Dec 8, 2015

The Dating Game: White Men Wanted

via Western Spring

Meeting up with Nationalist types can often be a bit of a ‘downer’. A recurring complaint is that mixed-race babies seem to be everywhere and white women have been brainwashed into chasing black men to the exclusion of men of their own race.

I am notoriously positive and optimistic about things in general, but am I naive?

Well, I’ve had some experience of online dating sites and I can state with confidence that by far and away the single most commonly stated preference by white women in their 20s for their desired boyfriend’s ethnicity is “White Caucasian” only. I’d estimate that that more than 80% of white girls’ specifically state that they want only a white partner.

The second most common is to leave that part of her profile blank with no stated preference. This could indicate no racial preference or, more likely, that she is afraid to share her preference publicly but will exercise her choice privately.

The third most commonly stated preference is “White Caucasian or Mediterranean”, which still means white unless you want to get really puritanical about certain parts of south eastern Europe.

You could view a hundred white female dating profiles and only find around five who would state any ethnicity other than white as acceptable to them. But these would also include white as also acceptable.

Only once did I ever see a white girl stating her preference as “black” only. She was hideous of face and cloven of foot and you would not have been sorry to lose her from the gene pool I promise you!

But perhaps my dating site experience is not fully representative so let’s look at some more scientific data.

According to a 2011 study on over one million dating website profiles:
“More than 80% of the online dating contacts initiated by whites were to other whites, with only 3% going to blacks. This trend held for both men and women, young and old.”
Another massive study of online daters found that:
“Over 90% of white women who state a racial preference prefer not to date Blacks, East Indians, Middle Easterners and Asians.”
So, despite our media’s obsessive promotion of black and mixed-race singers and sportsmen and even greater obsessive promotion of white female traitors such as Cheryl Cole and the Kardashian monsters, white women are overwhelmingly seeking a white male partner today.

Furthermore, a Princeton University study in 2006 found that:
“One of the most striking findings is that white women who describe themselves as slim, slender, athletic, fit or average are nearly seven times as likely to exclude black men as dates as women who describe themselves as thick, voluptuous, a few extra pounds, or large.”
white wedding

Overall, there were some clear observable trends, in all these studies it seems that women of all races are significantly more racially loyal to their men than the men are to their women. However, men also exhibit bias toward women of their own race.

Beyond racial loyalty there was a noticeable preference among women of other races toward white men. Of all the racial and sex categories the most racially loyal group was…. white women. The most disproportionately preferred group of all, by far, was … White men.

The liberal media since the last census in 2011 have joyously announced that the fastest growing racial group in Great Britain is the “mixed-race” category – yay, we are on the way to creating a coffee-coloured utopia where we can all just hold hands and under a rainbow for the rest of time!

Thankfully, this is a complete myth and is only true if the measure of growth is taken in relation to the groups’ own tiny size.

The Great British census of 2011 reported that the proportion of people of mixed white and black ethnicity was 1.1%. This was a 67% growth from the 2001 figure of 0.7%.
Nationalists need to remember that there are over 55 million white people in this country and that hardly any of them are race traitors, homosexuals, transexuals, or even leftists!

white couple

94% agree that Britain is ‘full up’

67% agree that British firms should be able to give British citizens priority over other EU citizens when hiring new workers, even if this means the UK would have to leave the EU

69% believe that immigration is having a negative effect on the UK

78% support the government’s aim to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands, including 70% of those who voted LibDem!

18% trust politicians to tell the truth

36% agree that most MPs have a high personal moral code

15% of respondents thought it would be likely for the PM to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands by the next election 77% thought it was unlikely
I feel entirely validated in my optimism for the future of my country and people but we certainly have much to do.

The future is ours if only we have the confidence and discipline to reach out together and take it!

I hope that you will join Western Spring, the only group in Great Britain with a full realistic plan led by proven Nationalists of a high-calibre. Contact us today if you have not already done so and arrange a meeting with one of our representatives in your area.

white barbour

The Religious War of the 21st Century

via The Nationalist Alternative

Many remark that the violence clash between Westerners and Islam is a clash of civilisations, or perhaps a clash of religions.  Their thesis is that Islam is trying to impose itself on us, and we are to defend our religion, or our way of life against this.  This seems to the the position of many mainstream conservatives, and of the anti-Islam patriot groups which have spawned from it.  There is an element of conflict between these cultures, but the bigger conflict may be between the faithful and the apostates.

One one side we have Islamic fundamentalists, who wish a return to the Caliphate, and stricter adherence to Islamic doctrine, which is in line with the Koran, despite what Liberals wish you to believe.  These groups, exemplified by ISIS are pushing for a strong adherence to their religion and a more complete rejection of Western decadence. Boko Haram seeks to drive out Western influence and education.  The clue is in the name, which translates to “Western influence is a sin”.  ISIS seek to impose an Islamic State, a world white caliphate.  The clue is in the name, which beings with “Islamic State”. The Taliban are students of Islamic Law, and seek more accurate fulfilment of Sharia law.  Their war against is, is a war against the unbelievers.  The Jihad prescribed in the Koran, despite what Liberals wish you to believe.  Their fight is to protect, and expand their religion against those who may undermine in.

On the other side you have Western Liberal Democracy, which also adheres to a religion.  That religion is Political Correctness.  When the Paris attacks occurred, indeed, when any Islamist attack happens in the West, the first response is not to target the attackers and remove the threat, but to allay fears over Islam, to denounce the “racists” for perhaps “marginalising” Muslims, to worry about an “Muslim backlash” and in general keep pushing solidarity and multiculturalism.  The attacks in Paris were notable for the lack of any retribution or sense of hatred or desire for defence.  What did the French first go to defend? Themselves? Their people? The first thing that they went to defend, as is the case for any Western nation, is their faith. Bullets and explosions for Islamic terrorism, particularly from the home grown terrorists, those who supposedly form part of the integrated multicultural vibrant tapestry of peoples shatter the illusion of their religion. The religion of Political Correctness which asserts that this multiculturalism will not only work in creating an enlightened, peaceful society free from hatred, violence and tribalism, but that it is necessary for this development to occur and succeed.

So when these events occur. When any event occurs which contradicts their orthodoxy and vindicates our criticism of their faith, they must go into defence. They must show that it isn’t the faith that is flawed, but the unbelievers who have brought this calamity. It is a lack of integration. It is Western Supremacy. It is marginalisation. It is the Muslims who don’t accept Political Correctness. This is where they claim the fault lies, and the solution is to push the religion even harder. Even more denunciation and persecution of the heretics, and a push to make Political Correctness even more encompassing, to arm and empower its priests. All these attempt, the endless social media posts asserting that this has nothing to with Islam, all the vitriol against those who point out the problems of open borders, these are attempts at defending their own belief system, because without these efforts, their belief system would fall apart in the face of contradictory evidence and their moral monopoly and power would be undermined. One may look at these reactions and think they are a matter of a weak people showing their weakness and lack of resolve, and to a degree this is correct. However, we aren’t just seeing abject weakness and cowardice, we are seeing a system of power exert itself, and this system of power in modern Western Liberal Democracies is a theocratic power ruling as per the religion of Political Correctness. This religion is under threat from the growing far right, from neoreactionaries and nationalists (but not the zio-patriots), and also from the activities of Muslims who have a competing religion. Some have argued that ISIS targeted the hipster district of Paris to try and create division, to create a divide between Islam and the infidels. Maybe this is just an argument to try and dissuade people from putting the blame for this attack where it belongs, at Islamists pushing Islam, but maybe there is truth in this, and ISIS are trying to push people away from the competing religion of Political Correctness, and undermine it by showing its ugly truths. Perhaps through these attacks they are pushing forwards Liberalisms underlying flaws and making them plain and clear for all to see, to drive them out of the altar of worship for diversity and universal multiculturalism.

For nationalists, this is neither welcome of undesirable, but the result of a religion which persists to maintain itself, even if it has to martyr its adherents through terror attacks, rapes and other forms of exclusion and tribalistic passive-aggressive tactics, such as Europe’s no go zones. Those who don’t wish to be martyred such as those who might support Le Pen, are beyond the pale, as they are apostates who have rejected not only Political Correctness, but its basic underlying tenets. It is here, at least in Western lands, where the real war lies.

How long this religion can stand against all observations to the contrary is anyone’s guess, but one of the first steps to solving this problem is admitting there is a problem, and the West can’t begin to shake off this false religion, this false cult of diversity until it realises it is in a cult in the first place.

The End of Electoral Democracy in Britain?

via The Occidental Observer

Those who say that the electoral road is finished for White advocates in heavily Muslim populated areas of the UK, have had their argument boosted by a perverse by-election result in one of the Labour Party’s safest seats.

Indications were that Oldham West and Royton near Manchester would be close, with the anti-immigration UKIP breathing down Labour’s necks. Completely against normal mid-term by-election patterns, the Labour vote effectively defied gravity and went up 7.49% and the party romped home with a greatly increased majority.

The election appears to have been stolen by massive organised postal vote fraud within the Muslim community which comprises more than a third of the electorate in Oldham. The crucial factor seems to be bundles of postal votes delivered in the last days by “senior Muslim representatives of the Labour Party.” Oldham, which has a long history of racial tension, is notorious for this type of rigging.

It is a travesty so blatant that the only way the establishment can deal with it is to sneer and collectively turn a blind eye. The media is restricting itself to reporting how UKIP leader Nigel Farage immediately came under fire for suggesting the vote was “bent.” Indeed, Farage sees the end of British democracy:
There are some really quite big ethnic changes now in the way people are voting. They can’t speak English, they have never heard of Ukip or the Conservative Party, they haven’t even heard of Jeremy Corbyn.
I’m commenting on the state of modern Britain, post mass immigration. It means effectively that in some of these seats where people don’t speak English and they sign up to postal votes, effectively the electoral process is now dead.
Stories and allegations began to pour in on social media. One UKIP source said “I’ve never seen in 25 years of being involved in politics where you get over 15 per cent of the total votes run in on the last day. That is very weird.”

“Is this Britain or is this Harare?” ran the Telegraph headline quoting Nigel Farage the UKIP leader “It was a very safe Labour seat, but what was happening in the postal vote was worrying.”

UKIP Deputy Leader Paul Nuttal branded the postal voting system an “affront to democracy”. He added:
We’ve had problems in Tower Hamlets with this, we’ve had problems in Birmingham. I can only foresee more problems, particularly in these northern seats, in years to come.
The UKIP candidate John Bickley, said:
I was quite stunned at how the postal votes had an impact on the result. It was such an impact that actually none of us should have bothered to turn up. The postal voting system is no longer fit for purpose in a democracy.
Mid-term by-elections are usually an opportunity for the electorate to deliver a bloody nose to the incumbent party. At the general election UKIP came within 600 votes of capturing this solidly Labour seat. With Labour currently beset by internal acrimony and increased anger at the dispersal of thousands of “Syrian refugees,” it seemed ripe for UKIP victory.

Farage claimed that many voters could not speak English. This chimed with what Guardian reporter Helen Pidd discovered at the weekend “A dismaying number of voters I met in Oldham today cannot speak English despite living here a decade or more. But they’re voting Labour,” she wrote. If they cannot speak English then they cannot read English, so how can they read the ballot form? Answer; they cannot. Helen Pidd wrote that one Pakistani said he would sit down as a family and decide how to cast their votes “doing little to dispel the belief that many Asian families still vote as a bloc.”

There is nothing new about Muslim electoral fraud but never has it been as open and blatant as it is now. This is particularly true among inner-city wards dominated by Muslim clan leaders who effectively control the local franchise and even set up ‘voting factories’ to process ballot papers.

The worst areas in the country for this are said to be the Muslim-dominated communities of Tower Hamlets, Blackburn — and Oldham. A Google search of the words “Asian election fraud” returns too many cases to go through. A few years ago there were 50 criminal inquiries into a range of voting frauds, all in Muslim areas.

A BBC report found that Muslims were even targeting British Pakistanis who have relocated in their thousands to the Pakistan district of Maipur. The activists were going door to door asking eligible “British voters” to sign over their entitlement to a proxy or postal vote. Earlier this year in Britain’s most heavily Muslim area of Tower Hamlets in East London the Mayor was jailed for corruption which included vote rigging.

In the Birmingham local elections of 2004, six Muslim men stole thousands of ballot papers and marked them for Labour candidates. The Election Commissioner, Judge Richard Mawrey QC, said at their trial that the contest “would have disgraced a banana republic.”  Yet, more than ten years on, the problem has only got worse because in a system where the parties are indistinguishable on immigration, reform of a system that keeps White protests out is in none of their interests.

Nevertheless, there is plenty of encouragement for White advocates to draw from this result.  For the first time it is now being freely and openly admitted even on the BBC that Labour’s victory was down to what it called the “Asian community” whereas The Times  admitted the White Working Class was UKIP’s secret weapon.   Given the allegiances of the UK media, it was amazing to read acknowledgement of Whites as a group in this context!

This was repeated in even more eye-opening terms in a story which is sadly behind a paywall. One unnamed Labour official told The Times: “The white working class vote is going west, but things seem to be going well among the Asian vote. A win is a win, even if it is seconds before the whistle, with a flat ball.” An astonishing admission — and in the The Times of all places!

The more that the Labour Party can be shown to represent the  interests of Labour elites, public sector professionals and Muslims, the more it will be abandoned by the White working class.  For White advocates this can only be good news: the more alienation from Labour and the electoral system the better.

Oldham shows that the policy of White replacement is now in progress and undeniable. Poor Whites are superfluous—no longer needed or wanted. Whites are, in the words of Monty Python, a Dead Parrot of a population. They have ceased to exist.

But Labour too is dead as far as poor Whites are concerned. As a defender of their interests, it has ceased to exist. It is now largely a vehicle for women, minorities and middle-class careerists who look forward to a life in the well-rewarded and not too arduous area of “prole control.” These are the researchers, policy advisors, the therapists and communications managers, the consultants who will form the state’s overseer class.

These Brahmins, often the offspring of lecturers, teachers, and trade union professionals of the rest of the political class, fill undemanding but lucrative careers in London working for trade unions, NGOs and perhaps even better paid jobs in the European Union in Brussels. And if any of the Whites back home get uppity, a combination of media, union-supported antifa paramilitaries and increasingly ferocious laws will deliver the necessary smack to the head.

So is the White working class in Oldham so stupefied with television, soccer and drugs that they will never throw off their shackles? Well, Labour thought that in Scotland — until the last election in May when the party was virtually wiped out by the separatist socialists of the SNP. The century-old rock-solid, impregnable Scottish Labour vote disappeared like light snow on a lawn on a sunny day.

This week British jets began pounding Syria for the first time. As events in Paris have shown, this won’t go down well with certain sections of our population. Perhaps it is time to take comfort from the Bolshevik insight that “worse is better” — the worse things get, the more people will wake up.

Jewish Hypocrisy 101

via Transudationism


Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared Sunday that "Israel will not be a binational state" and blamed the Palestinians for the failure of peace efforts. But despite Netanyahu's pledges, Jewish settlement of the West Bank continues apace, while confusion over his true intentions grows by the day. 

The left still favors a pullout, but the rationale has shifted to something more like nationalism: without a pullout, Israel would no longer be a Jewish-majority democracy because half of its population in effect will be Palestinians, most of them without true democratic rights.





Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reiterated on Sunday that “Israel will not be a binational state,” following a warning from US Secretary of State John Kerry that this would be the alternative to a peace accord.




“In order to have peace, the other side must decide it too wants peace,” the prime minister said at the beginning of the weekly cabinet meeting.




The Traditionalist Worker Party: Coming Down the Road

via TradYouth

The Western Kentucky Chapter of our Traditionalist Worker Party marched in the Madisonville Christmas Parade this weekend. This event marks an important transition toward a more community-oriented grassroots approach to our advocacy. We’ve been fighting our enemies in the streets for years, and we’ve been talking a whole bunch about helping engaging with and helping ordinary folks in small town America, but we’re only now beginning to translate that theory into practice.

The founder of the Falange, Jose Antonio, famously said,
“Nobody was ever born a member of a political party; on the contrary, we are all born members of one family; we are all citizens of one Municipality; we all press forward in the exercise of one task of work.”
Before setting off on the parade
Before setting off on the parade
This is the view of the Traditionalist Worker Party, each and every member of our folk shares our blood, shares our culture, and is part of our extended family. The Party has the mission of becoming the embodiment of the will of our people and fighting for their best interests against the enemies of our people and their families on both the Left and the Right.

The Christmas Parade was our first major event working within local communities to begin to introduce our symbol, our messaging, and the purpose of our Party. Before the march we met up and held a meeting to discuss recruitment efforts, organizing a food drive for local needy families, tactics for running campaigns on the local level, and of course having a great deal of fellowship between comrades.

There’s much more work for us to do. We have ourselves an uphill battle and the enemies of faith, family, and folk aren’t going to yield an inch without struggle. But what’s clear is that the elites have so thoroughly discredited themselves with Middle America that for the first time in decades, people are willing to give our case a hearing. We can and should step over the perennial argument in identitarian circles, the one over whether we should try to trick normies into supporting our cause or whether we should work around them.

This approach is working and will continue to work because the Silent Majority of White Americans agree with most if not all of our positions. The vision our Party has of building an organic and healthy society is one that every husband, every wife and every child can get behind, it means a future that is safe, wholesome, and thriving instead of the current age of stagnation, degeneracy, and both demographic and cultural death.

Together, our Party comrades marched with two standards of our Party; a Party flag and a banner on the front of one of our members trucks while handing out literature and candy canes to those lining the parade route. The people of Madisonville got to see our symbol for the first and certainly not the last time, carried by both familiar local faces and a handful of new faces like mine.

In the parade our chapter had hundreds of candy canes to local children that had the message “Local Solutions to the Globalist Problem www.tradworker.org” stapled to them. The kids absolutely loved the candy and I believe that many of their parents when seeing the message will investigate our Party and join to fight for their children’s future.

The Traditionalist Worker Party is coming to a city near you
The Traditionalist Worker Party is
coming to a city near you
To the masses of locals who were at the parade route, we handed out over one thousand anti-immigration and pro-worker flyers. Men and women of different social classes were incredibly receptive to our message. When handing out flyers telling locals “Keep our communities safe, keep terrorists out” and “Protect your children, keep Kentucky safe” hundreds of people responded positively. Multiple people asked how they could get involved and we told them to get in contact with our local leadership to join the local chapter and come to our next meeting.

When we reached the center of town the announcers on a giant P.A system announced our Party name and our motto and the crowd responded warmly with one man who we had given literature to shouting out “Screw the Republicans and Democrats!” Truly the people are awakening that the political class has abandoned them and that it is time for a new Party to take up the battle standard and fight for them.

Overall, this march was an extremely successful event and folks should keep on the lookout for more participation in local events by the Traditionalist Worker Party. The future belongs to us, but only if we seize it.

When John Met Mark: John Lennon's Assassination, 35 Years on

via Alternative Right

Lennon autographs Chapman's "Double
Fantasy" album on Dec. 8, 1980
Their brush with one another was the paradigmatic encounter between the Celebrity and the Nobody, the "have" and the "have-not" of the postmodern age, an era which hypocritically blasts endless PSAs about "equality," "democracy," and "self-esteem" while implicitly deriding non-celebrities as losers, wastes of space, and living beings unworthy of life.


The meeting outside of Manhattan's tony Dakota building between John Winston Ono Lennon and Mark David Chapman would result in the former's murder and the latter's lifelong incarceration. It would provoke numerous public expressions of grief from hundreds of thousands of people who felt their lives were somehow affected by the death of a man they'd never met.




Mark Chapman, a tormented young man fueled by delusional narcissism, had become obsessed with Catcher in the Rye, J.D. Salinger's classic chronicle of adolescent alienation. The novel's narrator is Holden Caulfield, a bitterly misanthropic teenage boy on the brink of nervous collapse. Holden heatedly fulminates against the world's "phonies," people who pretend to be what they aren't, who pose as righteous when they're actually venal and selfish.

                                  
A "killer" prom pic of Mark David Chapman


Chapman soon grew equally fixated on ex-Beatle John Lennon, his former hero, whom he now regarded as the ultimate phony. "He told us to imagine no possessions," Chapman later put it, "and there he was, with millions of dollars and yachts and farms and country estates, laughing at people like me who had believed the lies and bought the records and built a big part of their lives around his music."



Chapman came to view it as his mission to uphold Holden Caulfield's spirit by slaying this vain and gluttonous rock-idol monster. He bought a .38-caliber revolver and a plane ticket to New York. He purchased the recently released Double Fantasy album, planted himself in front of Lennon's luxury apartment building with record in hand and gun in pocket, and waited for the star to ride up in his limo.



For all of his mounting madness, Chapman understood one thing well: You were nobody in the modern world if you weren't famous. He later told Barbara Walters that by committing the murder, he felt he'd "acquire his (Lennon's) fame."



And he was right. Killing a famous man gave Chapman the very attention he sought. He was no longer a nobody; now, he himself was a "star."



Chapman's aim was, in a sense, truer than that of other antihero assassins such as Lee Oswald and John Hinckley. The latter two merely set their sights of presidents, while Chapman focused on a rock star, an infinitely more acclaimed figure in our culture of celebrity worship.



Lennon was neither the ludicrously hateful villain of Chapman's imagination nor the glorious love guru his followers imagine him to be. Like most of us, Lennon appears to have been an imperfect person with some admirable traits and many notable faults. He was an immensely talented songwriter and musician with a spotty personal life plagued by sexual infidelity, drug addiction, and other vices; a man prone to wretched self-indulgence, but also articulate, intelligent, and often winningly self-effacing and sincere; at times a charlatan, but undoubtedly a genius. 

"The way things are goin', they're gonna crucify me!"



To Chapman, Lennon only represented the world's execrable "phoniness," which Chapman took as a personal affront. This simplistically negative conception didn't do justice to Lennon's complicated personality. But after Chapman filled his former hero with bullets and surrendered to police on that December evening in New York, the ex-Beatle's posthumous ascension to holy martyrdom has grown annoying, even obnoxious.



On this thirty-fifth anniversary of Lennon's murder, we hear little but holy rubbish about this rich, besotted, pampered celebrity who met a tragic end at a young age. He was, we are now commonly informed, a "speaker of truth to power," a "noble soul too pure for this world," and so forth. That Lennon himself likely would have disdained this Lennonite cult of personality has little influence on his worshipper's adulation. Unfortunately, phony delusions regarding Lennon did not die on December 8, 1980. Instead, they have exponentially multiplied, fed by the notion that this pop singer and sometime-activist was in some sense crucified for our sins on that shattering day.

                               

But who mourns for Mark David Chapman?



The man who acquired infamy by planting four shots into a rock star's back and shoulder has now led the majority of his life behind bars and is unlikely ever to be paroled. That Chapman was (and is) a creepy, psychotic freak we can all agree, but wouldn't Lennon himself, had he survived, wanted to understand his attacker, rather than simply revile him? Wasn't one of Lennon's more admirable traits his willingness to hear from people who didn't like him without growing unduly defensive?




It is December 8, 2015. Lennon remains dead, Chapman rots in prison, and the Earth turns as ever before. Both John and Mark have failed in their quixotic quests to change the world. There is nothing new under the sun, but some still imagine the possibility of making a better world. And that, too, is nothing new. Rest in peace, John; rot in peace, Mark. God bless you both.

37% of Americans Think Israel Has too Much Influence in U.S.

via The Realist Report

According to a recent public opinion poll conducted by the Brookings Institution, 37% of Americans correctly believe Israel has too much influence in the United States. The Times of Israel reports:
Screenshot (58)

A new poll by the Brookings Institution published Friday showed significant disapproval in the US over the perceived influence Israel has on American politics, as well as an overall decrease in support for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government’s policies.
According to the survey, which weighted respondents based on US Census data, 37 percent of Americans said they believed the Israeli government had too much influence on US politics, while 18% posited that the Jewish state had too little sway on American political discourse. Meanwhile, 44% said Israeli influence on US politics was at the right level. […]
The fact that the Israeli government (and its international network of agents, partisans, and lobbying organizations operating in America) has too much influence on American politics, especially American foreign policy, is easily demonstrable. Entire books have been written on the subject.

Virtually every single aspiring or established American politician – Democrat or Republican – pledges unswerving loyalty and fidelity to the Jewish state of Israel. Failing to do so ruins political careers quickly.

At its essence, American foreign policy is discussed and formulated strictly to advance the geopolitical interests of the Jewish state of Israel. Furthermore, American domestic policy is heavily influenced by the organized Jewish community, especially on issues pertaining to immigration, education, and cultural/social matters (race, homosexual agenda, etc).

For all intents and purposes, the organized Jewish community and the various pro-Israel lobbies dominating the American electoral process essentially own and control the United States federal government, and it’s becoming more and more obvious with each passing day.

Outrageously enough, Jews themselves have openly admitted and boasted about controlling America and our government. For example, in October 2001, then Israeli Prime Minster Ariel Sharon unabashedly stated: “We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it.” 

“I know what America is,” current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu once openly explained to Jewish extremist settlers in Occupied Palestine. “America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction.”
Sadly for America, Netanyahu’s comments are entirely accurate.

Fortunately, however, more and more Americans are realizing that it’s time to put America first, and #DumpIsrael immediately.

White Nationalism Explained with Charts, Part IV: Who Are We?

via Counter-Currents

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

1. Global Genetic Distance
Who are White people? People of European descent are a diverse group of peoples who have been molded by tens of thousands of years of evolutionary history in Europe. Our main ancestors include the hunter-gatherer survivors of the Ice Age, the Indo-European conquerors (who gave us most of our languages and genes for lactose tolerance), farmers from the Middle East, and even a bit of Neanderthal.
Source: Jayman’s Blog
Source: Jayman’s Blog

The above map shows the degree of genetic distance between the peoples of the world. The shorter the distance, the more closely related they are. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Sub-Saharan Africans are less closely related to Eurasians than Eurasian groups are related to each other. But even Eurasians are quite different. See in how small a circle the European peoples fit?

2. Genetic Map of Europe
European peoples are certainly closely related, but we are not all the same! This map shows the genetic distance between people of European descent superimposed on a map of Europe. See how closely geographic and genetic distance match up? American Whites are mostly of northwest European descent.
Source: Genetic testing service 23andMe
Source: Genetic testing service 23andMe

Each European people has a unique genetic heritage and variations in characteristics. Everyone knows that northern Europeans tend to be paler and are more likely to have blond hair or blue eyes, but peoples differ in other ways too. For example, the genetic testing service 23andMe reports that: “[A]lcoholism was more common than average among people of predicted Irish ancestry for instance, while people with predicted Balkan ancestry were more likely to describe themselves as extraverts.” Talk about stereotypes!

3. Western and European Accomplishment
Source: Charles Murray
Source: Charles Murray

The European peoples and Western civilization are unique in the quality and quantity of their accomplishments. Other civilizations, such as China, Islam, or India, have certainly achieved things. But no one has made so many contributions to art, philosophy, science, good government, and so forth as the Greek, Roman, and modern Western civilizations. The popular Twitter account Europe’s History showcases European artistic and architectural masterpieces from throughout the ages. Can you think of as many African or even Asian works of similar greatness and value?

4. White Decline . . . and the end of Western Civilization?
Source: The National Policy Institute
Source: The National Policy Institute

Unfortunately, people of European descent have few children today, about 1.5 per woman. This is partly been the result of attacks on the family and of the feminist idea that having a career is a more fulfilling role for women than nurturing the next generation of beautiful European children. Asians and especially Africans however have had many, many children.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, Whites ruled almost the entire world and made up over a third of the global population. Today, Whites are becoming an increasingly vulnerable global minority. Will the world really be better off when the Europeans, the founders of Western civilization, are marginalized or even gone? There is still time to change course however.

These are the facts, however unpleasant they may be to contemplate, and they will no doubt motivate a great deal of implicit White identity politics and explicit White Nationalism in the coming decades. Many today will fear, and a growing number will hope, that this may one day even culminate in a political revolution and the refounding of a White Republic in North America.

Pavlov’s Dog: World Jewry’s Brainwashing Program

via Renegade Tribune

This hour-long video shows how jewish control of media allows them to condition our reactions to their stimuli, controlling our minds so as to successfully fabricate their reality.

The Front National and the Regional Elections—Just the Facts

via Radix

So yesterday was the first round of the French regional elections. The second round will take place this Sunday.

Before analyzing the results, it seems necessary to explain what a région is in the French electoral context . . . and even to explain the context itself.

The last presidential and législatives (general) elections were held in April-May and June 2012. On 2012, May 6th, François Hollande, the Socialist candidate, defeated the incumbent president, Nicolas Sarkozy (centre-right), at the second round of the presidential election.
On 2012, June 16th, the socialist candidates won the législatives elections and formed a majority at the National Assembly, which enabled the Socialist Party to establish a government. It was led from June 2012 to March 2014 by Jean-Marc Ayrault; it has, since then, been led by Barcelona-born Manuel Valls.

In 2013, there was no election in France. Starting in 2014, Richard and I have recorded podcasts on every direct election that took place:
  • The municipal elections, concerning the communes (cities and villages), in March 2014 ("The Fascist Menace"); our podcast's title was of course ironical, since Front national (FN) and its allies won 14 communes... out of the 36,500+ communes in France;
  • The European parliamentary election, in May 2014 ("The Brussels Bogeyman"); FN won 24 seats out of the 74 French seats at the European Parliament and became, for one day, "the first party in France;"
  • The departmental elections, concerning the départements, in March 2015 ("The Glass Ceiling"); FN got none (0) of the 96 départements.
The first thing that might be difficult to understand for a non-French reader is the difference between the département and the région.

The départements were established in 1790 by the Revolutionary Constituent Assembly. They were created to replace the former royal provinces and break them down into smaller, geometric units; their purpose was not to be new provinces but simply to make the nation easier to administer by the center, Paris. In every département, there is a préfet, appointed by the central government to uphold the State's authority locally. This quasi-military function is complemented by a conseil départemental (or conseil général, as it used to be called), which consists of representatives elected at the local level. They vote on local policies, although said policies depend on laws voted by the national Parliament and decrees taken by the central government.

The régions are more recent; created in 1982, they were supposed to revive the former royal provinces, with, in some cases, have historic or even ethnic significance: Alsace, Aquitaine, Auvergne, Britanny, Burgundy, Champagne, Lorraine, Normandy, Picardy, Provence, etc. This cryptic “identitarian” nature of the régions was undermined by a new regional organization decided by the government, effective in 2016. From the 22 régions established in 1982, only 13 will survive, with the dissolution of peculiar régions like Germanic Alsace into greater geographical areas.

Those two territorial levels are not disconnected. Actually, a région is a group of départements.

Thus, this year's regional election doesn't happen at the regional level, but at the département's level. In every département, there is a number of seats to win. The party that will run the région will be the one that will get the highest number of the départements' representatives.

Here is France's new regional map (the régions' inner borders are those of the départements; a région being a group of départements and not a historic province having a peculiar culture; this explains the extreme hyphenization of some régions' names):

Here, now, is the same map colored according to the political party that finished the first round at the first place (pink: Socialist Party and its allies; blue: "Les Républicains," Sarkozy's party, and its allies; purple: Marine Le Pen's FN).

Now, it is really important to understand that this is only a first round. In all these régions, the three main parties have obtained the 10 percent threshold that allows them to go to the second round this Sunday.
Out of the 6 régions where FN has managed to finish the first round at the first place, only two are likely to be won: 
Nord-Pas-de-Calais-Picardie, with departmental lists led by FN's president, Marine Le Pen; her lists finished first in every département, with over 40 percent of the vote on average, and will likely garner a majority of the seats this Sunday;
  • Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur, with the lists led by Marine's niece, Marion Maréchal-Le Pen, and a similar favorable scenario.
In the four other régions, the lists that didn't get the 10 percent threshold but got substantial support are either of the mainstream Left or the mainstream Right; most of their votes will probably go to either one of the two mainstream lists, allowing them to defeat FN, even if an FN victory there is possible.

The Houellebecquian Moment

Notice that I used "likely" and not "certainly" to describe the outcome of the second round in the two “winnable” régions.

Right after the official results were known, the Socialist Party decided to withdraw its lists wherever it finished third. The purpose is for them to make sure FN won't get any région by supporting the mainstream Right's candidates, even if it means, for them, losing all their seats in the process. For all their superficial differences, the mainstream Left and Right are hand-in-hand when it comes to opposing what they call the "Far Right."

The reverse scenario happened in 2009, in a municipal by-election in Hénin-Beaumont (located in Pas-de-Calais, one of the départements where Marine Le Pen is presenting her lists). Sarkozy's party, which was then in office, supported a left-wing coalition against FN, in spite of the rampant corruption of the local political class.

This year, for some reason, Sarkozy is refusing to follow the same strategy. But if his two candidates opposed to Marine Le Pen and Marion Maréchal Le Pen eventually win on Sunday, they will de facto become the Left's champions, as was Jacques Chirac when he defeated Jean-Marie Le Pen at the second round of 2002 presidential election.

This systematic opposition of the establishment (mainstream parties but also the media, big companies, judges, trade unions, public servants, NGOs, which have been quite vocal against the aforementioned "Fascist menace" since the beginning of the campaign) to FN, is what made Richard and I use, ironically, the “Glass Ceiling” phrase to describe FN's prospects. With universal suffrage, you need half of the votes plus one to get elected. And with a turnout rate of only 50%, it indicates that many voters who could wish for a true alternative to the current ruling class don't see FN as being this alternative.

Even as Marine Le Pen is increasingly popular in France, a scenario like that of Michel Houellebecq's Submission, where a vast coalition against FN readily votes the Muslim Brotherhood into power, is quite possible in the future, though not as soon as Houellebecq predicted in his last novel (2022).

That said, we're still in 2015, and there's the second round on Sunday. I'll give you a quick update as soon as the results will be public, and we'll record a podcast the day after.

Stay tuned!

Zionists and Reclaim Australia

via Nationalist Alternative

I.

The recent Paris attacks have illustrated once again that we in the West are engaged in a guerrilla war.

Just as the Viet Cong depended on the Vietnamese peasantry for their support – Mao writes, ‘The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea’ – the jihadis rely on the Muslim immigrant population in the West. We – especially in Europe, America and Australia – are fighting the Vietnam war all over again. But we are fighting the Vietnam war on our own soil. It’s as though we’ve imported millions – literally millions – of Vietnamese peasants into our own countries, and the Viet Cong too.

For this article, instead of concentrating on Islam, I’ll be focusing on the political response in the nationalist movement to Islam – that is, how we are organising amongst ourselves to do something about Islam.

The great American thinker Francis Parker Yockey once compared politics to a plenum, a space which is the opposite of a vacuum and is occupied by something at every point. How does the ‘plenum’ function in practice? Politics revolves around the acquisition and maintenance of power, and requires, by definition, leadership. To be a politician, one must rule men, one must control. If you don’t exert control, well, someone else will be more than happy to step in and exert it for you. In other words, this state of affairs – the absence of leadership – doesn’t persist for long. If there’s a power vacuum in a political movement, someone will fill it, and quickly.

We’ve seen this process at work in the Reclaim movement (which includes Reclaim Australia and affiliated organisations). At the last two Bendigo rallies, the communists – who previously posed the biggest threat to the new movement – gave up trying to terrorise Reclaim into submission and retreated before the rallies were over.

They found the rural and regional Australian town to be unreceptive to the communist message, and what’s more, they were stymied by the tactics which had been developed by the Victorian police. Because of this communist defeat, the attendees at the Reclaim rallies – drawn from a wide variety of groups on the Australian Far Right – no longer needed to band together against a common enemy. The gaze of the political machine which controls Reclaim turned inward, and the machine didn’t like what it saw. It attempted to enact a purge and prevent the nationalist groups (that is, the hardcore Aussie nationalists) from attending the rallies and used trickery and violence to do so.

The machine is led by shadowy bosses who resemble the bosses of Tammany Hall (portrayed in Martin Scorsese’s classic movie, Gangs of New York (2002)). They uphold Zionism, multiracialism, non-white immigration to Australia (so long as the immigrants are of the non-Muslim variety), multiculturalism and ‘civic’ nationalism. If they belong to a political tradition, it’s the tradition of Geert Wilders, Anders Breivik, the Gates of Vienna, Tommy Robinson’s English Defence League, Pamela Gellar, Robert Spencer, Bill Warner, Paul Weston’s Liberty Great Britain, and the Dispensationalist (that is, Zionist) strand of evangelical Christianity. They find themselves opposed to the racialism, white nationalism and nativism which has, for the past thirty or forty years, stood at the center of Australian Far Right doctrine. This nativism says, in essence, that all non-white immigration to Australia – and not just the Muslim – should be stopped and that Australia is a Western and European (and not a Chinese and Indian) nation and should remain so.

The two tendencies could have co-existed for quite some time, but now the Zio bosses have intensified the differences themselves and the Australian nationalists to the point of political war. The two sides find themselves locked in combat, and the prize is control of the Australian Far Right movement.

II.

In politics, the question is ‘Who decides?’: that is, the person who decides is the person who runs a political organisation. Carl Schmitt states that the sovereign is he who decides the exception: the ruler is the one who makes the decision to go to war, or to

declare a state of emergency; you can only find out who the ruler of an organisation is when a decision is made in abnormal political circumstances. If we are to look at our present conflict – the Zios versus the Aussie nationalists – we find that it is the Zio bosses who ‘decided the exception’; the figureheads in Reclaim – e.g., the speakers from Rise Up Australia – don’t run the show.

One may ask at this juncture: why shouldn’t the Zios be given the power? Why shouldn’t they be allowed to take control of the Australian Far Right?

I could answer that question by disputing points of theory – i.e., I could illustrate how wrong the Zio ideology is – but for the moment, I’ll concentrate on practice.

At the Reclaim rallies, we hear plenty of ‘revolutionary’ rhetoric – which is to say, demagogic ranting to the effect that the existing liberal democratic establishment must be overthrown. But on closer inspection it becomes apparent that the Zios don’t want a revolution or at least are not working towards it. A friend of mine compares the Reclaim movement to a travelling circus. Reclaim breezes into one town, agitates the masses, puts the police (who must erect barricades and form a cordon between Reclaim and the communists) into a tizzy, and then departs, leaving nothing behind by way of party building. Its demagogues resemble the hirelings of Tammany Hall in Scorsese’s film: they make speeches on election day, rouse the rabble, and disappear. What they ought to be doing is laying down roots. Disciplined party men – cadre men – should be sent out to rural and regional areas such as Bendigo with the task of educating the masses politically. That political education should consist of: fiery speeches in closed halls (with party members and sympathisers attending); lectures; guided discussion groups; study circles; workshops… The political educators will, through this process, succeed in replicating themselves: cadre begets cadre. Such a practice ensures that, once the fire has been started – by a single spark – it will be fanned and then spread. But the Zios don’t want that. They focus on one goal only: establishing a bridgehead for Israel in the Australian nationalist movement and expanding it.

In this, the Zios are following standard practice. Activists for the State of Israel and Jewry like to place a bet on every horse in the race; they will seek to control, not only the mainstream political establishment and the Far Left but the Far Right. They attach themselves even to nationalist and racialist political causes which have little to nothing to do with Jews and Israel. When reading two of my favourite sites – Paul Kersey’s Stuff Black People Don’t Like and Hunter Wallace’s Occidental Dissent – I’ll find, every now and then, that someone Jewish has signed up as a commentator in the forum and has begun to throw his weight about; he will make demands that the moderators get rid of so-and-so, a long-time commentator (who is usually respected by the others there), for making ‘anti-Semitic’ statements or for denying the Holocaust. Because the moderators show little interest in propitiating Jewish newcomers, these appeals go unheeded. But it’s interesting that these activists show a tenacity and a racial awareness that Westerners themselves lack. Because of their dogmatism, their persistence, their organisational skills, their ideological uniformity, their success at infiltrating movements, Jewish activists of this sort make good communists – which explains why so many prominent communists in Western and Eastern Europe (including Russia) have been Jews.

It stands to reason, then, that professional Zionists would attempt to infiltrate the anti-Islamic movement, communist style, here in Australia and elsewhere in the West and twist it to Israel’s ends. The sad thing is that the State of Israel doesn’t even need to mobilise Australian Jews in this struggle, because it finds plenty of willing Australian
collaborators – the Australian Party of Freedom, the Australian Defence League, the Q Society…

III.

The internal struggle in the Australian Far Right reflects wider geopolitical struggles.
The world is divided up between three great geopolitical powers (China, Russia and America) and perhaps a fourth – militant Islam – which, unlike the other three, is not a nation state and does not have borders. Aside from the four, we find a collection of minor players – ‘rogue states’ such as North Korea, Syria, Zimbabwe, Venezuela and others – and old communist fiefdoms Vietnam, Laos and Cuba.

Australia has been dominated by America – or, more accurately, the Anglo-Saxon and Jewish alliance of the US, UK and Israel – since the 1930s; the three towering political figures in that alliance from that time (Churchill, Roosevelt, Chaim Weizmann (Churchill’s close friend during the 1930s and 1940s and later the first president of Israel)) determine the course of Australia’s foreign politics and largely its domestic as well.

One of the peculiar things about the four great powers is that they are all ruled by a number of internal cliques or factions (with the exception of China, which is ruled by one and only one body, and that is the Communist Party of China). Power is shared amongst two or three factions, some of whom may occasionally go to war on one another. The troika of Putin, the FSB (the former KGB) and the Chechen warlord Kadyrov rules Russia, and according to Kremlinologists, the assassination of the dissident Boris Nemtsov in February this year was carried out at the behest of Kadyrov, who wanted to send a message to his hated rivals, the FSB. After the murder of Nemtsov, Putin went into hiding for a number of days, out of the not unreasonable belief that he’d be next on the assassin’s list, and only emerged from hiding once his fears had been allayed.

Militant Islam gives us another example of factionalisation. Three players – Saudi Arabia, Iran and ISIS – ‘run’ all of Islam; they more or less tell Muslims all around the world what to do politically. But the three don’t get along, and at present are embroiled in a war against one another in Syria.

Can we say that two or three factions rule American domestic political life? Yes. The factions are: the Obama administration (heavily infiltrated by Marxists); the US media (again, heavily infiltrated by Marxists); the Social Justice Warriors (openly Marxist), who at the time of writing are attempting to initiate a Chinese-style Cultural Revolution on US campuses. The three have enjoyed tremendous political success and the interactions between them have been smooth and harmonious – we find none of the tension that characterises factional relationships in Russia and Islam. But the candidacy of Trump is significant in that it represents a real threat to break the power of the three. The political arrangements in a state can change and can change quite quickly – look at what happened in China after Mao’s death in 1976 – and by 2017, the reign of the America’s Marxist troika may be over.

America doesn’t rule the Western world alone: it relies on two partners – the UK and Israel. The former happily acquiesces to the US, and should be considered a silent partner, but the latter has shown itself to be quite critical, especially since the time of Obama’s election. It’s no secret that Netanyahu and Israel oppose Obama, not only for his signing a peace treaty with Iran but for his lack of respect towards Israel and Zionism. Being a black and gay (former?) Marxist radical, Obama naturally sympathises with the Palestinians and the Arabs; he favours them over Israel. Netanyahu understands this and it enrages him. Jews such as Netanyahu are never satisfied with anything less than a 100% obedience; any signs of dissent or reluctance to fully embrace the cause of Jewry, Israel and Zionism must be rooted out, the offenders punished. Obama’s domestic opponents – the ‘conservatives’ in the Republican Party and elsewhere – see the conflict between Obama and Netanyahu and are delighted; the prospective presidential candidates on the Republican side are using Obama’s lack of enthusiasm for Israel as a stick to beat him with. ‘We conservatives won’t sign a deal with Iran; we won’t show disrespect to that great Churchillian statesman Netanyahu…’.

We find this division – between the radical Left and the ‘conservative’, die-hard, staunch defenders of Israel – making itself felt in Australian Far Right politics. If we survey the Jewish press, we find uniform support for mass Islamic and African immigration into Europe, and we can safely say that these journals, along with the pronouncements of the Jewish community leaders, reflect Jewish opinion, or at least the opinion of Jewry’s leaders. At the same time, some prominent ‘conservative’ and ‘Far Right’ Jews have given voice to disquiet over the mass immigration of Muslims, especially since the jihadis are making European Jews a target, and they are attacking the Far Left – once Jewry’s friend, now its foe – for its ‘anti-Semitism’ and its opposition to Israel. These Jews on the ‘Right’ will give conditional support to the growing anti-Islamic tendency in the West. So long as they stick to the script – of multiracialism, assimilationism, staunch defence of Israel and Zionism, opposition to ‘Islam’ but not to ‘Muslims’ – Geert Wilders, the English Defence League, the Australian Party of Freedom, the (blogger? Facebooker?) ‘Great Aussie Patriot’ and Rise Up Australia will receive international Jewry’s blessing. But any Far Right movement which seeks to jump on the Zionist and anti-Islam bandwagon must prove its credentials to Jewry – by ‘denazifying’, that is, getting rid of any racialist and nativist elements that Jewry finds so unsavoury. The anti-Islamics enrolled in this campaign must approve of all non-white immigration to Australia, so long as it’s non-Muslim, and will even welcome immigrants from Muslim countries with open arms on the proviso that they renounce their faith. Opposing ideologies – such as Australian nativism (Australia First Party and Australian Protectionist Party), skinheadism, neo-Nazism, neo-fascism, white nationalism, race realism, all the hardcore racialist and immigration-restrictionist creeds – must be given the boot.

The essential thing is to understand that, while the Zionists want racial and ethnic homogeneity for Israel, they don’t want it for the US, Europe or Australia. Before its founding in 1948, Israel was a country called Palestine; European Jews emigrated there, built up a large army, committed terrorist attacks against the British rulers, and then, after the departure of the British, declared war on Palestine’s neighbouring states; they won (with the help of Soviet military aid) and then ethnically cleansed Palestine of 800,000 Palestinians. Most of Palestine was renamed as Israel. Since 1948, the rulers of Israel have made sure that only Jews – preferably the white ones from Europe and Russia – can become citizens. In recent times, they have worked to keep out African immigrants by building an impressive fence along the border with Egypt. But, were any Western country to act like Israel – and expel hundreds of thousands of Arab Muslims, or even build an effective border fence – it would be denounced by Israel and the leaders of the Jewish Diaspora as ‘racist’ and ‘Nazi’. Representatives of Jewry have used their not inconsiderable clout to pressure Germany to accept hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of ‘refugees’, and thereby abolish itself, so as to ‘atone’ for its ‘Nazi past’.

IV.

In recent years, the conservative movement in the West has been corrupted – by ‘progressivism’ and ‘liberalism’, that is to say, Marxism and communism – and Reclaim finds itself in the same boat. Reclaim should be judged as a right-wing off-shoot of the Australian Left.

A conservative from 1960 or 1970 who time-travelled to the present day would be shocked and appalled by the state of conservatism in Germany, Britain or America; he would make the charge – and justly so – that the positions of the Republican Party or Britain’s Conservative Party (on, for instance, the ‘rights’ of illegal immigrants or the ‘rights’ of homosexuals to get ‘married’) stand far to the left of what the communist parties of the US and Britain were preaching in the 1960s. Indeed, much of the frustration of today’s radical left-wingers – i.e., communists – in the West owes itself to the fact that so many of their demands have been met. The US electorate has still placed a gay black Marxist in the White House – not once, but twice; even American ‘conservatives’ have become conditioned to regard the communist Afro-American agitator Martin Luther King as a saint…

Communists have long taken up a ‘progressive’ role agitating for ‘change’, and still themselves as the leading proponents of ‘change’ (or degeneration, depending on your point of view). In a recent article by Jack Sen at the Occidental Observer, ‘”Unrepentant Marxist” Eric Hobsbawm Still Celebrated as Britain’s Greatest Historian’ (November 9, 2015), Sen, a British academic, writes:
Hobsbawm’s work has undeniably tainted British historical legacy and has de-legitimized a sense of English or British identity. For how long this infection will last, I do not know.
Then there’s the fact that his words have glossed over a period of history so abjectly evil, an entire generation of students believe “Communism is viable, if done correctly.” This is something I was in fact told by pupils I lectured at an Ormskirk college during one of my parliamentary husting events.
After all, “only Marxists fight racism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, white privilege and most importantly are fair to Gays.”
Regarding the above: except for the position on ‘Islamophobia’, does any real difference exist between the position of Sen’s communist students and that of Reclaim? A friend of mine pointed out that the multi-culti ‘laying on of hands’ photograph here:

1799912_185362258464901_4151899069874156595_o
– a photograph taken at the last Reclaim rally in Bendigo, mimicked, consciously or unconsciously, this image (from No Room for Racism, an Australian communist front group which fought Reclaim):

NoRoom-Black5

It should be noted that ‘The Great Aussie Patriot’, in one of his Facebook attacks on Nationalist Alternative and the Australia First Party, used an ‘anti-racist’, ‘antifa’ (that is, communist) propaganda film clip.

Historically, Australian communism fought for the abolition of White Australia and for Asian immigration – and, by implication, the miscegenation of Australians and Asians. How gratified those communists would be to know that now a ‘conservative’ movement – Reclaim – champions the same values.

One of the peculiarities of ‘civic’ nationalism in Australia – that is, nationalism based on ‘shared values’, not shared race – is that it naturally inclines to an acceptance of the multiculturalist and multiracialist ideology and the interbreeding with Chinese, Indian and other immigrants. ‘Civicism’ leads to (what I call) Asian wife-ism. We know that a prominent individual in the Australian Party of Freedom has an Asian wife, as does another prominent former member of the Australian Defence League (he’s now a member, apparently, of the Australian Party of Freedom), as does another Reclaimer, pictured here. He made a point of having his picture taken at the Bendigo rally with his arm on the shoulder of two African immigrants, one of whom appears in the hands-clasp photo. Reclaimers can’t keep their hands off black people.

12088341_188199108181216_2484282277893195875_n


V.

The question arises: how strong are the Zios? At the last Bendigo rally, most of the attendees – the crowd numbered from 500 to a thousand – were Bendigoans; only a small number belonged to Reclaim and to Aussie nationalist groups. In contrast, many of the attendees at the rally in the Melbourne CBD in July were ‘movement men’ – ‘hardcore’ racialists and nativists. Many shaven-headed and tattooed men were present at the rally and at the bar afterwards, some of them celebrating only a few feet from Zios such as ‘The Great Aussie Patriot’ (who didn’t object to their presence there at the time). But the Zio bosses, in their attempts to purge the nationalists from the anti-Islam movement, have alienated many of these ‘hardcores’. As a result, many ‘hardcores’ won’t be showing up at the next rally in Sydney or Melbourne to lend their support and defend the Reclaimers from communist attacks.

A ‘pure’ Aussie patriot movement – denuded, stripped of nationalist and racialist elements – will be impossible to attain. At the least, it will attract a small number of adherents.

At present, at least five organisations affiliated with Reclaim have achieved or are seeking registration as political parties: the Australian Party of Freedom, the Australian Liberty Alliance, Rise Up Australia and now Love It or Leave It… Rest assured, more are on the way.

Each organisation must sign up at least 1500 members to get federal registration, and there can be no cross memberships – an Australian can’t be a member of the Liberty Alliance and Rise Up at the same time, for example.

These prospective parties will find the task of registration hard going. I know from bitter experience that, while Australians love the idea of forming new political parties, they are reluctant to sign up with a political party – they can’t do it, as they feel that it would compromise their ‘freedom’ and ‘individuality’.

Many of the enrolees for these aspiring parties, then, will be drawn from the Australian nationalist movement. So one must ask: how can the aspiring registrants expect to succeed if they don’t win the loyalty and respect of the nationalists? And will they be able to enrol thousands of men and women who are 100% ideologically ‘pure’ – that is, defenders of Israel, non-Islamic immigration, multiracialism and the multicultural ideal?

I am not a Zio or a Reclaimer: I am a ‘hardcore’. Yet I attended all the rallies held here in Victoria, out of a desire to a) show my opposition to Islam and b) protect my fellow Aussies from getting bashed by commies. I supported ‘The Great Aussie Patriot’ every step of the way. And so did hundreds of other ‘hardcores’. Reclaim needs us. The Zios need us. In one of his attack videos, ‘The Great Aussie Patriot’ accused Nationalist Alternative of ‘leeching’ of other movements (i.e., anti-Islamic movements), but really, it’s the other way around.

The non-Zios need to unite and fight, and they need to behave more like a movement than a party.

To explain: because of their propensity to form parties and groups and their habit of competing against one another for members (who will owe their allegiance to that group and not to the movement as a whole), Australian nationalists have become isolated and scattered. They don’t work together as a team, especially when a crisis – such as the present conflict between the Zios and the nationalists – erupts.

This has to change. Just as the communists work together to put on a Stop the War march or to hold a ‘Marxist unity’ conference, the non-Zios need to form an association, a federation, which will serve as the nationalist equivalent of a trade union.

Each of the participants in that federation will retain their autonomy and identity while at the same time act in concert. They will a) hold an all-nationalist conference of unity; b) pass resolutions binding all Australian nationalists; c) sign a nationalist code of conduct; d) act as a pressure group on Reclaim; and e) sign a mutual defence treaty which stipulates that, when one of the participant groups is attacked, all the others will come to its aid – as the Australian trade unions like to say, ‘Touch one, touch us all’.

The aspiring registrants need to make public statements that a) they are not Zio and b) all nationalist groups, whatever their orientation, are welcome to attend their events. That will be the only way the registrants will get a pass from the union.

As stated before, the Zio bosses brought this conflict upon us, and there was no reason why the Zios and the non-Zios couldn’t co-exist, at least for the short term. Overseas, professional anti-Islamics such as Wilders, Warner and Spencer do work that does more good than harm to the movement as a whole; it’s only the Australian anti-Islamics who have made an enemy of Australian nationalists – and only recently.

Things can be turned around. Possibly, in the far-flung future, both the Zios and non-Zios can unite in a plenary body – one that brings together both the nationalist and the ‘civic’ groups – and there resolve disputes and demarcate spheres of influence. But the nationalists, the ‘hardcores’, can only negotiate with the ‘civics’ from a position of strength; they will only be able to bring the ‘civics’ to the table that way.