arabic showed some originality in mathematics and in chemistry--in the latter case, as an incidental result of alchemical researches.

Mohammedan civilization in its great days was admirable in the arts and in many technical ways, but it showed no capacity for independent speculation in theoretical matters. Its importance, which must not be underrated, is as a transmitter. Between ancient and modern European civilization, the dark ages intervened. The Mohammedans and the Byzantines, while lacking the intellectual energy required for innovation, preserved the apparatus of civilization--education, books, and learned leisure. Both stimulated the West when it emerged from barbarism--the Mohammedans chiefly in the thirteenth century, the Byzantines chiefly in the fifteenth. In each case the stimulus
produced new thought better than any produced by the transmitters--in the one case scholasticism, in the other the Renaissance (which however had other causes also).
You can see that to say that Muslims invented or pioneered algebra is a gross misrepresentation.

In conclusion, there are various attempts at historical revisionism as far as Islamic contributions to the world are concerned. These attempts are more political propaganda than academic scholarship. After all, taqiyya, lying to the infidels to advance Allah's cause, is permitted, and even prescribed, to Muslims, and jihad does not just consist in violent aggression or terror attacks: it can be gradual, by stealth, through indoctrination and false reassurance.

“The Lobby-That-Doesn’t-Exist”: Politicians and Pundits on Jewish Influence in France

via The Occidental Observer

French President François Mitterrand
spoke of “a powerful and
harmful Jewish lobby”
There are few things as difficult to talk about as Jewish elites and Jewish ethnocentrism (which, translated into left-wing parlance, could be termed “Jewish privilege and Jewish racism”). For the French case, Paul-Éric Blanrue (see my previous article on his work) usefully documents the numerous cases in which various prominent figures and journalists have spoken of Jewish ethnocentrism or “the Jewish lobby.”

Jewish influence is typically remarked upon by bragging activist Jews, by senior politicians near death, by uncritical commentators, or by critical commentators who, being swiftly punished, usually learn to keep quiet. The penalty for criticism, universal ostracism, is such that Blanrue speaks of “the-lobby-that-doesn’t-exist”: the lobby that everyone knows about and everyone knows must never be spoken about (lest they find themselves in the dock with Alain Soral and Dieudonné M’bala M’bala).

But prominent figures have spoken of Jewish power in France despite this threat. In 1995, President François Mitterrand, near the end of his life and on his last day in office, referred in private to “the powerful and harmful influence of the Jewish lobby in France.”[1] Mitterrand was specifically referring to the constant politico-media pressure that has made the Shoah “the official religion of the French Republic” (in the words of Jewish pundit Éric Zemmour[2]).

In 2007, former Prime Minister Raymond Barre, also close to death, told a radio station: “The Jewish lobby, not only concerning myself, is able to organize operations which are disgraceful. And I want to say it publicly!”[3] Left-wing and media Jews had called Barre an anti-Semite for a slip of the tongue following the 1980 Paris synagogue bombing. In the heat of the moment, he had said the attack had killed both “Jews” and “innocent Frenchmen,” seeming to insinuate the Jews were not innocent. Many Jews and leftists did not accept his swift apology on the matter, exploiting the incident for ideological and political gain.

The early 2000s saw increasing discussion of “the Jewish lobby” by various public figures and journalists, particularly with the steady rise to the presidency of Nicolas Sarkozy, who was more overtly pandering to Jewish groups than was traditionally the case in French politics. The homosexual billionaire and co-owner of the liberal Le Monde newspaper Pierre Bergé, who cannot be suspected of anti-Semitism, wrote in a 2001 book:
[There is] a certain Jewish lobby, whose obvious existence, I do not know why, is denied [ . . .] — [despite the fact] it presents itself as such — and which is as legitimate or illegitimate as the Protestant lobby, the gay lobby, the farmers’ lobby, or the feminist lobby.[4]
The statement clearly reflected the fact that Bergé as a high-level oligarch had had dealings with organized Jewish networks, whose legitimacy he does not contest, and had evidently been told not to discuss it. Similarly, the prominent writer and former center-right MP Dominique Jamet had also spoken of “a Jewish lobby” in France. The journalist Élisabeth Schemla said the reaction to Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ had revealed “the birth of a Jewish lobby, in the full and respectable sense of the term.”[5]

In another register, Algerian Minister for Veterans Cherif Abbés blamed Sarkozy’s election on “the Jewish lobby, which has the monopoly on industry in France,”[6] an overstatement. Conversely, Jewish groups have occasionally bragged about being a lobby, as, for example, when the Union of Jewish Professionals of France (UPJF) gave an award to Sarkozy in 2006 for his work at improving relations between Paris, Washington, and Jerusalem.[7] In short, an ethnic lobby was openly working to distort French foreign policy to better serve perceived Jewish-Zionist interests.

Some Jews have been concerned that the lobby has become too overt. Julien Dray, a Jewish Socialist politician and the founder of SOS Racisme (a Socialist-aligned NGO designed to rabble-rouse Blacks and Arabs, and censor Whites), said in 2008:
We need to get out of this lobby logic and behave in a republican manner. Because if we are going towards a battle between lobbies, the Jewish lobby will lose. [. . .] I think there is a temptation in the community, these past years, to transpose the American model. This is a mistake: The Jewish community must keep its republican traditions and reject communitarianism.[8]
Incidentally, Dray had previously served as Socialist presidential candidate Ségolène Royal’s spokesman and his brother lives in Israel. His comments were made specifically at a time when Sarkozy, as both candidate and later as president, had successfully wooed many Jewish organizations who had traditionally sided with the left. Indeed, Blanrue compares French presidential candidates’ appearing at the Radio J Dinner, an event organized by a Jewish radio station, to American presidential hopefuls’ tradition of groveling before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

Dray’s criticism was a friendly, “internal” one and so was tolerated. The Egyptian-cosmopolitan “Islamologist” Tariq Ramadan[9] was in contrast strongly attacked for pointing out that ethnic bias motivated the pro-Israeli and anti-Palestinian position of many Jewish intellectuals:
Whether on domestic issues (the struggle against anti-Semitism) or on the international stage (the defense of Zionism), we are witnessing the emergence of a new attitude among certain intellectuals who are omnipresent on the media scene. It is legitimate to ask what principles and what interests they are defending above all. We clearly see that their political position responds to ethnic principles [principes communautaires], as Jews, or as nationalists, as defenders of Israel.[10]
Ramadan was roundly attacked — pointing out that some Jews are strongly influenced by their ethnic biases was considered “anti-Semitic” — and has since learned to stick to safer targets, such as indigenous Europeans. On the recent migrant invasion of Europe, he declared: “Europe needs immigrants. [. . .] White Switzerland [. . .] belongs to the past.”[11] Ramadan happily lives in Switzerland but, evidently, feels only contempt for the native population who has been gracious enough to host him.

The point is that all of these politicians and pundits have found that one could not seriously discuss the events of elite French national life without discussing the influence — at times subdued and in the background, at times frenetic and manifest — of Jewish legal, political, and cultural networks. What’s more, a number of Jewish media figures, such as Pierre-André Taguieff, Benard-Henri Lévy, Alain Finkielkraut, and Ruth Elkrieff, have on various occasions shut down any discussion of Jewish racism and influence.

How to speak about Jewish power?

Blanrue’s two books on Jewish influence are not entirely satisfactory in framing the issue, although this is perhaps understandable given the nature of French censorship legislation.[12] Sarkozy, the more moderate work, declines to use the term “Jewish lobby” and the euphemisms are sometimes frustrating. The more virile Jean-Marie is freer and more biting.[13] Blanrue argues Jewish influence is a legitimate question because:
Despite the silence of media professionals, the question of Jewish influence in France, whether concerning the presidential elections or any other event, remains relevant because of the size of the French Jewish community (the third in the world, making up about 600,000 people and placing it quantitatively just behind those of Israel and the United States), because of its media visibility, of the political, cultural, and economic weight which is ascribed to it, and also because of the stated objectives of some of its most prominent representatives.[14]
Blanrue however declines to use the term “Jewish lobby” because this would suggest ordinary Jews are guilty of the crimes of their elites and that, in any case, in France the use of this expression provokes too much emotion to allow for serene, rational discussion.[15]

Blanrue also declines to use the term “Zionist lobby,” although one wonders why. He cites Patrick Klugman, former head of the Union of Jewish Students of France (UEJF), a Socialist politician, and lawyer for SOS Racisme defending the hysterical FEMEN and persecuting nationalists, saying:
Zionism is what today links the greater part of the Jewish people, the Israeli component and the diaspora component. It is a kind of relationship between periphery and center. The center of the Jewish people, as much in demographic and in cultural terms with the rebirth of Hebrew, is in Israel. There are also other peripheral centers: France is one, the United States is another. When I meet an Argentinian Jew, there is a two-thirds probability that we be linked by a feeling of common belonging to a history and a project. Neither of us may be Israeli, but there is a fundamental cultural and ideological link which is Israel. [. . .] Whatever one’s feeling on Israeli policy, there is a link not of citizenship but of ideology, which we call Zionism.[16]
Klugman then starkly presents a kind of psychic and ideological unity binding the world’s Jews together, despite an infinitesimal minority of dissenters.
In any event, Blanrue prefers the term “Zionist networks”:
For my part, I prefer to speak of Zionist networks, or better still of pro-Israeli networks, a terminology which seems to me to better reflect reality in all its complexity [. . .]. The difference ? Networks are potential power lobbies, but not necessarily acting ones. Networks overlap, crisscross, sometimes join forces, compete, promote their interests, but there is no concerted strategy, no central command unit for the whole; networks can show differences. There is no hidden HQ, no “protocols” written by candle-lit men in hoods, during secret meetings in the underworld of the great capitals of the world. Let us leave these ideas of another time to professional conspiracy theorists, hungry for fantasy and secrets.
On the other hand, I will be led to mention and denounce the takeover that some these groups have achieved over the Jewish community, a sort of hostile takeover which contributes to spreading in an misinformed public opinion the idea that “the Jews” speak with one voice.[17]
Suffice to say that Jews in France are massively over-represented in the French political, cultural, legal, and oligarchic apparatus. This, in and of itself, means power in France is distorted by Jewish ethnic biases and perceived interests.[18] What’s more, these elites form specific networks that are often highly ethnically-conscious and work to promote particular ends, such as support for Israel, the sacralization of the Shoah, the persecution of the Front National, official censorship and informal ostracism of the politically incorrect, and so on.

Blacks and Muslims: Not as Protected as the “Vanguard of the Republic”

Prime Minister Manuel Valls tells French TV: “The Shoah must be sacred.”
Prime Minister Manuel Valls tells French TV: “The Shoah must be sacred.”

Blanrue also usefully documents the double standard whereby French public discourse accepts some criticism of Islam, immigration, and Gypsies, while being completely intolerant of any criticism of Jews and the Shoah-as-religion meme. This discrepancy in itself highlights Jewish cultural power.

Here it is probably useful to point out that Blanrue apparently converted to Islam in 2009.[19] Nonetheless, he is critical of immigration.[20] This is part of a wider trend among French writers, such as Alain Soral[21] and perhaps Michel Houellebecq,[22] who see Islam as a potential ally in restoring tradition and destroying Jewish-Zionist influence in France. Indeed, there is a tradition of dissident French writers converting to Islam, such as the traditionalist philosopher René Guénon and the revisionist historian Roger Garaudy.

In any event, Blanrue’s compilation of Islamophobic and “racist” statements shows the superior protection enjoyed by Jews in French public discourse.[23] Blanrue provides the following list:
  • Former President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing warning of an “immigration invasion” in 1991; the right-wing writer Renaud Camus warning of immigration leading to “le Grand Remplacement” (“the Great Displacement”) and later being purged for noticing Jews occupied all positions in a public radio show dedicated to “French culture”;
  • Houellebecq’s stating in 2001 that “the dumbest religion, it has to be said, is Islam”;
  • President Sarkozy’s declaring in 2007 that “African Man has not sufficiently entered history”;
  • Zemmour’s saying on television in 2010 that “[f]oreign-origin Frenchmen are stopped by police more often because the majority of drug dealers are Black or Arab”;
  • actress Véronique Genest declaring “I’m a bit Islamophobic. I don’t mind saying it”;
  • then-Interior Minister Manuel Valls declaring in 2013 that “the Roma [immigrants] are to return to Romania or to stay there”;
  • Jewish pundit Alain Finkielkraut complaining in 2014 that the French national football team was “Black, Black, Black” (using the English term);
  • numerous Islamo-critical or outright blasphemous magazine covers over the years, such as those of Charle Hebdo.[24]
There is nothing more legitimate than critical discussion of such cultural, religious, and ethnic issues, and especially of a group’s ethnocentrism or of demographic transformations of a country. Yet, there is never any similarly critical discussion of Jews in France, despite the fact that Jewish elites and culture, both through French Jews and the political and cultural power of the United States, are patently more influential than Islamic elites and culture.
Blanrue notes:
[E]xcesses on Arabs are allowed, those on Jews are forbidden. Manuel Valls, among others, has stated this in a tone that would not suffer contradiction: “The Shoah, the extermination of the Jews, the genocide, must be sacralized, sacred.” “The Jews are at the vanguard of the Republic.”[25]
Valls, who is now serving as Prime Minister, then openly declared that Jews are a “moral elite” in the French Republic and that we must all worship their real and imagined persecutions. Meanwhile comics like Dieudonné are censored and obscene rags like Charlie Hebdo get millions in public subsidies to insult Christianity, Islam, and French nationalists.

The late President Mitterrand’s former foreign minister, Roland Dumas, declared not too long ago that that the current Socialist Prime Minister Manuel Valls was under “Jewish influence,” notably because of his Jewish wife.[26] Blood runs thicker than water, and certainly direct family ties can bias one’s judgment or lead to conflicts of interest.

But that is quite secondary. Valls is a politician, the kind of “democratic politician” who lives only to serve those with the money and influence to get him in office, and in this he knows he needs “the-lobby-which-doesn’t-exist” and “the vanguard of the Republic” on his side.

Notes:
[1] Paul-Éric Blanrue, Sarkozy, Israël et les Juifs (Embourg, Belgium: Éditions Oser Dire, October 2009, third edition), 29. I discuss this as well as Mitterrand’s right-wing background and European identity in Guillaume Durocher, “François Mitterrand: European Statesman, anti-American, & Judeophobe,” North American New Right, August 18, 2015.
[2] Éric Zemmour, “The Rise of the Shoah as the Official Religion of the French Republic,” The Occidental Observer, May 12, 2015.
[3] Blanrue, Sarkozy, 29.
[4] Ibid, 32.
[5] Ibid, 31-32.
[6] Ibid, 27.
[7]Ibid.
[8]Ibid, 30.
[9] Alain Soral has amusingly commented on the Ramadan case. In short, Ramadan is the grandson of the Egyptian founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, lives in Switzerland, teaches in British and Moroccan universities, and has launched an Islamic studies center financed by Qatar. Strangely, French media make a point of choosing Ramadan – who is not French – to represent the point of view of French Muslims. Soral has speculated that Ramadan’s objective role, as a rootless cosmopolitan promoted by the French media and financed by the Qatari and British governments, is to promote a pseudo-Islamic theology compatible with Imperial-American and Jewish-Zionist interests. He can be thought of as a Muslim ethnic activist working within the framework of and in collaboration with the wider American Empire. Alain Soral, Video of the Month, February 2012.
[10] Tariq Ramadan, “Critiques des (nouveaux) intellectuels communautaires,” Oumma, October 3, 2003. x
[11]Nadine Haltiner, “Tariq Ramadan: “L’Europe a besoin d’immigrés. Ils sont une aubaine économique,” Radio Télévision Suisse, September 6, 2015.
[12]For an overarching presentation of the issue, see Kevin B. MacDonald, “Understanding Jewish Influence I: Background Traits for Jewish Activism,” The Occidental Quarterly XXX.  and Kevin B. MacDonald, The Culture of Critique , preface to the first paperback edition, https://web.csulb.edu/~kmacd/books-Preface.html
[13]Paul-Éric Blanrue, Jean-Marie, Marine et les Juifs (Embourg, Belgium: Éditions Oser Dire, 2014).
[14]Sarkozy, 26.
[15]Sarkozy, 33-34.
[16]Sarkozy, 36
[17]Sarkozy, 37
[18] Guillaume Durocher, “‘As Happy as God in France: The State of French Jewish Elites,” The Occidental Observer, May 3, 2014.
[19]Blanrue quotes the Venetian writer and womanizer Giacomo Casanova saying: “Mohammedanism is more reasonable than Christianity.” In an interview, he explains that he converted to Islam in rejection of Western Mammonic decadence: “L’historien Paul-Éric Blanrue s’est converti à l’islam en 2009: ‘Devenir musulman a été pour moi une prise de conscience,’” Égalité et Réconciliation, March 13, 2011.
[20]Blanrue recently mocked Pope Francis’ suggestion that every parish host a migrant family on his blog. Paul-Éric Blanrue, “Modeste proposition,” Le Clan de Vénitiens, September 6, 2015.
[21]Soral once spoke favorably of Blanrue for his courageous work on the revisionist historian Faurisson. The two have since fallen out. I will not burden this article with details of the dispiriting tendency for French dissidents to bicker with one another. Perhaps such disputes are inevitable given the highly-independent personality type required of those who go against the grain.
[22]See Guillaume Durocher, “Houellebecq, Islam & the Jews: A Review of Michel Houellebecq’s Soumission,” North American New Right, February 26, 2015.
[23]Blanrue lists: Former President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing warned of an “immigration-invasion” in 1991; the right-wing writer Renaud Camus warning of immigration leading “le Grand Remplacement” (“the Great Displacement”) and later being purged for noticing Jews occupied all positions in public radio show dedicated to “French culture”; Houellebecq’s stating in 2001 that “the dumbest religion, it has to be said, is Islam”; President Sarkozy’s declaring in 2007 that “African Man has not sufficiently entered history,” Zemmour’s saying on television in 2010 that “[f]oreign-origin Frenchmen are stopped by police more often because the majority of drug dealers are Black or Arab,” actress Véronique Genest declaring “I’m a bit Islamophobic. I don’t mind saying it,” Jewish pundit Alain Finkielkraut complaining in 2014 that the French national football team was “Black, Black, Black” (using the English term), and numerous Islamo-critical or outright blasphemous magazine covers over the years, such as those of Charle Hebdo.
[24]Jean-Marie, 11-13.
[25]Jean-Marie, 15.
[26]To not belabor the point, Manuel Valls himself has angrily told Jews questioning his commitment to Israel saying: “I am by my wife eternally attached to the Jewish community and to Israel. Come on!”

120,000 Ilegal Invaders to Be Moved to Estonia, Luxembourg, and Sweden in the Next Few Days

via White GeNOcide Project

120,000 African and Muslim illegal immigrants will be moved from Italy and Greece “within days”, according to Ansa, an Italian news organization.

The plan is to move them to Estonia, Luxembourg, Sweden, and other EU countries, before the next EU summit on October 15th.

This decision was voted on last month by EU interior ministers and was passed, despite being opposed by a sizable number of interior ministers.

French President Francois Hollande has said countries which do not play ball, could face sanctions.

The sanctions exist. So these countries will be putting themselves in a situation where what they are receiving from Europe could be suspended” he said. “You cannot ask Europe for support and refuse when Europe asks for solidarity.

Anna Aloisi, the mayor of the Italian town of Mineo, which is close to an asylum center, spoke about how the tsunmigration has effected the town.

How do you control 4,000 migrants?” she said. “The centre becomes a town in itself, which doesn’t help integration.

Mineo is a town of 5,000 people, but many of them are elderly and there are few youngsters. So the arrival of coloured migrants, all of them young, who hang around doing nothing, often make the townsfolk afraid.

The citizens see the migrants are taken care of, have a hot meal, a roof over their heads, when they struggle to have a hot meal themselves, it sparks jealousies, anger,
The EU and the UN are making, altering, scraping, and ignoring laws in order to keep as many illegal immigrants inside of Europe – it is all part of their agenda to get rid of Europe’s White majority.

For example, last year the UN told Spain it was not allowed to instantly deport African illegal immigrants.

This anti-White agenda has many names, but the most accurate and deadly name for it is White Genocide, because “diversity” is all about getting rid of the White areas.

LARP Your Way to Victory

via TradYouth

The common canard that smug netizen critics lob at us when we’re being outspoken is that we’re LARPing. These are the same people who wouldn’t know a good deal if it was right in front of their noses. So what, who cares? Obviously we don’t. I don’t know where the line is between LARPing or activism, but if I had to guess it would involve measurable real-world success at achieving our stated goals.

But, nevermind the goals and the fact that we’re achieving them, what does a legitimate and authentic youth movement look like?  The aesthetic appeal and overall deportment and appearance is secondary to the group’s function because there is no singularly specific model for an authentic youth group.  The reason that social movements change their look and function over time is because the exigency that each respond to will change its shape over time, thus we must change our shape to respond properly.  Authenticity has something to do with effective functionality and the less money that it requires is all the more a testament to its authenticity.

Now, all that being said, folks who are looking for a really real group are going to have a few prerequisites in mind.  They want something that looks, feels and sounds like the Real Thing™.  So, how do you know if you’re walking the walk and not faking the funk?  Another crucial difference between LARPing and being an active member in a grassroots youth movement is that we don’t put our convictions on a shelf after the weekend.  We wear this lifestyle every day of the week and we do it for the best interests of our people.

But, even a loon can claim insanity as a legitimate vocation were he to carry on for the sake of his people.  With the most recent edition of the DSM anything could be made into a mental illness.  So where does this leave us?  The genuinely crazy loons don’t garner interest by international news networks let alone national news networks.  Neither do the genuinely crazy have to worry about coordinated, premeditated, hostile and malicious opposition from so-called anti-fascists and Marxist thugs.  When you have to start considering your physical safety I think it safe to say that you’re no longer LARPing.

The #1 problem with people who identify with our politics but disagree with our method is that they actively discourage and attempt to dissuade us from staying our course.  Adding insult to injury are their attempts to disrupt an existing community of teamwork and mutual support.  If you can’t lead or follow, get out of the way.  For those who don’t care to be part of a team, we get it.  You’re not ready for that level of involvement.  But, for the love of all that is holy, don’t disrupt a functioning group just because you think we’re “LARPing.”

By now everyone should know about the Top 35 Pro-White Websites published in December, 2013. Traditionalist Youth Network made the list and we were only on the scene for about six months at that point.  I keep waiting to see the next “top” list come out because I am fully expecting that TYN will have made it into the top 15, if not the top 10.  So, are we LARPing?  You be the judge, but don’t forget that whatever we’re doing is working amazingly well.  Speaking of which, keep an eye on Traditionalist Worker Party for some really exciting stuff in the near future.

We’re going to LARP our way to victory whether or not our critics like it.  For those who disagree with us and refuse to be a part of the team, we’re going to keep doing real-world activism and advocacy while they sit at home and pull their pud.  Hell, maybe they’ll invite their friends over and make an evening of it.  At least then they’d be out of our way and doing something that involves team work.

The Pope’s Globalism vs. The Real World’s Resurgent Nationalism

via The Political Cesspool

Who does the pope serve?
God? or judeo-globalists?
Pope Francis’s four-day visit to the United States was by any measure a personal and political triumph.

The crowds were immense, and coverage of the Holy Father on television and in the print press swamped the state visit of Xi Jinping, the leader of the world’s second-greatest power.

But how enduring, and how relevant, was the pope’s celebration of diversity, multiculturalism, inclusiveness, open borders, and a world of forgiveness, peace, harmony and love is another question.

The day the pope departed Philadelphia, 48 percent of Catalonia, in a record turnout of 78 percent, voted to deliver a parliamentary majority to two parties that advocate seceding from Spain.

Like the Scots in Britain, the Walloons in Belgium and the Italians of Veneto, they want to live apart, not together.

While the pope called on America and Europe to welcome the migrant millions of the Third World, Bishop Laszlo Kiss-Rigo, whose diocese stretches across the southern reaches of Catholic Hungary, says of those pouring into Europe: “They’re not refugees. This is an invasion. They come here with cries of ‘Allahu Akbar.’ They want to take over.”

The bishop hailed Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who denounced any open door:
Everything which is now taking place before our eyes threatens to have explosive consequences for the whole of Europe. We must acknowledge that the European Union’s misguided immigration policy is responsible for this situation.
We shouldn’t forget that the people who are coming here grew up in a different religion and represent a completely different culture. Most are not Christian, but Muslim. That is an important question, because Europe and European culture have Christian roots.
The Czech Republic, Slovakia and Poland joined Hungary in voting to reject EU quotas for migrants. Under pressure from her allies in Bavaria, even Angela Merkel is re-imposing border controls.

A backlash against refugees, migrants and asylum seekers from Africa and the Islamic world is sweeping Europe. Marine Le Pen, leader of the National Front, the strongest anti-EU party in Europe, has called on Paris to ship all migrants back across the Mediterranean.

This was the solution Dwight Eisenhower settled on in “Operation Wetback,” when he ordered Gen. Joseph Swing to send the million aliens in Texas illegally back to Mexico in 1954. Swing did as ordered.

Indeed, the call to repatriate the 12 million aliens here illegally has been a propellant behind the candidacy of GOP front-runner Donald Trump.

Behind this rising resistance to illegal and mass migration is human nature–the innate desire of peoples of one tribe or nation, who share a common language, history, faith, culture, traditions and identity, to live together–and to live apart from all the rest.
Such currents are stronger than any written constitutions.

That Global Citizen Festival concert in Central Park Saturday, featuring Beyonce, may have spoken to the globalist beliefs of Barack Obama, whose wife was there, and of the pope, who was flying to Philly.

But in the real world, nationalism, not globalism, is ascendant.

Though Gen. David Petraeus claims Vladimir Putin seeks to re-establish the Russian Empire, this misses the point. If Putin sought that, he would by now, 15 years in power, have annexed Belarus and Ukraine, but he has not even annexed the pro-Russian Donbass.

Putin is a nationalist who sees his country as one of the world’s great powers and sees himself as protector of Russian peoples everywhere. He believes Moscow should have its own Monroe Doctrine, and that rival powers should not be planting military bases on Russia’s doorstep.

Is that so hard for Americans to understand? How did we like having Soviet troops and bases in Castro’s Cuba?

China, too, which abandoned the world Communist revolution, is now a nationalistic power that seeks the same dominance of the waters around it–the Yellow Sea and Taiwan Strait, the East and the South China seas–that the United States has had for over a century in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean, the Atlantic, and the Pacific from California to the China coast.

The stronger China grows, the more she will push us away, as we pushed the European powers and the Royal Navy out of our hemisphere.

While China is involved in territorial quarrels with Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines, none of her claims represents a threat to U.S. vital interests. Nor does Russia’s actions in reclaiming Crimea or in aiding pro-Russian rebels achieve autonomy in East Ukraine.

What is threatened today is the New World Order of Bush I, the “unipolar world” preached by the neocons and Bush II, and the “rules-based” world of Barack Obama.

Russia and China, and other rising powers, are going to play by their rules, the rules of the 19th and early 20th century, the rules by which we Americans became the first power on earth.

America’s “red lines” should be set down clearly in front of our vital interests. Then, we should inform our friends and allies that their defense is, first and foremost, their own responsibility.

What a Pro-White Student Group Should Look Like

via Radix

Toronto's Students For Western Civilization blows away the imposters and the losers. I only wish this was going on while I was living in the city. 

Here is the Students for Western Civilization's official website. Consider making a donation.

Here is an interview with Professor Ricardo Duchense.

The Iron Guard and the Sanctity of the Death

via Ur-Fascist Analytics

Codreanu, killed in 1938, did not live to see the
"Legionary State"; his body, and that of members
of the Decemviri and Nicadori Iron Guard death
squads, was exhumed and ritually buried in 1940.
Codreanu believed of the nation that it is composed not only of living, breathing men, but also of the departed dead, their bones and decaying flesh, graves, and tombs. The dead were as much members of the nation as the living; the Romanian nation a kingdom of the dead and living. Death was a sacred event, honored in hymns, songs, and ceremonies.

A death hymn recited by the youth wing of the Romanian Iron Guard:

Moartea, numai moartea legionară
Ne este cea mai scumpă nuntă dintre nunţi,
Pentru sfânta cruce, pentru ţară
Înfrângem codrii şi supunem munţi;
Nu-i temniţă să ne-nspăimânte,
Nici chin, nici viforul duşman;
De cădem cu toţi, izbiţi în frunte,
Ni-i dragă moartea pentru Căpitan!

Death, only a Legionnaire's death
Is our dearest wedding of weddings,
For the Holy Cross, for the country
We defeat forests and conquer mountains;
No prison can frighten us,
Nor any torture, or enemy storm;
If we all fall, hit in the forehead,
Death for the Captain is dear to us!


The following is from the Wikipedia entry on the Iron Guard's "death squads":
It was during the Legionnaire-dominated Students' Congress of April 3-5, 1936, held at Târgu Mureş, that the death squads were officially established. However, writing in The Nest Leader's Manual, which appeared in May 1933, Codreanu taught: "A Legionnaire loves death, for his blood shall cement the future Legionary Romania". In 1927, at the Guard's very creation, its members swore to be "strong by severing all ties connecting us with mundane things..., by serving the cause of the Romanian nation and the cause of the Cross". By claiming to renounce material wealth and invoking the Cross, the Legionnaires were channeling Christ: they believed they would die for the nation as he had died to redeem mankind. Vasile Marin, who made important contributions to Legionnaire doctrine, amplified on this notion when he praised the Nicadori in 1934: "Three young students have committed an act in the service of a great cause. You all know what that act was. Their sacrifice was inspired by a great idea. It was done in the name of a great idea. They performed this act, and now they are paying the price".

Codreanu's belief that the nation was composed of the living and the dead remained central to the Legionaries' worldview well after, and likely partly due to, Codreanu's death.
Furthermore, Legionnaires were animated by the idea that the nation included both the dead and the living, with its heroes providing assistance to the latter when invoked. This element of their ideology involved an authentic mystique of the idea of dying for one's nation, as those killed in the course of their duties automatically became heroes who could continue to support their living comrades' undertakings. This enthusiasm for death motivated Moţa, who went to Spain to die for Romania so that (as he believed) his country would be redeemed in God's eyes, as well as in the death-exalting literature produced by that segment of the intellectual élite which had proved receptive to Legionary ideas: Mircea Eliade, Radu Gyr, Constantin Noica...

White Nations Need Planned Parenthood, Not the Pope

via Counter-Currents


This past week has provided a number of interesting events that highlight what was once the most contested social issue in the United States.

In New York City, which despite its diversity has a stronger sense of collective consciousness than any city I have lived in, a young woman just tossed a newborn baby from an apartment window in the Bronx. She had hidden the pregnancy and claimed that the baby was stillborn, but the coroner has confirmed that the baby died of blunt force trauma upon landing. This horror happened just weeks after Rashida Chowdhury of Queens threw her 1 month old out of a window.

Chat with any guy at the cash register of a bodega or selling food out of a cart and this story will be at the top of his mind. In this very liberal city, you would be hard-pressed to find anyone who doesn’t think this action calls for justice. She must at the very least, spend a long time in jail. But many of the same people who condemn her find it difficult to address the fact that had she not been in her apartment but in a clinic, and had a doctor injected poison into her child a moment before natural birth, that this would be a legal medical procedure. This paradox makes people uncomfortable and for good reason.

I believe that the majority of Americans, most of whom rarely consider big moral and social questions, truly struggle with this issue and revisit their position regularly. However, one would never realize this by listening to debates in the media or pronouncements by politicians. The issue is presented in Manichean terms. We must choose between the shrill Man-Hating Jewess (probably a survivor of childhood sexual abuse) and a patriarchal celibate in clerical clothing (probably an accomplice of sexual abusers). After a 5 minute shouting match on cable television, the media expects us to label ourselves with titles that could have come from the pages of Nineteen Eighty-Four, “Pro-Choice” or “Pro-Life.” For most cable news addicts, their choice comes down to who they would rather sit next to at a bar.

The majority of Americans do not fall in this Manichaean construct. Since 1975, the Gallup organization has been asking Americans about their views on this question, and for only one month in 1991 has the view “Legal only under certain circumstances” fallen below 50%. There is of course the question of individual morality involved. When is such an act morally acceptable? This is a question many of us must deal with in out private lives. However, when it comes to public policy, the debate must be shaped by factors other than those considered in private decisions. This should certainly not be limited to whether we value “individual liberty at all costs” or believe that an individual soul (with all the obligations that entails) enters a human body when the sperm penetrates the egg. Neither of these foundational philosophical/theological positions takes into account the societal impact of the public policy.

Because the white race is locked in a genocidal tailspin, put in place by an oligarchy that wishes to definitively destroy trade unionism and the welfare state and by the Organized Jewish Community which wishes to realize a multi-generational vendetta against our people, we must especially consider the impact on racial demographics.

Pope Francis, The Left Hand of Dysgenics

New York and Philadelphia both came to a standstill as Pope Francis came to visit. While the media was focused on the Pontiff as a new Princess Diana, and of course took the opportunity to exploit whatever crossover there might be between the Pope’s off-the-cuff political pronouncements and the policies of the Democratic Party.

There are however, two things about this visit that the vast majority of journalists are incapable of understanding but that White Nationalists must understand. The first is that the former Bergoglio is the incarnation of the lie of “Latino” identity. This is a social construct developed by Europeans who were pursuing “family strategies” in the pursuit of power rather than values-based strategies. (See Kevin MacDonald’s explanation of these distinct European approaches here.) The former Jorge Bergoglio is 100% Italian. The screaming throngs of migrant workers from south of the border do not share one percent of common heritage with him. They do however have two things in common, the language and the religion of the Conquistadores, though the latter would be unrecognizable to those who brought it to the New World. For the vast majority of their history, that has been enough to keep peace and order between the exploiters at the top of their societies and the exploited at the bottom.

The Pope and the Anchor Baby in a photo op that was planned one year ago.
The Pope and the Anchor Baby in a photo op that was planned one year ago.

The “Latino” Oligarchy, as is often the case with Mercantile elites, is short-sighted and profit oriented. Their alliance with the Church has put in place a system that pays no heed to genetic inheritance. When the Catholic Church is in power in Latin America, whether the stronger ecclesiastical current of time is on the Right or Left, the arc of history will always lead to a country (even one as white as Argentina) that looks like Brazil or the Dominican Republic, with all of the politico-economic problems that entails.

The second important point ignored by the media is the institutional shift within the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). Of Catholics under 33 years old 54% are “Hispanic.” Of the 172 Active Bishops, 28 are “Hispanic.”[1] They cannot claim any US Cardinals, but you can expect this to change during this Pontificate. When future historians look back on this visit, they will likely identify it as the moment when the “White Ethnic” majority and Irish plurality began to lose their institutional hold and the “Latinos” began their rise. The days when the Catholic Hierarchy provided the pillars of support to the Catholic political leaders of the kind explored in “Fascism: American Style” are already long gone. The days of building anti-White coalitions and contributing to the Racial Replacement politics of the US are already here.

Of course this is not simply the result of Latino leaders taking over the US church hierarchy, it is in fact the systematic result of the policies of the Church and the Vatican’s institutional imperative.

How does the religio-racio-demographic Latinization work? Let’s compare the US to Brazil to find out. Racial demographics in Brazil were not published starting in 1970 out of fear of unrest. But from 1950 to present, the White share of the country has fallen from 62% to the mid-1940s, with quite a few “Whites” who in American terms are “passing.” In Brazil, poorer women in the more African populated northeastern areas and many poor, mixed race women did not have access to birth control until the 1980s, and birth control was not made affordable to them until 2007.[2]

This was due entirely to the influence of the Catholic hierarchy on politics. The now Pope Emeritus, Benedict XVI denounced the policy to make birth control affordable during his visit at that time. So the churches right wing makes sure the poor non-White Catholics have more children than they can care for, and the church’s Left wing keeps them in the pews through its social gospel discourse and demands that wealthy responsible White People submit to invasion by their parishioners. Just to reemphasize, the Left and Right wings of the Church are not opposing social forces, they are merely the right hand and left hand of the same dysgenic system.

What would America look like with a Catholic social policy? According to the CDC, there have been 13 million abortions conducted for African American women since Roe v. Wade. There are more black fetuses aborted than are born, and every year about 5% of reproductive age black women have abortions.[3] There are no reliable statistics on how many White women who procure abortions are pregnant with Black babies. Currently about 2% of births issue from Black-White mixed parentage.[4] If we were to conservatively assume that 2% of abortions by White mothers in 1990 were of Black babies that would raise the Black abortions by over 20,000 and increase their total by 4%.

A back of the envelope estimate shows 6 million black children would be of reproductive age had they not been aborted, not including mixed race births. They would almost certainly be raised in poverty. Whether analyzing impoverished communities in developed or undeveloped countries there is a direct trade-off between family size and exiting poverty. So these 6 million adults, with no abortion access and living in poverty, therefore reproducing at the rate of poor Blacks, would have contributed at least 18 million new children to the Creedal Nation by now. That is the equivalent of 40 more Detroits!

When Catholic teachings on sex and reproduction take the lead in policy making, these are the results. It is not a question of Left or Right but the systematic results of the Vatican’s institutional imperative. In 2010, America had 42 million African-Americans, of whom 12 million were in poverty. The 200 million White Americans, who were and are hurtling toward minority status were unable to produce the political will that was necessary to reverse that trend with the demographic composition it had at the time. Avoiding minority status is, after all, the primary political project of White Nationalism.

Ask yourself, White Nationalist, how far this project would have proceeded if there were 66 million African-Americans instead of 42 million. What would life be like if every ghetto was more than quadruple the size it is now?

The Brazilification of America would already be complete.

Republicans Threaten Government Shut Down to Defund Planned Parenthood

In an attempt to energize the Christian Conservative base that was patronized by George W. Bush and routed by Barack Obama, Congressional Republicans are threatening another government shutdown in order to prevent any government funds from flowing to Planned Parenthood.

This is coming on the heels of horrific videos that were recently released of mutilated corpses of unborn babies and another featuring a Planned Parenthood executive trying to profit from their body parts. The latter was created by Catholic Anti-Abortion activist David Daleiden, who posed as a biotechnology company executive seeking fetal tissue. The release of these videos coincided with the lead up to Pope Francis’ visit for the World Meeting of Families. The filming took place on July 14th, and the first and second videos were released in a way to lengthen media attention and increase public awareness.

The doctor performing abortions displays a chilling disregard for the gravity of the act. Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia, who hosted the World Meeting of Families, stated “No one should be shocked by this video . . . this is who Planned Parenthood is and what it does. It’s been part of the organization’s gene code from the start. The logic of its disdain for new life is just working itself out. And it won’t stop until the money and the media adulation are cut off.”[5] The disdain for the White Race shown by Church leadership is just as obvious, as the Pope tells Romans that they “suffer from the sin of pride” if they “refuse to share” their city with African invaders, not to mention advocating policies that would have contributed 40 new Detroits to the US.

It ought to be pointed out that while the Catholic Church is at the forefront of this movement, there is no shortage of Protestant collaborators. Every clear thinking White Nationalist must find themselves in agreement with the New York Times editors in calling it a tragedy that the last abortion clinic in Mississippi (the Blackest state in the union), in its capital Jackson (which is 80% Black) has been facing attempts to shut it down for years. In yet another variation of pathological altruism, well-meaning White Christians and their White governor are hectoring this last clinic in Mississippi. It is ironic that the White citizens of this state which struggled to maintain a White majority for decades after the Civil War is sowing the seeds of its own displacement because of our own racial tendency to universalize values, take a God’s eye view, and with charitable hearts help whose who have a well-established record of harming us.

Conclusion

As the Eugenicist author Marian Van Court, a Counter-Currents contributor, has pointed out on Red Ice Radio, Pro-Lifers like to get on their high horse and pretend they have the moral high ground. A deeper examination proves them wrong. Numerous studies have already established the causal link between their policies with overpopulation, poverty, and environmental degradation. This article only scratches the surface on why White Nationalists should oppose “pro-life” policies.

Just as cigarette packs in some countries include an obligatory picture of organs ravaged by cancer, every time presidential candidate Senator Ted Cruz calls for the defunding of Planned Parenthood or Jeb Bush says that “I’m not sure we need half a billion dollars for women’s health issues” there ought to be an obligatory video of a welfare office filled with crying nonwhite babies. Even the dullest Cuckservative would be rattled out of his self-congratulatory moral signaling by that image and sound.

I can assure you, that I would not want to “share a beer” with any of the journalists covering this issue for the NY Times who were cited in this article (let alone those from Slate and Gawker or any of the NGOs covering these issues), and I certainly wouldn’t want to eat while chatting with the abortionist from the undercover video, but that “want to share a beer” feeling is only an influence on the good goys who are not doing politics but to whom politics are done. Perhaps a pundit can get by on this superficial level, but a real political actor involved in practical politics must make alliances with scumbags and people he or she despises to move an agenda forward. There is no exception. You cannot just make political progress with people who say things that make you feel good. If you think that, no matter how old you are, you are not yet politically mature.

Among White Nationalists this issue may be a litmus test, to see who has truly prioritized our goal of re-establishing A Nice White Country. I would never proclaim to another person that they ought to follow one religion or another (though I highly recommend adopting some regular religious practice). I count many Catholics among my comrades in France as well as both Catholics and socially conservative Protestants in the United States. I respect their prerogative to adopt their own ethical standards. These activists are true Revolutionary Nationalists, though, and for them, the divide between their personal code of honor and the public policies they advocate is crystal clear.

I’ll turn again to Marian Van Court, who summed this up better than I can:

Eugenicists must vigorously oppose all so-called “pro-life” candidates, and the utterly outrageous “personhood” amendments. “Pro-life” is a superficially attractive term that conceals a sinister interior, because what it really means is unequal access to contraception and abortion, which invariably causes genetic deterioration. Just as the idea of Communism sounded appealing in the beginning, the reality was untold misery. It is the same with pro-life.

Notes:
1. http://www.usccb.org/about/leadership/holy-see/benedict-xvi/upload/Papal-Transition-2013-Hispanics.pdf
2. Brazil’s fertility rate has since dropped below replacement levels. Brazil is, by American sociological standards at least 51% Black. Imagine the poverty, crime, and corruption levels of Newark, NJ (52% Black or mixed race) on the national scale, and ask yourself, does the Catholic Church still occupy the moral high ground? Who could possibly say that allowing them to create such a society is the side of Truth, Beauty, and Goodness? http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/brazil-subsidizes-birth-control-pills/
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/br.html
3. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0101.pdf
4. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/24/todays-multiracial-babies-reflect-americas-changing-demographics/ Apply this to the 7% mixed race birth cohort.
5. http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/why-the-catholic-behind-the-planned-parenthood-videos-went-undercover/#ixzz3nLZbjQ4r