Nov 24, 2015

Republican Party Jews Gang-up on Trump

via The New Observer

Even though he is fanatically pro-Israel, Donald Trump’s opposition to illegal immigration has turned the entire Republican Party’s Jewish lobby against him, an article in the Jewish Daily Forward newspaper has revealed.

The article, titled “Donald Trump’s Rise Sparks Widespread Angst among Jewish Republicans,” reports on a meeting of the “Republican Jewish Committee” (RJC), which it described as the party’s “big donors and high-powered operatives.”


It says that a poll was taken in the room to “make sure they had someone supporting each potential Republican nominee”—in effect saying they were making sure that each of the Republican party nominees were sufficiently in line with their Jewish agenda, and that their money would be spread evenly so that no matter who won, one of “their people” would always be the winner.
As the article continued:
Jeb Bush backers were easy to find. Supporters of Marco Rubio, too, were plentiful. Ted Cruz had friends there, as did Scott Walker, and even George Pataki and Lindsey Graham. The Republican Jewish elite have spread themselves wide across the GOP firmament.
However, it became apparent that Donald Trump is, as the Forward reported, “a different story,” and had no backers at the meeting at all. As the Forward admitted:
What is clear is that, despite his surge in the polls, the anti-immigration hard-liner has strikingly little support among prominent Republican Jewish donors, activists, and consultants.
The reason for total absence of Jewish support for Trump is based purely on his opposition to illegal immigration, which the Jews see as “white racism.” As the Forward said:
“In order for us to become a party [of anyone] other than white men, we need to be reaching out,” Norm Coleman, a former senator from Minnesota, told the Forward.
The Jewish newspaper then said that following Mitt Romney’s defeat in 2012, RJC board member Ari Fleischer—a former White House spokesman and Israeli citizen—and other “major party figures” collaborated on a report to the Republican National Committee.

That report, the Forward said, argued that the Republican Party “needed to reach out to growing ethnic minority groups, particularly Hispanics.”

Trump’s opposition to illegal immigration, and even his recent opposition to the “Black Lives Matter” scam (in a tweet in which he detailed that the majority of blacks killed are murdered by other blacks) is, in terms of the RJC’s Coleman, “a long-term negative in terms of building the party.”


Another leading RJC Jew, Nathan Wurtzel, who is a Republican political consultant, went even further and told the Forward that there “are a lot of folks who are, to be charitable, into white identity politics, and to be uncharitable are outright racists, who are supporting Trump. It’s very off-putting and disturbing.”

The Jewish hatred—and fear—of Trump comes in spite of his fanatical support for Israel, which the Forward readily admitted:
Republican Jewish elites see Trump as a hawkish supporter of Israel, like nearly all other members of the Republican primary field. In a September 3 interview with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, Trump said he would support unilateral action by Israel against Iran, and called Benjamin Netanyahu “a friend.”
The Forward goes on to state exactly why the Jewish lobby opposes Trump:
Instead, Trump is seen as a threat to the vision of a bigger, more inclusive GOP, which many leading Republican Jews have advocated.
In other words, being pro-Israel is not enough to secure Jewish support in a US presidential race: a candidate has to be pro-illegal immigration, and wish to see the concept of white America destroyed as well.

Of course, all these Jews support Israel, which has the exact same policies that Trump supports for America—a wall, and the halting and reversal of illegal immigration. But they only support that policy in the Jewish state, and demand the very opposite for European nations.


* Jeb Bush, the would-be Republican candidate most favored by the RJC, has just appointed a “Jewish Leadership Committee” to generate support among the Jewish lobby.

According to the Jewish Algemeiner newspaper, its leading members include former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, erstwhile US Attorney General Michael Mukasey, Home Depot co-founder Bernie Marcus, infamous Jewish necon Josh Bolten, and Scott Arogeti, the liaison to the Jewish community for the George W. Bush administration.

The Eleventh Hour

via Radix

Joe Sobran, writing in 2004 on the cult of the “Greatest Generation”:
I’m put off by all this raving about World War II veterans as “the greatest generation.” The survivors among them are old now, but during that war they were young. And it’s not as if they had any choice. They did what they were told, like the young men they fought against, with little comprehension of the big picture. Are we to think they all pondered the merits of the war, and independently arrived at the same conclusion? Or did they merely obey the state en masse, just as Japanese and German boys did?

What is really being glorified is not the veteran, but the war itself. It was a war most Americans at the time wanted to stay out of, and rightly so; but Franklin Roosevelt did all he could to involve us anyway, provoking the Germans and Japanese at every opportunity.
Yes, the United States won. It gained a global empire and nuclear weapons, but was unable to control the genie that had been released. The government became far bigger than ever, fantastically different from the modest federation designed by its Founders; militaristic and bureaucratic habits became second nature to Americans, who have lost all sense of proportion about themselves and are baffled and irritated by the inevitable result: anti-Americanism around the world.
There is a fundamental difference between “Veterans Day” in the United States and “Remembrance Day,” or “Armistice Day,” celebrated in Canada and most European countries. Remembrance Day marks the end of the First World War—on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month of 1918; it encourages a certain distancing from the Brothers Wars of the 20th century; it’s a chance to be critical of them, or even overcome them.

America’s Veterans Day, on the other hand, is a glorification of those wars (and an invitation to forget them at the same time). You’re supposed to “thank a vet for your freedom”—effectively thanking him for keeping watch over Washington’s global hegemony.

I sense we are now approaching a post-American stage to November 11. For millennials and non-White Americans, the World Wars have gone down the memory hole, or perhaps they never had much resonance to begin with. Today, we “celebrate veterans” in the sense that we celebrate the fact that millions of women, gays, Blacks, immigrants, and transgendered people are employed by the United States military around the world.

At least there shall be peace.

Todd Lewis on Hyphenated Christianity

via TradYouth

The latest subscriber to our affiliate marketing program where we link to bloggers with less traffic than ourselves when they make wild and personal accusations against our project is Todd Lewis. His winning entry, “Contra Traditionalist Youth Network: Christianity Cannot Be Hyphenated,” goes for a straightforward Category C smear of our project.

Category A: Matthew Heimbach is Fat
Category B: TradYouth is too Christian
Category C: TradYouth isn’t Christian

We contend that Heimbach’s not fat, but merely hefty and big-boned. We’ll be sure to replace him as soon as our talent search for a male model who’s as productive as him pans out. Regarding religious affiliation, we’re a political organization and not a religious order. While we take the lead in defending traditional Christianity, we’re not an exclusively Christian order, our religious litmus test is limited to precluding folks of the Jewish and Satanic persuasions, and every denomination (or lack thereof) is welcome and encouraged to join us as equal partners in our broad struggle for identity and tradition.
I’ve been following the Traditional Youth Network (TYN) for some time after my run-in with Matt Parrott on Attack the System. For those who do not know Mr. Parrott, recall that he is Matthew Heimbach’s father in-law, and that I had a run-in with Mr. Parrott over his comments on the Ken Ham/Bill Nye debate.
After that run-in, one would think he would know better than to charge at me with a bunch of half-baked assumptions.

While his attack is directed at me, his purpose is to drive a wedge between identity and tradition.
I think this question is important; as what common ground, if any, does the traditionalist Christian movement have with the New Right, White Nationalists, etc? The answer I think is pretty obvious: nothing. I will explain why shortly.
He’s a typical anti-White fundamentalist type who carelessly and cluelessly conflates fundamentalism and traditionalism. While his antiquarian fundamentalism and orbiting affiliation with the New Right makes it non-obvious, his arguments and positions are fundamentally indistinguishable from your generic anti-White troll.
The main problem with modern Christian movements is that they try to be something else first; they try to analyze Scripture through a lens crafted by the ideologies of men, and then tack on cherry-picked Christian themes and motifs as though somehow Christianity could neither be relevant nor survive without these man-made “interpretive tools.” For example: anarchist-Christians, socialist-Christians, liberal-Christians, libertarian-Christians, and racialist-Christians. As you can see, the ideology is in front of the hyphen and “Christian” is placed after. No! You are either Christian or you are not.
I’m a Christian first, and we’re quite clear that our mission is “Faith, Family, and Folk,” in that order. Whatever your faith or denomination is, we ask and expect you to put that first. Metaphysics precede metapolitics, and a solid spiritual grounding is a prerequisite for effective metapolitical and subsequent political work. It presumes that Christianity is limited to one political position and belongs to one singular identity, both of which are supposedly clearly delineated in the Bible.

How dare you be a euchre-enthusiast Christian? You’re either playing the card game or you’re worshiping Christ, heretic scum. Make up your damn mind! smdh 2015
He’s self-aware enough to catch himself in the middle of his fundamentalist tirade, narrowing the scope of his “No true Scotsman!” charade to identitarians.
Christians can have different views on how social issues need to be resolved, but at the end of the day we need to identify first and foremost as Christians, and if we have an African or Syrian brother, then that must trump our ethnic loyalties; if not, then you really are only secondarily a Christian, which is to say your ideology comes first and your faith second.
I’m not a sola scriptura Protestant, so I’ve got a couple millennia of applied Christian tribalism and nationalism to lean on, but I’ll be a good sport here and play by his Anabaptist house rules. 1 Tim 5:8 insists that “But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” The Bible quite clearly establishes an intuitive and natural concentric circle of concerns for Christians. Note how the verse even anticipates and deflects Todd’s wish to frame that in exclusively familial terms. Saint Paul in Romans 9:3 declares that he wishes he could damn his eternal soul on behalf of his “kinsmen according to the flesh.”

Different Christians of different denominations square up their relationship between their faith and their identities in different ways, but one thing is sure. Christianity is perfectly compatible with identitarianism and the vast majority of prophets, saints, clergymen, and parishioners throughout Christian history (and even today, outside the West) held positions on identity and tribe which Todd Lewis considers so heretical as to fundamentally contradict the Christian faith entirely.

Modern Christianity has discovered, after nearly two millennia of the contrary position that identity is heretical, but only when it’s White people being identitarian? And they just happened to do it when global capitalists and the Jewish oligarchs declared that anti-White anti-racism is a central plank of their secular humanist globalist pseudo-religion?

How convenient.
The problem here is that Paul clearly warns against being unequally yoked in 2nd Corinthians 6:14-16. Neither Mr. Parrot nor Mr. Terry were able to give satisfying answers when pressed on the issue by Clement and the Swiss Kinist.
Both Mr. Pulaski and Swiss Kinist are heretics for believing that White people have a right to exist, by your own estimation, so I don’t know why you would lean on their critiques and concerns. If I were you, Todd, I would think twice about unequally yoking myself with those nationalist Christians. Any stick will do to beat a dog, right?

Both of them and others have expressed concerns about how to engage the rest of the identitarian world, just as many of our Orthodox brethren have expressed concern about our engagement with other Christians. Then you also have the secular and folkish identitarians who arrive with their own ideas about how we should all work together. I consider that a friendly brotherly dialogue which we should all continue to respectfully have between ourselves. As an anti-White, you’re not really a welcome part of that discourse.
National Socialism is completely antithetical to anything Christian or Traditional. To pretend that there is some common ground between them and Christian Traditionalism is a laughable folly, as I hope to show.
Before you attacked my position on Nationalsocialism, you should’ve taken a few minutes to figure out what my position actually is. The first thing to understand is that I make a concentric and gradated distinction between allies and comrades, rather than the limited and problematic Dubya-style “with us or against us” approach.

For example, in my essay, Never Leave a Fallen Comrade, I distance myself from the 20th Century political party while confirming my fellowship with them in the identitarian struggle.
I’m no Nazi. I have no German heritage. I don’t have much use for their pagan revivalist undertones or their dehumanizing “cattle-breeding” perspective on heritage and genetics. I think their relentless persecution of Jewish rag merchants while allowing the Jewish oligarchs to slip off and regroup is the very model of how not to handle the Jewish Question. I can’t justify or defend everything they did because I don’t agree with everything they did. That being said, Mein Kampf is certainly closer to my heart than anything to be found on a mainstream conservative’s bookshelf.
I explain the distinction in more depth in my essay, Andrew Anglin Isn’t Radical Enough.
For all the exaggerations, distortions, and lies about the NS regime, it was a 20th century political answer to 20th century political problems. The Nazis were a political party with no coherent religious or metaphysical vision. A lot of the early leadership were folk religionist, the rank-and-file were almost entirely Christian, and Hitler himself was about as close to being an atheist as a politician is allowed to be. They were a proportionate reaction to the threat of Bolshevism on the horizon, offering both Christian workers and their employers a robust alternative to the threat of Jewish Bolshevism.
My personal loyalties are closer to Romania’s Iron Guard than to Germany’s more secular project…
Corneliu Codreanu’s Romanian Iron Guard was superficially similar to and allied with Germany’s National Socialist regime. Both carry the largely meaningless and derogatory epithet “fascism”. Yet the former was distinct from the latter in critical ways which make it a firmly superior model to emulate. Most importantly, Codreanu understood Christianity’s roots-deep challenge to the Pharisees (contemporary Jews) in a way that the Germans never did. To the limited extent that the Germans of the time grappled with Christianity, it was with the mistaken premise that Christianity was an integrally Jewish religion to be contorted and adapted toward their political goals, rather than the metaphysical answer to and final negation of the Jewish Project.
Of course, Corneliu Codreanu was ultimately undone by degenerate clergy and nobility. That’s why it’s vital for Radical Traditionalists to be on guard against antiquarian and fundamentalist conservative sentimentality contra authentic Tradition. Todd Lewis’s conservatism is a shadow of Modernity, and he’ll follow it right into perdition. He’ll cling fast to the superficialities, clutching his bible, baking his own bread, and lovingly grooming his lumbersexual beard, all while gradually inculcating the globalist, capitalist, and Jewish fashions and taboos of the age.

After the fall of the Third Reich, ideological hacks were second only to vengeful Russian and Black American infantrymen in their eagerness to dive into the ruins and exploit the situation. Entire bookshelves can be filled with tacky attempts to frame the Nazis as anti-Christians, as radical Christians, as closeted homosexuals, as tools of the bankers, as space lizards, or whatever. Alfred Rosenberg’s anti-Christian ax-grinding was never the dominant position in the party, and his Positive Christianity scheme was a flop. Savitri Devi’s fusion of NS with Hindu and Perennialist themes firmly belongs to the post-war neo-Nazi tradition, and certainly can’t be mistaken for mainline NS ideology by serious historians.
Reputable scholars such as Bullock[6] and Shirer[7] show that Hitler’s long-term goal was the destruction of Christianity.
Having studied Hitler’s life and writings in some depth, I’m quite convinced that Hitler simply didn’t care all that much about religion. All of the attempts, across the board, to stuff him into their religious framing are ideologically motivated and lacking in compelling original sources. He was a largely secular historical figure. I don’t give a damn how awkward it makes it for cucked adherents of Holocaustianity that we refuse to dishonor or denigrate a courageous man who gave everything in life, including his life, in the service of my extended family. We’re not throwing Hitler under the bus.

Regarding the Syrians, Todd Lewis has been convinced by the mainstream media that “helping” Syrian refugees, a mere fraction of whom are Christian, is a simple matter of inviting them into our communities and guest bedrooms, then inviting them to marry our daughters. I pointedly disagree with that framing. TradYouth has, more than any other political organization in America, been vocally advocating for and supporting Christian Syrians and the allies and protectors of Christian Syrians since the beginning of the conflict.

We’ve been raising money for them and even donating money to local charity efforts from the beginning, because Christian fellowship transcends race and tribe, and our Christian brothers in the Middle East are in a desperate genocidal situation. When “charity” extends to genocidally displacing my own kith and kin from our own homeland, then that’s more charity than my own understanding of Christianity allows for. If I don’t first account for my household and extended family, then I’m worse than an infidel, after all.
The problem with kinism is not its segregationist views, per se, but what it shares in common with theonomy: its Judiazing. I also would say I am a theonomist in that I seek to teach and obey God’s law, but Moses’ Law, while righteous, is done away with for the perfection of Christ; the theonomist denies this and is thus a Judaizer.
Just cut the theological crap and admit you’re anti-White. If you’re opposed to theonomy, then oppose the theonomists on whole, not the subset of them who happen to be pro-White. The pattern of attack is clear, so just come out in the open and explain why the White race has no right to exist, and perhaps also explain why God went through the trouble of creating it, only to make it imperative that it be abolished by integration and open borders. And if you’re not merely anti-White, then quit wasting your time with us numerically and politically insignificant White identitarians and start battling with the billions of non-White Christians around the globe who are proud of their racial and tribal heritage.

If, as you insist, that loving your race is an outright anti-Christian position, then your Christian duty is perhaps to become a missionary in Africa, going from village to village demanding that they abandon their racial and tribal loyalties. We both know you won’t do that, because your prerogative is enforcing the Modern anti-White taboo, and a disingenuous reliance on theological arguments is the way to go about that when attacking your fellow Christians. You’re not a traditionalist. The issue here isn’t segregating identitarians from traditionalists. It’s segregating fundamentalist conservative Moderns like yourself from authentic traditionalists (inb4: not all of whom are necessarily White or pro-White).
The message I leave traditionalist Christians with is best summed up by Mr. Terry himself in the comment section of said article: “The “alternative right” and all the white nationalists are a bunch of modernist atheists and pagans and I no longer care one bit for their “movement” or anything they’re doing. To Hell with them.”
All throughout Christian history, Christians have allied and worked with folks of different denominations and even faiths of varying degrees when it’s been the moral and right thing to do. It’s only an unequal yoking when there’s a loss of perspective and priority. We’re working with secular identitarians toward a secular goal, not marrying them. Whether secular and Christian identitarians can continue working together in common defense of our identity remains to be seen. There are certainly somewhat organized anti-Christian elements who share your interest in guaranteeing that a broad alliance in defense of our faiths, families, and folks never emerges. I think they’ll lose, and I think with time the silent majority of skeptics and folk religionists who aren’t hostile to Christianity will defeat the vocal minority of anti-Christians.
You can begin your fight against hyphenated Christianity by ceasing to be an Anti-White Christian.

Understanding Cuckasoids

via The West's Darkest Hour

Why are Europeans so prone to individualism? Why are they less concerned about kinship? Professor MacDonald explained last month the complex issues of population genetics. “This is the toughest intellectual problem there is; psychology, studying Jews is easy by comparison.”

Fortunately, there’s now a huge amount of research to crack the annoying cipher.

Population genetics is an important piece of the jigsaw puzzle but it doesn’t explain everything. Always keep in mind Frost’s response to MacDonald about the “Christian axiology” piece in the puzzle.

Save Us from the White Christians

via Compulsory Diversity News

Yesterday, I posted about white/White Christian beliefs giving aid and comfort (directly or indirectly) to the mud-people invading White homelands. Let me summarize the opinion I offered yesterday about mixing Christian-think with Racial-think: it's doubleplusbad.

I then performed my daily jaunt across the White interwebs (littering a bit along the way), only to find an article on The Occidental Observer written by James Edwards, defending the commingling of Christian and pro-White beliefs. I have had my say in the comments section of the TOO post, and I don't intend to trash his obviously devoutly held beliefs or use another website as a forum to debate something they do not want to debate. I shall simply reiterate here that I disagree with the aforementioned commingling, and expound upon why, for those who may be interested.

In truth, I am adaptable and pragmatic on the subject of religion simply because I do not have any faith. Therefore, if White Christians wish to take the fight directly to the invaders I shall gladly sing "Onward Christian Soldiers" and retract my objections to their beliefs. However, I have seen only one White Christian this century with the guts to actually fight, and not one of his fellow White Christians took up the cross and carried on the Crusade in his stead. Years later, there are more Muslims than ever in Europe, so I must assume that White Christians are waiting for all the Muslims to move to Europe, so that said White Christians can move to the Middle East in the greatest switcheroo in history. Pretty sneaky, White Christians.

Of course, there is no White Christian plan at all beyond sitting on the internet mentally masturbating alongside other White Whateverists, while churning out encyclicals to the White Church of Nowhere, Podunk, USA. And while they may accuse non-Christian Whites of ignoring that we are but 1% of the White Whateverist movement,  they continue to willingly ignore they are but 1% of Christians of European descent. They continue to ignore that the vast majority of Christians of European descent use the scriptures to justify the universal brotherhood of man, rejection of racial-awareness, and self-sacrifice unto death. Instead, the White Christians believe they can convince the 99% that the 1%'s selective interpretation of the scriptures justifies separation of the races and imposes limits on cross-racial self-sacrifice, when the 1% have lost every previous battle in which they used Christian scriptures to command the tide of Leftism not to rise. White Christians have failed using scripture: to battle homosexuality, to justify keeping miscegenation illegal, to maintain segregation, to defend slavery, to defend aristocracy, and even to keep Christianity itself from fracturing into squabbling denominations. What good are Christian conservatives at conserving anything? The only thing White Christians seem to be good at doing is being duped into fighting wars for the benefit of Jews and their non-White cattle. All you have to do is throw them a little bait.

Whether they truly believe what they are saying, or they are lying, or they have been ensnared in their own doublethink, White Christians are telling those they are trying to convince of a racial world view: "If you like your Christianity, you can keep your Christianity", when there is ample evidence that Christianity has been effectively used to undermine White racial interests for centuries. It has been the Trojan Horse from which Zionism, Radical Islam, and Social Marxism have poured into The West. White Christians are just the last defenders of Troy, standing around the hollow shell of their idol, trying to keep the invaders from hurting it while their city burns.

Orbán: Europeans Should Have Babies, Not Immigrants!

via The Occidental Observer

You will have to forgive me if I risk turning The Occidental Observer into the Orbán News Network, but really there is too much good old-fashioned common sense coming out of Hungary to be ignored.

Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s is hammering away, and not only to domestic audiences, on essential issues. A major recent contribution was at the Budapest Demographic Forum, where he spoke on the necessity of increasing European fertility and of the insanity of using Afro-Muslim immigration to tackle the Old Continent’s demographic aging problem. He said: “Europe cannot build its future on immigration, rather than families.”

The speech’s other key themes included the need to turn Hungary into a “family-friendly country,” demographic aging/immigration as a threat to European civilization, the fact that this threat is insufficiently discussed by European elites, the censorship imposed by political correctness and media pressure against those speaking out, and the need to renew not just Hungary but Europe as a whole.

The Budapest event included Hungarian, Italian, Russian, French, Polish, Irish, and Spanish speakers, often from elite institutions (Oxford University, the Sorbonne . . .). Really, if we lived in a healthy culture (or even merely a non-insane one), meetings of this kind with senior politicians, academics, and civil society leaders would be held every day.

Instead, our media and politicians endlessly engage in moralizing prattle about climate change, “equality,” multiculturalism, and how to (allegedly) extract a few more shekels out of the global economy through “free trade.” The result, as Roman Bernard recently pointed out at the Washington conference of the National Policy Institute, is endless failure, because the globalists ignore (or pretend to ignore) demographic and national realities. Instead, there is ever-more inequality and social alienation, and endless economic strife (weak growth, financial crises, government deficits, bloated welfare states, mass unemployment . . .).

And the brainwashed liberal nincompoops cry: “Why, oh why is there so much inequality?” Cue our modern-day Two Minutes of Hate, during which (Jewish-dominated) liberal media (e.g. The Daily Show,[1] Vox, Paul Krugman . . .) explain that of course ethnocentric Whites (“rednecks,” conservatives, Christians, nationalists . . .) and “White privilege” are to blame, and that the (final?) solution is to physically replace them with coloreds.

Personally, I have noticed that liberals are getting more bitter and more intolerant in their search for (White) scapegoats to hate and blame for the oh-so-mysterious persistence and even steady increase in inequality and ethnic strife.[2] That’s a neat dialectic: Exploit frustration at inequality and atomization caused by White decline to agitate for yet more White decline. Yes indeed, the enemies of our people are very clever, far too clever for their own good.

Anyway, the following is Orbán’s speech. You will forgive me if I quote at length with only slight abridging and some bolding, because it really is very clear and incisive:
I would like to clarify why I think it is important that we have succeeded in holding this conference. I feel that we have to seize every opportunity to finally talk about demographics openly, free from political taboos, and, if possible, among the widest possible circles. [. . .]
The situation is that in Europe today it is not PC to talk about demographic issues. I am personally faced almost daily with the fact that there are certain topics which nowadays are not considered suitable subjects for discussion in the European public sphere. There are words which simply cannot be uttered — not for aesthetic reasons, but for political reasons. We have here before us a recent example: the leader of one of Europe’s most successful countries since World War Two, the leader of a democratic country, made a statement to the effect that his country is not building a fence, but a gate with very long fixed side sections. At first sight, this might appear to be some sort of witticism, but I am asking you to see the pathetic side of the situation. What have we come to? The Europe of which we were once proud — because this was the world of freedom of thought, freedom of speech and freedom of opinion — is today in such an intellectual state, has manoeuvred itself into such a spiritual state, that certain words, questions and political concepts cannot even be uttered.  [. . .]
The figures show that Europe is ageing. The figures show that Europe’s population will decline. In 2013 the number of deaths exceeded the number of births in one half of the 28 Member States of the European Union, and in some European countries a depressingly high percentage of young people cannot even find jobs. In addition, Europe’s demographic weight in the world will continue to decrease. In 1960 Europe’s population accounted for 13.4 per cent of the world’s population; in 2013 that figure is only 7.1 per cent, if we look at the 28 Member States of the European Union. This means that Europe is the continent and civilisation which is struggling with the gravest demographic problem and is the most rapidly ageing continent. But if the situation is this serious, why is this topic so under-represented in politics and in European discourse in general? Who will live here in Europe? This is the key question here. We should talk about this seriously, and yet much more time, attention, energy and money are being devoted to other things and to debates which have much less to do with reality: gender debates, same-sex marriage, and we could certainly mention quite a few others. These are all important things which may be dear to our hearts, but they are nonetheless only secondary. They will not shift Europe out of the economic and social quagmire which it is stuck in. It seems that today there is antipathy towards those who are willing to point out that the emperor has no clothes, those who warn, based on factual evidence, that there will be big problems if politics abandons the basic unit of European culture: the family. [. . .]
[T]here is a political accusation being levelled ever more frequently in Europe. Effectively this accusation is that if a government supports families, it sends the message that it sees other ways of life as inferior, and it is thus not inclusive. This is obviously silly, but even so it is difficult to defend ourselves against accusations of this type. Therefore, the current Hungarian government — as you may have seen — is directing a great deal of energy towards making it clear that supporting families and recognising freedom are not mutually exclusive. Setting one against the other is just a devious trick, which must be exposed so that we can stand up for the family and for our own values sincerely and with a clear conscience. [. . .]
Luckily, in this respect Hungary is not in a poor state, and never has been. In Hungary the majority believe that in the modern age a child is both a blessing and a reward in the life of a family and in the life of society alike. Everyone in Hungary — all right, maybe not everyone, but most people — are capable of doing more for their children than for themselves. We Hungarians believe that children magnify the strength of their parents, they magnify the strength of the family, and a generation of children magnify the strength of a nation, of a whole country, and finally our entire civilisation. Children magnify our capacity, and enable us to achieve more; this is the view we take. So children are a motivating force: a positive motivating force in the life of society, like no other we know of. After all, when we are old, they will look after us, they will attend to our needs, they will be the guarantee for renewal of our communities, and they will take forward the heritage which is everything which has made our lives meaningful. Without children, there is no continuation, and there is no security for the elderly. [. . .]
It is not the topic of this meeting in the strictest sense, but we all know that if there are insufficient numbers of children, the issue of immigration will emerge — at least until mass cloning becomes widespread in European civilisation, which is something that we hope the Almighty will spare us from. In terms of the peaceful functioning of societies, it is important that our communities should be capable of regeneration. It is important that communities should remain viable, and should be able to sustain themselves without resorting to external resources. I am convinced that Europe cannot build its future on immigration, rather than families. I would like to warn you, however, that there are already European documents in existence which seek the solution in that area. [. . .]
Those who expect help from elsewhere will sooner or later have to pay the price for it. This is an iron law, there is no alternative to it — even though there are some in Brussels who think that the immigrants flooding into Europe should be seen as a blessing, because with them we shall be able to resolve our economic and demographic problems overnight. Many of us — perhaps all of us — know that this is not true at all. And we also know that this way of thinking is extremely dangerous. It is dangerous because it upsets the balance of the continent. It implants among us a culture and an outlook on life with a mentality and customs which are completely different from ours. This culture has a different approach to work, has different ideas about human relations and, last but not least, holds different views on the foundations of our social system: the family. [. . .]
I sincerely hope that we who have gathered here today want a Europe which is based on families rather than on immigration. We want the European Union to abandon the mentality which keeps our hands tied, and to return to the values and the politics which once made it so spectacularly successful. We want families to take centre stage in European politics once again. [. . .]
There are times when demographers must have their voices heard. We are now living in such times. The survival of our civilisation and culture is at stake. In the history of the world, not a single culture which was unable to populate the land in which it lived was able to survive; writers from antiquity extensively documented this phenomenon. I wish you success in your efforts to prove to everyone that the family and children are indeed a blessing — not only for the family itself, but for the nation and the entire European civilisation. [. . .]
I sincerely hope that, with your dedication and support, more and more European leaders will have the courage to endorse the need for family-friendly European policy.
Orbán also recently gave a speech at the World Science Forum — a U.N.-style conference organized biannually in Budapest — in which he also decided to warn about immigration, despite the topic being far less directly relevant to the attendees. He evidently thinks the subject is so existentially-important as to warn all those he can about it.

At the Science Forum, Orbán warned that Europe was living in “interesting times” (an Oriental curse, he noted) due to immigration. He said:
We must confront a flood of people pouring out of the countries of the Middle East, and meanwhile the depth of Africa has been set in motion. Millions of people are preparing to set out. [. . .] [T]he most precise definition of this is “invasion”. Yes, Europe is under invasion. [. . .] We are living in crazy times; we are blindly racing towards an uncertain outcome.
Orbán also was keen to react to the latest Paris massacres, themselves the byproduct of Islamic immigration, with the Hungarian Parliament moving to the take the EU to court for its forced migrant relocation scheme. In his latest speech to the National Assembly, Orbán emphasized the existential threat of mass immigration, the paralyzing role of political correctness and liberal-leftist “ideologies,” and the fact that such immigration is manifestly an undemocratic violation of the will of the people:
What is more humane? We Hungarians have been advocating the closure of our borders to stop the flood of people coming from the Middle East and Africa. We have been fiercely criticised for this, by those who claim that this is not a humane approach. But we are faced with a question. Which approach is more humane: to close the borders in order to stop illegal immigration, or to put at risk the lives of innocent European citizens? The right to life takes precedence over all other rights, as does the right to self-defence. No ideology or economic interest of any kind should allow us to risk the lives of European citizens. Whichever way we look at it, the EU is rudderless. It is weak, uncertain and paralysed. There are meetings and conferences galore, but there are no solutions. We are floundering in the net of ideologies, instead of taking firm action on the basis of common sense and our own cultural traditions. The leaders of several European countries are still trying to concoct schemes on how to transport in and absorb masses of immigrants, instead of jointly taking practical steps to finally stop the flow. In Brussels they are still claiming that immigration is a good thing. Meanwhile, day after day we see evidence that immigration is a bad thing. It is not a win-win situation, but lose-lose. [. . .]
We feel that the very existence of Europe is at stake. In Brussels, however, all the wrong messages are being sent: there are ever more invitations to migrants, instead of telling them firmly and honestly that what they will find here is not at all what they expect. [. . .]
We have repeatedly warned the leaders of the European Union not to invite these people to Europe. Everyone who has soberly thought through the possible consequences of unlimited mass migration can see what dangers are inherent in the uncontrolled, illegal flow of people crossing our borders. [. . .] In addition, Honourable House, they are coming from regions in which European states are currently involved in military operations. The like of this has never happened before. [. . .]
But beyond the financial and economic realities, mass migration presents three serious risks, each of which is on its own sufficient reason to hold back the flood of people. Firstly, on Friday night we witnessed the fact that mass migration represents an exponentially increasing terror threat — indeed today we are not even talking about the threat of terror, but the fact and reality of terror. Secondly, mass migration increases the risk of crime. It is not PC, not politically correct, to talk about this —indeed in the Western world this fact is publicly denied — but it is a fact for all that. [. . .] Thirdly, mass resettlement of people arriving from other continents and cultures represents a threat to our culture, way of life, customs and traditions. Now those who have lived in the delusion of multi-culturalism — and who have sought to force this delusion on us — can see where all this is leading. [. . .]
The facts and tragic events show that we need a new European policy. [. . .] [W]e must give the people the right to have a say in European decisions, because the European Union must be based on democratic foundations. [. . .]
The citizens of Europe did not want hundreds of thousands of outsiders invading their countries by crossing their borders illegally, in an uncontrolled manner. No one anywhere has given authorisation or permission for this. People want to live in security, and want to enjoy the benefits of the European Union. And it is our duty as Members of Parliament and governments throughout Europe to listen to the people’s voice.
Orbán’s reference to Europeans’ “floundering in a net of ideologies” seems to fit in very nicely with Professor Kevin MacDonald’s account in The Culture of Critique: Westerners are today morally paralyzed by pseudo-universalist ideologies that spuriously delegitimize any European ethnic self-assertion or even self-defense.
Now I am sure some people will want to poo-poo Orbán for couching his opposition to immigration and his support for European fertility in broad cultural and civilizational terms rather than explicit racial-ethnic ones. I personally do work and hope for the day when our leaders will explicitly defend our ethnic-genetic interests as well as our civilizational ones,[3] but I will never talk down to anyone who is taking more risks and is more effective than myself.

Orbán is not writing in the columns of one of our dissident online journals, which for all their excellent quality must necessarily and proudly be on the margins of a degenerate mainstream culture. (Did I mention you should subscribe to The Occidental Quarterly? That’s only $60 yearly for a U.S. print subscription to be at the cutting edge of European-American nationalist thought. And really these issues will become priceless over time, both as rare documents of the early struggle and as heirlooms to share with your grandkids, that they better understand their European heritage and responsibility.) Rather, the Hungarian Prime Minister is speaking from the bully-pulpit of a sovereign European nation. And we should not forget that Hungary is physically a small nation in a world of much greater powers — the United States, Russia, Germany . . . — who range from indifferent to intensely-hostile to ethnic European interests. Achieving something politically is not the same thing as drawing up a perfect world on a blackboard.

That said, Orbán’s words do not mean we should not speak out for ethnic European interests and we must continue work to make our views mainstream (by changing the mainstream, not our views). We like to hope that, perhaps even in a not-so-distance future, Zsolt Bayer, Thilo Sarrazin, and Kevin MacDonald will be invited to speak at official high-level conferences like the Budapest Demographic Forum, to share their wisdom with the mass of unenlightened journalists and politicians. Perhaps in a few years Orbán, rather than deporting a Richard Spencer,[4] will be inviting him to co-organize such events . . . Hey, every achievement, before being realized, is first born as a dream!

[1]Actually, The Daily Show’s ratings have plummeted since Jon Stewart Leibowitz was replaced as host by the quarter-Jewish South African mulatto Trevor Noah. Could The Daily Show’s audience of smugly ignorant liberal college students and aging White cat ladies be too racist to appreciate a colored host? Daril Deino, “Trevor Noah Doesn’t Get Much Sympathy for Appendectomy as Poor ‘The Daily Show’ Ratings Plummet 37 Percent,” Inquisitr, November 8, 2015.
[2]So people do not think I am being cute (and to spare you reading hundreds of pages of the misleading pseudo-egalitarians Paul Krugman and Thomas Piketty), I will be explicit and say there are essentially two causes to the growth in economic inequality over the past 40 years: 1) Borderless globalized capitalism which necessarily imports world inequality into every nation and gives oligarchs enormous opportunities to concentrate their wealth. 2) Average ethnic differences in social and educational behavior, leading to differences in economic outcomes.
[3]And I do think it is worth occasionally emphasizing that our civilization should be as sacred to us as our blood. Of course our genes are the necessary prerequisite to our civilization, but that it is the latter (e.g. science) which will ultimately enable us to reach ever-higher formers, including through the improvement of our blood. We do not simply venerate the idea of our own inbred gene pool as a be-all and end-all. We are not pious Jews of the Abe Foxman type after all.
[4]I have no particular insight as to why the Orbán government – and it was certainly a ministerial-level decision – deported Richard Spencer for attempting to organize a pro-European conference in Budapest in October 2014. I continue to think that it is most likely that “the Prince” Orbán decided he would rather see the conference shut down than risk his regime losing political capital by association with marginal (to him) “American racists and Russian imperialists.” Admittedly, given all the things Orbán has done and been attacked for by Western elites over the years, this seems a very petty, even irrationally niggardly calculation. Given that Zsolt Bayer, Orbán’s close friend and co-founder of his political party, has explicitly defended White racial interests in the context of the migration crisis, one is tempted to think that if Orbán shut down a conference out of fear with association with White Nationalists, it may well because, as the media insinuates, he is in fact “guilty” of harboring similar ideas . . .

Who Is Responsible for White Genocide?

via Nationalist Alternative

Greg Johnson of Counter Currents publishing has penned an article titled “White Genocide” which questions whether people who aren’t aware that mass immigration and assimilation could lead to Whites being assimilated out can be held responsible.  Greg takes the view that it is likely there are people who are aware of the consequences, and therefore should be held responsible.
But when such people are informed, their reactions fall into several categories. Some will simply refuse to accept that white extinction is taking place. Of those who accept that white extinction is actually happening, some will wish to stop it, and others will not. Of the latter, some will simply not care, and others will actually cheer the process on.

There is, however, a difference between people who might sign on to policies promoting white genocide after the fact and those who might conceive and execute such policies before the fact and with full awareness of their consequences. What evidence is there that such people exist?

First, the burden of proof needs to be shifted. For is it really plausible that the leaders of dozens of white nations have adopted similar policies antithetical to the long-term survival of their own peoples, yet none of them knew what they are doing?

Yes, it is fashionable to deride politicians for thinking only in terms of the next election. But that is not really true. Politicians are, for instance, rather far-sighted when it comes to their personal career ambitions and plans. Beyond that, our ruling elites do not consist simply of democratic politicians. Moreover, the ruling elites in every form of society are noted for thinking and planning ahead. Both government intelligence agencies and private think tanks are in the business of generating long-term predictions based on current trends, and planning accordingly. Thus it is just not plausible that our leaders are unaware of white extinction. They either don’t care about it, or they want it to happen.
Indeed, there is ample evidence of both occurring, that is, people seeking to “undermine homogeneity“, and people who after having the facts pointed out, then seek to justify their position rather than reconsider it.  Greg then writes at length about the Jewish influence, which although exists, can act as a buffer, or even act as a defence of White people who cheer our own demise.
The question of whether people who perhaps haven’t deliberately sought to bring about a mixed race utopia in all and only white nations, but still support the basic principles which bring it about (third world immigration, assimilation, anti-racism and efforts against pro-white speech and sentiment) should be held accountable is an important one.  Particularly when there may come a day when this question becomes more than theoretical.
In this authors opinion, there is little doubt that everyone supporting the program must held as being responsible for it.  The crux of the White Genocide argument is that there are people who are supporting a program which will logically lead to white people being assimilated out through intermarriage and mass migration.  The logical conclusion is obvious, and anti-whites admit to it, admit it is desirable and cannot put forward an argument or proof that this won’t happen.  Anything which may be done to prevent this outcome is labelled by anti-whites as “racist”.  Anything.  Whether that be a single white nation putting in policy to stay white, or white people segregating, or white people suggesting against interracial marriage.  They are ALL racist.  They don’t support limiting immigration.  They don’t suggest that maybe mass non-white immigration can cease when a threshold is reached.  So anti-whites support everything which will result in whites being assimilated out.  They reject ANYTHING which may be put forward to prevent it.

Now, if this has been pointed out to them, and they cannot refute the argument, then they are then aware they are committing Genocide.  Note that at this point, most anti-whites then don’t refute, but rather rationalise it, suggest it doesn’t matter, suggest that perhaps it’s deserved, or no big deal, or its “progress”, or better than the alternative, or whatever.  They justify Genocide rather than prove it’s not occurring.

It is irrelevant whether they “know what they are doing” or not.  It has been pointed out.  Many times.  Not only by pro-whites, but by anti-whites.  I simply don’t buy that they don’t know.  The argument that “when the races are mixed, there will be no racism any more” has been put forward ad nauseum.  Everyone is familiar with it.  Everyone knows that it is only white nations which must become multiracial.  How else do they know to get upset when Hungary doesn’t take in refugees but not care when China which has millions of empty homes begging for people doesn’t?

Suggesting that perhaps anti-whites aren’t aware is a bad strategy.  They say all the time that whites must go.  They seem to be well aware of any perceived Islamophobia, of any comment which might cause angst for a person of colour, but aren’t aware of people saying it will be great when Whites are gone?   Ignorance is no excuse.  If someone tells you that the additive you put into coffee is going to kill someone, and you cannot prove otherwise, then if you continue to do so, you are responsible for the ensuing death.

There cannot be any room, nor acceptance of ignorance of this matter.  Once they have been told of the consequences of current policies and ‘morals’ leading to Genocide, and they’ve failed to prove that it doesn’t logically lead to it, then they are obligated, morally, if they don’t support Genocide, to reconsider their position.  If they refuse, they are accepting the outcome.

It must be put in such a stark matter.  It must become unacceptable to be neutral on this issue.

Michel Houellebecq, Founder of Neo-Reaction

via Alternative Right

Michel Houellebecq: a boon to
spellcheckers the world over
With Michel Houellebecq in the news for his novel, Submission, it makes sense to remember his roots. He has made his name writing about the tedium of modern life and fleeting glimpses of beauty, truth, and purity that tempt people from it. His usually tragic characters cannot realize that beauty because of their broken psychologies and neuroses.

Houellebecq burst onto the scene in 1997 with Whatever, a cynically humorous book — think Louis-Ferdinand Celine or William Burroughs — about the failure of modern life. The characters struggle through pointless and boring jobs, alienating sexual relationships and dysfunctional families, all while wandering through a 21st-century dystopian wasteland that is both beautiful in its ruin and crassly plastic in the assumptions through which most people survive.

Two years later came The Elementary Particles, a classic postmodern novel — think Thomas Pynchon’s V — where two characters take opposite versions of the same path. With much about wave/particle duality, a metaphor for both the fragmentation caused by individualistic society and the soul itself, this novel traces two brothers as they wander through the endless existential pitfalls and career successes of modern France. It handily defines the West: succeeding while feeling empty and never having what one actually needs.

Marine Le Pen gets her copy.
After that, Houellebecq wrote Platform, a book which compared sex tourism with terrorism and found moral and existential emptiness at the root of both, and The Possibility of an Island, which examines isolation through immortality while looking at the nature of cults, as the West increasingly begins to resemble one in the book.

He followed that with The Map and the Territory, which explored the difference between symbol and meaning, in a nudge toward the idea that nations are more than mere boundaries but are formed of a shared idea, feeling, and spirit. All of his books center on the same notion, which is that modern Westerners are hopelessly lonely because they have removed themselves from life through layers of abstraction.

Interestingly Houellebecq came on the heels of another artistic movement, Death Metal, which flowed from a similar concatenation of ideas, as I explored in another article at Right On:
The downfall of the illusion started with two important thinkers and a musical movement. Ted Kaczynski, a.k.a. the Unabomber, wrote a treatise called Industrial Society and Its Future in which he identified technology as the primary enemy of humanity, but also illustrated in clear Nietzschean terms the pernicious influence of Leftism and liberalism through their common origin in egalitarianism. He analyzed them through psychology, not ideology, which helped dig deeper toward the source of our decline. Michel Houellebecq wrote a book in 1997 called Whatever that simultaneously revealed the insanity of liberalism, the inanity of today’s style of work, and the empty misery of modern sex lives, also digging into the psychology of modern life rather than taking Leftist ideas at face value. The musical movement of “black metal,” a type of violent, alienated heavy metal, reversed the psychology of rock music which described itself as “good” in order to defend the callow pursuit of individual desires and karmic drama. The rock approach was both hedonistic and based in “protest songs” or declarations of the victimhood of the individual, cruelly forced to submit to social order, standards, values, and anything else which stood in the way of self-gratification, echoing the egalitarian ideal of liberalism.

Black metal turned its back on “good”; it aspired to “evil” and rejected all that was popular, human, and based in the individual in favor of a naturalistic wildness and feral self-interest like one might find in a Jack London novel. Where rock music assuaged the fears of teenagers that they would be inadequate in some Darwinian contest, black metal affirmed the need for war, death, and competition to restore the strength, honesty, and appreciation for natural beauty in humanity. In doing so, it transcended the individual, and while much has been written about its tendencies toward Satanism, the real drive behind the occult leanings of black metal seems to have been a rejection of the moral binary that made people believe that “good” came from flattering individuals with equal validity granted to all their desires. In rock, the individual and the social group become one; in black metal, the social impulse and the individualistic are together rejected. The morally obedient shopkeeper is replaced by the feral and lawless warrior, artist, and adventurer.

These rising ideas came only a few years after Francis Fukuyama penned his famous (and now partially retracted) The End of History and the Last Man, which posited a final evolution of humanity into liberal democracy, state-subsidized consumerism, and multiculturalism. Some conservative writers explicitly rejected this notion, most notably Samuel Huntington with his The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, in which he argued that history was very much alive and continuing through conflict between civilizations, which were formed of ethnic, cultural, and moral commonality more than by political and economic ties.
Putting Houellebecq into this context, we see him as one of the steps in the groundwork of ideas that led to the explosion in right-wing thinking that links nationalism, anti-sexual revolution, anti-modern, and anti-consumerist thinking together. This followed the Kaczynski/black metal nexus that linked the right with a more intense form of environmentalism that demands, like the Deep Ecology mission statement, that we re-order our society so that it does not create behaviors that damage the environment, instead of relying on the band-aids of regulation and energy efficient appliances that leftist environmentalists favor.

Others, as in this article in the Catholic Herald, are asking whether Houellebecq is the standard-bearer of a new rightist resurgence:
Last week’s Spectator carried a piece about Les nouveaux réactionnaires, French intellectuals who reject the culture of 1968 and the politics of multiculturalism. As Patrick Marnham writes:
The new reactionaries are convinced that one of the cornerstones of French culture, ‘freedom of expression’, is dying. They reject ‘post-colonial guilt’ and are appalled by ‘cultural relativism’. To get down to the nitty-gritty, they take the view that France’s sovereignty is under threat from Arab immigration. Europe’s migration crisis has highlighted their fears, and the lip service that President Hollande pays to Angela Merkel’s refugee-quota system — widely unpopular in France — has further aided the reactionaries’ arguments.
The neo-reactionaries don’t appear to be reactionaries as such, just people who have fallen out with the Left over multiculturalism just as neo-conservatives fell out with the Left over Communism. No true reactionary could argue that a “golden age” began in 1789, as the article states – a year that brought about the “regicide state”, in the words of the late Fr Jean-Marie Charles-Roux.
It is for this reason that many of us who read Moldbug do so in the context of Houellebecq, or more appropriately, as a series of libertarian arguments designed to make us see Houellebecq’s point of view. Other movements like The Red Pill started angry but found themselves coming around to Houellebecq’s observations, such as that men are lonely because of a lack of lasting and faithful love. Even the most recent New Right resurgence has a distinctive Houellebecquian tone (that word just broke my spell checker) in that it looks more toward identitarianism as a source of commonality than a pragmatic adaptation of policy.

Others have noticed the insight that Houellebecq is conveying:
Like many people who pretend to parle a little francais but get tired after reading a page, I’ve only just now read the newly-translated "Submission," Michel Houellebecq’s dystopian vision of a near-future French republic that succumbs willingly to a vaguely Tariq Ramadan-esque form of political Islam. When I say "dystopian," the casual reader may infer — as many people did when the book first appeared, literally at the same moment as the "Charlie Hebdo" massacre — that the dystopia is the Islamicized France, that Houellebecq is trying to do for Islamism or "Eurabia" what Orwell once did for Stalinism. But if you’ve read the keener reviews (or Houellebecq’s previous novels) you probably understand that no, actually, the dystopia is the contemporary West, and the Islamified future that Houellebecq’s story ushers in is portrayed as a kind of civilizational step forward, or if you prefer a necessary regression back to health.

I sort of knew this going in but even so it was remarkable how — well, I think neo-reactionary is really the only term to use to describe what Houellebecq seems to be doing in his portrait of contemporary France and his mischievous prophecy about its potential trajectory. And I do mean neo-reactionary in the internet-movement, Mencius Moldbug sense of the term (if you aren’t familiar with this particular rabbit hole, good luck): The overt political teaching of “Submission” is that Europe is dying from the disease called liberalism, that it can be saved only by a return of hierarchy and patriarchy and patriotism and religion and probably some kind of monarchy as well, but that religion itself is primarily an instrumental good and so the point is to find a faith that actually convinces and inspires and works (and that’s, well, a little manly), and on that front European Christianity and particularly Roman Catholicism is basically a dead letter so the future might as well belong to Islam instead.
Kaczynski saw liberalism as a psychological disease; black metal saw it as moral cowardice; Houellebecq sees it as a spiritual disease (calling to mind one of the greats of Swedish death metal, who composed an album entitled Terminal Spirit Disease). Perhaps all three are right. Perhaps it is simply illogical and something which dismantles civilization, which in turn creates the effects of all three as people become the particles adrift of Houellebecq’s second novel.

Celine with his pet parrot, Toto.
Like Celine’s Journey to the End of the Night, his books feature characters venturing through a society that is on its surface thriving but a few levels deeper is as dystopian as Blade Runner. The only movies that come close to portraying this kind of disconnect are Apocalypse Now, Demolition Man, and Repo Man, which reveal the underlying loneliness of anyone who is awake in a time of sleepwalkers who have bought into whatever political or economic justifications seem to make people feel successful for living in this time. This is why these visions meet so much resistance: they attack society, true, but more pointedly, they attack our individual illusions of living in a good era. This upsets people because they rely on those illusions in order to tolerate all of the tedium, parasitism, and nonsense.

Another insight from fellow writer Karl Ove Knausgaard fills in the big picture of what Houellebecq, like Celine, is evoking:
When François at the beginning of the novel writes that the great majority in Western societies are blinded by avarice and consumerist lust, even more so by the desire to assert themselves, inspired by their idols, athletes, actors and models, unable to see their own lives as they are, utterly devoid of meaning, what he is describing is the function of faith in modern society. The fact that he himself does not possess such faith, that he exists outside of it, within the meaningless, as it were, he explains as follows: “For various psychological reasons that I have neither the skill nor the desire to analyze, I wasn’t that way at all.”

This is the only place in the novel that opens up for the idea that the emptiness and ennui that François feels is not just universal, a kind of existential condition applicable to us all and which most people hide away behind walls of illusion, it may also have individual causes. That is somewhere he doesn’t want to go, and thus a vast and interesting field of tension is set up in the novel, since the narrator is a person who is unable to bond with others, feels no closeness to anyone, not even himself, and moreover understands solitude existentially, that is from a distance, as something general, a universal condition, or as something determined by society, typical of our age, at the same time as he tells us his parents never wanted anything to do with him, that he hardly had any contact with them, and that their deaths are little more than insignificant incidents in his life. Such an understanding, that the ennui and emptiness he feels so strongly are related to his incapacity to feel emotion or establish closeness to others, and that it is difficult, indeed impossible, not to see this as having to do with lifelong rejection, is extraneous to the novel’s universe, since nothing would be remoter to François’s worldview, an intimate model of explanation would be impossible for him to accept, a mere addition to the list of things in which he doesn’t believe: love, politics, psychology, religion.
The point here is that most of us are accustomed to “Systems,” like democracy, capitalism, etc. and we tend to see solutions the same way. “Get religion in there!” screams the American Republican. But that, alone, will not do it. Religion is not a system of rules like our regulatory state or EU laws, but a compulsion within the individual to charge life with meaning and thus, want to do good.

Similarly we cannot, like the Nazis, impose Nationalism by rules, but need to come together as a people toward a common idea of positive logic, or what we want to create on an ongoing basis. National identity is like that, as is religion, and also the alertness to life itself that Houellebecq’s characters get a whiff of but can never fully realize.

We must regrow our souls, but this cannot be done externally. It can only be done through vague and amorphous ideas like identity, reverence, and transcendence. We must re-grow the love for life in our souls to see what good is, and through that, to re-animate the corpses of religion, identity, and culture.

Houellebecq is not as popular on the internet as those who offer Systems. Moldbug offers us the idea of taking the gated community to the next level and creating libertarian micro-states within the dying realms of the West, but that does not address the internal problem, which is that people have not beaten their internal rottenness.

The Orthosphere offers us religious fanaticism informed by history, which beats out the fundamentalist and extremist variants and is mostly right, but not a solution in itself. Cramming people into religion without having their souls ready to come to it will turn religion into an ideology and, as a glance over the alt-right Traditionalist and Catholic blogs show us, has already done so. Even capitalism can become ideological, or externally-imposed as a universal, when designated as "The Solution."

Those ideas are simpler than the thought of a spiritual revival against disease, and so they win out over Houellebecq on the blogs of the world, but none seem satisfying because ultimately they lack what Houellebecq has given us: a map out of the territory of darkness of the soul by noticing beauty and making ourselves receptive to the possibility of goodness, joy, and delight in our world.

The National Democratic Party of Germany

via Britannia

The National Democratic Party (Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands, or NPD) is Germany's oldest nationalist party since 1945 and one of the few patriotic organizations not yet banned by the government. It was formed on November 28, 1964, by leading members of the disbanded Deutsche Reichspartei and several smaller patriotic groups. At that time the NPD was led by Adolf von Thadden, while other active members included the noted revisionist historian Udo Walendy, ex-Wehrmacht General Artur Wilhelm Schmitt, and rocket pioneer Dr. Hermann Oberth.

 Among those offering their early support and assistance was Britain's Nationalist leader Sir Oswald Mosley. In a letter of December 16, 1964, to leading NPD member Wolfgang Frenz, Mosley wrote enthusiastically of his hopes for the new party, stressing that it is "of the greatest importance ... to support the formation of a nationalist party for Europe".

The NPD grew rapidly during the 1960's, gaining elected representatives in seven West German provincial parliaments. Initially it was held together by a common commitment to German unification and an end to occupation by foreign armies. The party lacked a radical ideology, however, and this was highlighted when it lost most of its support to established conservative politicians who adopted some of the NPD's goals during the 1970's.

At the end of that decade, therefore, the then chairman, Martin Mussgnug, began a restructuring which combined the dropping of much of the early conservative political rhetoric with an emphasis on the ideological education of members. Thereafter the party began concentrating upon building a strong organizational infrastructure, rather than upon short-term electioneering. Consequently, after the partial reunification of Germany in 1990, the NPD was able to gain considerable strength in the eastern part of the country: the former German Democratic Republic. In fact, today the NPD is strongest in the eastern parts of the country.

Under Udo Voigt, who led the party since 1996, the NPD continued to pursue a revolutionary political course and the active cooperation of serious, like-minded organizations worldwide. In September 1996 the NPD's youth organization sponsored a European Youth Congress attended by 400 German nationalists and representatives of nationalist organizations from across Europe and North America. Udo Voigt served in the German Army (Bundeswehr) and left as captain.

In 1995 he became vice-chairman of the party and in 1996 was elected chairman of the NPD. In the period with Voigt considerable victories were achieved. In 2004 the NPD attained 9.2% of the electorate and won factional strength in state parliament in the southeastern State of Saxony and only two years later 7.3% in the northeastern State of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern where a second faction in a state parliament was established with Udo Pastörs as leader. This was a real shock for the system-parties in Germany. Besides these victories, the NPD also made good progress in municipal and local elections with over 21% of the votes in some districts.

The fact that the NPD remained in parliament after the following state elections in Saxony 2009 and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 2011 5 years later was a great pain to the system and a great success for the party and its´ followers. However, under Voigt party finances were not clearly administered and the fact that the federal treasurer Erwin Kemna did not work correctly and was not controlled at top level as it should have been, led to grave financial problems. Kema was charged and punished but the party had lost a degree of credibility. In the following years the German Bundestag penalized the party by withholding a great deal of allocated money, i.e. the money that was due to the NPD in course of election successes. It took a number of internal changes both personal and structural and also some time to correct the damage.

The first change was the election of Holger Apfel as the new chairman in November 2011 and in the following years the NPD stood firm, taking part in all important elections. However the System exercised more and more political pressure on the NPD and after the so called “NSU-Affair” (National-Socialist-Underground) was disclosed by government and media in the same month and year and made accountable for the murder of 9 migrants and one policewoman the calls for a ban of the NPD led to a second effort after the first one had failed in 2003 due to the involvement of the secret services. As expected, the whole NSU complex has thrown up more questions than answers and the complete failure of the police and secret services in a period of over 10 years has led to more and more disbelief.

Up to the present all relevant efforts of the system and the media to construct common lines of activity between NPD and NSU have failed. Many observers and even political opponents have lost faith in German authorities and now the whole crisis is being focused out of public attention after the reports of the Thüringen State Parliament Investigation Committee in 2014 humbled all involved institutions. But still, the government supported and directed initial campaign against the NPD has caused political setbacks.

Holger Apfel resigned as chairman of the NPD and also as leader of the faction in the state parliament of Saxony at the end of December 2013 due to moral allegations against him which he did not clear.

In this difficult situation vice chairman Udo Pastörs, also leader of a state parliament faction took responsibility for the NPD. In the European elections of May 2014 the NPD reached a result that enabled former chairman Udo Voigt to represent true German politics in Brussels and Strasburg. The first time ever for the NPD! Udo Pastörs however, could not compensate all the political damage caused by Apfel´s retreat and therefore the former excellent standing in Saxony was partly lost in the state election on the 31st of August 2014 by a mere 800 votes or 0.05% of the electorate which was necessary to jump the 5% hurdle for the third time in succession. Whether or not the election result was real cannot be cleared, but the loss of the representation in a state parliament is a bitter blow. No doubt, the comrades in Saxony will recover and can make it the next time around. Due to the election result in Saxony the good hopes for the elections in Thuringen and Brandenburg, only weeks thereafter, could not be fulfilled.

On the 1st and 2nd of November 2014 a new board of directors (Parteivorstand) was elected. The new chairman is Frank Franz who has formerly been a member of the board of directors and was mainly responsible for press and media. Franz comes from the small German state of Saarland which borders France and Luxemburg. Franz wants to make the NPD more modern and acceptable and will be supported by many reliable comrades who have been in responsible positions in the past years. Like all others before him Franz must reckon to be hounded by the government and the media, but he stands not alone.

Ingo Stawitz

English Homepage of the National Democratic Party of Germany
At a meeting of the London Forum two weeks ago, the deputy leader of the NPD, Karl Richter, was one of the guest speakers. At the end of his speech, he received two standing ovations.