Mar 2, 2016

The Intentional Genocide of European Peoples?

via Counter-Currents

Genocide has been practiced since ancient times. In the recent past, the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide, Rwanda, and Cambodia under Pol Pot (auto-genocide) come to mind. Genocide can take two forms: eliminating a targeted population directly or making it disappear indirectly by other sorts of criminal actions. Indirect genocide has been committed many times in history. The current “migrant crisis” is part of such a project: the demographic swamping of European peoples.

Soft Genocide: Voluntary and Nihilistic

European nations are victims of a surreptitious attempt at genocide, demographic and cultural elimination, driven by their own ethnomasochist and xenophile elites. A first in history. The French and Belgian authorities are the most involved in this enterprise of soft genocide. This is both physical and cultural.

Decked out in anti-racist ideology, it nevertheless pursues a racial and racist aim: the gradual elimination of Europe’s — and especially France’s — indigenous populations. It eliminates them in five ways: (1) by promoting the migration of non-European settlers; (2) discouraging indigenous birthrates and penalizing middle-class families; (3) causing the exile of young indigenous forces by punitive taxation measures; (4) socially, economically, legally, and culturally privileging non-European populations over the natives; and (5) penalizing and punishing any opposition to the overall immigrationist project and its ideology.

Some on the Right reiterate that the “system,” the power, the state, the EU authorities, are powerless to stop massive and uncontrolled immigration. Powerless? They are very powerful and rather effective in achieving their goal: the ethnic cleansing of Europe, starting with France.

In France, the Trotskyist ideology plays a central role in this endeavor. The bourgeois and Leftist Socialist Party and its advisers, the think tank Terra Nova, are the spearheads. One of its leaders recently said that we should not worry too much about the National Front because it would decline in power for demographic reasons. This is a subtle, cynical, conscious strategy. The evil-minded voters will disappear in favor of new ones. This ethnic “great replacement” is what they want.

Terra Nova (“new earth,” new country, new people) is a very effective metapolitical lobby, which influences all spheres of power. Its electoral calculation (attract immigrants and ignore the popular and middle classes) is motivated by its animosity against “ethnic” France. This hostility comes from the Marxist-Trotskyist ideology, of which “proletarian internationalism” is the heart: to destroy national affiliations, above all those of Europeans.

That Islam is sexist, reactionary, anti-democratic, etc. is not a problem for the Trotskyite ideologues of the Socialist Party and Terra Nova, who are not the least “Republican.” Their obsessive goal is the eradication of the ethnic peoples of Europe and especially France. This Trotskyist ideology, “internationalist” from the start, is it not suicidal for even those who advocate it? Yes. But so what? They do not care. Because they are logical with themselves, they are nihilists. Their goal is to destroy what they hate — European civilization — not building a new world in which they themselves do not believe.

The Strategic Axes of Soft Genocide

The means used, particularly in France, a laboratory, are as follows. Obviously we find them at the level of the European Union. They are simultaneously ideological, economic, judicial, and police measures.

1) Encourage immigration. Allow it to happen or cynically promote every means of colonization. The “migrant” crisis is the latest demonstration. We went into high gear. After 30 years of immigration (a leak) comes a flood of millions of migrants, under the humanitarian label of “refugees.” The European authorities are not “powerless” to stop migration flows; on the contrary, they want to accentuate them. (For example the angelic folly of Mrs. Merkel.) Any expulsion is declared impossible.

2) Promote Islamization. Anything Arab-Muslim is sacred and untouchable by the authorities, despite Islamic attacks and military posturing against ISIS. Favoritism towards Islam is state policy. And, therefore, “Islamophobia” is a capital sin, an unforgivable offense.

3) Impoverish and tax the indigenous working and middle classes. Make them pay for others. All fiscal policies of the Socialist government go in this direction: welfare for even illegal immigrants (a suction pump) financed by increasing demands on the native French.

4) Conduct an anti-family and anti-natal policy. By deconstructing the system of family allowances, the government managed to reduce the birthrate of ethnic French in 2015. It was calculated. The large family of French descent is not very popular . . .

5) Practice positive discrimination. This is foreign and ethnic preference in employment in the name of “anti-racism.” Private companies and government administrations are strongly encouraged to systematically use low-skilled employees.

6) Ensure the judicial impunity of foreign offenders. This policy, inaugurated thirty years ago at least, was accentuated by Mrs. Taubira’s appointment to the Department of Justice. Her ideological orientation (otherwise schizophrenic) is perfectly clear: animosity towards anything that is labeled “French-European.”

7) Destroy cultural transmission in education. Blaming the history of France, dismantling the teaching of Greek and Latin, demolishing grammar and spelling, degrading the teaching of the French language, uprooting, promoting, and praising the cultures of immigrant populations — Islamic, African, and others. This de-Frenchization and de-Europeanization is state policy. Ms. Vallaud-Belkacem, “Socialist” Minister of National Education and pseudo-feminist, is the smiling actress, after many other ministers and unionists of the Trotskyist persuasion.

8) Suppress and punish all resistance to the dominant ideology. In the Calais jungle and surrounding areas, illegal immigrants who commit abuses go unpunished; the French who resist, demonstrate, and try to protect themselves are clubbed, jailed, and prosecuted. Repressions against the “Demonstration for All” obeyed the same logic. All that defends French identity is threatened and punished by the “French” State. The same repression is observable in the media, print, audiovisual, or internet. The courts and police are tolerant towards the invader and occupier and merciless towards resistance. You could call it the Vichy syndrome, right?

Collabos vs. Resisters
Both camps are fairly well defined. The state, media, judiciary, and law enforcement have the mission of containing and neutralizing the resistance of the indigenous people and its defenders. They would be wrong to believe they have won.

Those who sow the wind of civil war will come to reap the whirlwind. It will probably be bloody. It is neither stupidity nor idealism that motivated them. It is a conscious hatred and the desire for war; it is collaborating with the invader and betting on his victory. But they also risk losing the war they caused. The resisters have more chance of winning because they are motivated by loyalty to their roots, while the collaborators are subject to masters that they can still betray.

We will see who will win, but I think it will be just like the Army of Shadows.

John Piper: Social Justice Warrior

via Faith & Heritage

John Piper is a well-known formerly Christian pastor-turned-social justice warrior. Piper is a “new Calvinist” and exemplifies many of the problems with this movement. He is a charismatic, and often displays the confusion that is so rampant in the charismatic movement. Additionally Piper has expressed enthusiasm for the farce of “reformed rap” and hip-hop music. Piper has likewise expressed support for heretical megachurch pastor and CFR globalist Rick Warren. All of this has occurred in the context of Piper’s hard shift leftward and his full acceptance of the moral language of the left. Naturally this leads him into tension with the teachings of the Bible in many cases. Piper is a pietist who seems to allow emotions to cloud his judgment in matters doctrinal and ethical.

Given Piper’s hard shift leftward and his full acceptance of the moral language of the left, it shouldn’t surprise us that this impacts his exegesis of relevant biblical texts. Piper has recently posted a commentary on 1 Peter 2:18-20 on his Desiring God page. Piper acknowledges that this passage is addressed to slaves or involuntary servants. The topic has already been dealt with thoroughly on Faith & Heritage, so a full analysis of the biblical teaching on the subject is not necessary.1 I will repeat a few of the quotes from these articles that are relevant to Piper’s comments. Some of what Piper says is unobjectionable, but Piper clearly adopts the abolitionist rhetoric that prevailed in many mainline Protestant denominations the mid-nineteenth century. Piper’s resources on slavery flesh out his antinomian and pietistic approach to morality. Piper links to a previous interview and an article he has written on the subject of slavery. In his interview in which he answers a caller’s question about slavery and Old Testament.

Piper immediately responds by saying, “Absolutely there are Old Testament laws and principles that don’t have validity today, and there is a redemptive-historical flow in the Bible that accounts for why some things were both commanded and permitted early that aren’t now. Part of that is this: that the people of God in the Old Testament were a political, ethnic reality with God as their King, sometime manifest through an earthly King later. God ordained in those circumstances that His people immediately exercise some of His rights and His judgments upon the people.” Piper provides the example of the annihilation of the Canaanites by Joshua’s army. “In that context of theocracy that was legitimate and right for God to do even though the people themselves may have been sinful in the execution; similarly with things like slavery in this case. God saying, you’re my people, those people, I have a right to judge, you may own them and so forth. Now here comes Jesus, and He undoes so much of the Old Testament law; in fact I think He undoes all of it as law according to Rom. 7:4 . . . and the reason that He undoes it is not because it was wrong under those circumstances to do what He said to do, but that with the coming of Christ and the rejection of His earthly Kingdom and the establishment of a spiritual Kingdom . . . now it isn’t political, it isn’t ethnic, it isn’t geographical, it has no King, and it is a church made up of all ethnicities from all over the world and therefore has a very different witness to bear in the world.” Piper concludes by stating that the result of the incarnation is that “a whole string of OT processes, procedures, commandments go by the way as part of the old system and not part of the new.

This is essentially the standard argument advanced by those who reject theonomy or the continuity of ethics from the Old Testament to the New Testament. There are several problems with Piper’s response to the question presented in the interview. Piper is answering a question from someone trying to explain the faith to an older brother who is an atheist. As I have listened to many debates pitting atheism against specifically Christian theism, I can safely conclude that Piper’s explanation of Christian ethics as applied to the precepts of the Old Testament will prove unsatisfying to an atheist critic for two primary reasons. The atheist will point out that because the Bible teaches that God does not change2 and that God is perfectly just,3 we can therefore conclude that that precepts revealed by God in the Old Testament are in harmony with God’s justice. Piper himself admits that God’s commandments in the Old Testament, even if they are considered obsolete today, cannot be considered fundamentally unjust.

Secondly, the atheist will point out that the teachings of the New Testament are in harmony with the Mosaic Law on the question of slavery or servitude. Jesus and the Apostles could have forcefully condemned slavery, but they did not. These are common objections that atheists raise, and in my experience Piper’s explanation will not satisfy them. Finally, Piper makes a poor analogy by comparing the practice of servitude allowed in Leviticus 25 with the total war that God commanded the Israelites to wage against the Canaanites in Deuteronomy 7. The wars that God commanded to be fought against the Canaanites are specific to that particular people in that specific time and under the circumstances that existed at the time. The precepts regulating servitude in Leviticus 25 are general in nature pertaining to foreigners, and are not particular like those regarding the wars against the Canaanites and the Amalekites.

Piper argues that the commandment that masters should not threaten slaves and treat Christian slaves as brothers in the faith is something new to the Apostles. This false understanding derives from Piper’s improper treatment of the Old Testament passages in question. Piper seemingly believes that the slavery allowed by the Mosaic Law could potentially include all the cruelties that were sometimes practiced in the pagan Roman Empire. The person questioning Piper in the interview incorrectly suggested that Lev. 25 allows for a kind of chattel slavery. This is false, since chattel slavery implies that the slaves or servants who are owned are no different from animals or even inanimate objects. This represents a false understanding of ownership that was addressed in my original article on slavery. John Henry Hopkins points out that the concept of ownership varies depending upon what is said to be owned. A husband is said to own his wife in a sense, but she can also lay claim to an ownership of her husband in that he is bound to her for life. Likewise, the ownership of slaves is not the same thing as the ownership of cattle or houses. Ownership does not necessarily imply the right to treat all property as though it were the same. In the case of slavery, what is owned isn’t a man or woman proper, but a portion of the labor of that man or woman.

The reality is that the Law forbade servants to be treated with cruelty and oppression, e.g. Ex. 21:26-27. This passage teaches that servants would be released if substantially bodily harmed, and this overtly non-chattel practice of slavery comports with the historic Western practice in Europe and North America. Furthermore, the Law likewise allowed servants who were abused by heathen masters in neighboring countries to receive sanctuary in Israel (Deut. 23:15-16). Matthew Henry observes that the purpose of this precept is to allow those who have escaped from cruel heathen masters to flee to safety amongst God’s people: “The land of Israel is here made a sanctuary, or city of refuge, for servants that were wronged and abused by their masters, and fled thither for shelter from the neighbouring countries.4 The slavery sanctioned throughout the whole Bible is not the cruel, oppressive slavery of pagans. This is not something new to the Apostles, as Piper implies. While the Mosaic Law did allow slaves legitimately escaping cruel masters to flee, this law cannot be interpreted as a blank check for all runaways to find safe haven, as Matthew Henry further explains: “We cannot suppose that they were hereby obliged to give entertainment to all the unprincipled men that ran from service; Israel needed not (as Rome at first did) to be thus peopled. But, 1. They must not deliver up the trembling servant to his enraged master, till upon trial it appeared that the servant has wronged his master and was justly liable to punishment. Note, It is an honourable thing to shelter and protect the weak, provided they be not wicked.5

Piper’s handling of New Testament passages isn’t any better. Piper suggests that the “biblical principles” taught in the New Testament “undermine the Bible’s own speech about slavery in the Old Testament,” but this has been demonstrated to be false. The Bible’s teachings on slavery are consistent throughout, so Piper’s antinomian rejection of God’s Law revealed in the Old Testament will not extricate him from his abolitionist dilemma. Piper attempts to use Paul’s letter to Philemon, which Piper calls the “Book of Onesimus” in his interview, to justify his abolitionist position. Paul was sending Onesimus, a convert to Christianity under the ministry of Paul, back to his Christian master Philemon. Piper argues that Paul’s epistle is an attempt to undermine slavery. Certainly some of Piper’s observations are valid and appropriate. Paul is asking Philemon to receive Onesimus back with Christian courtesy. Of that there is no dispute. The issue comes with Piper’s pietistic approach which eschews commands in favor of “appeals.” Piper writes, “Paul models for Philemon the superiority of appeals over commands when it comes to relationships governed by love.
This is a weak approach to ethics, and an unbeliever will easily note the inadequacy of Piper’s position. If slavery or servitude is intrinsically wrong as Piper seems to want to argue, then mere appeals cannot satisfactorily deal with the problem. Paul certainly uses appeals in his letter to Philemon, but this only reinforces that Paul does not deem the master/servant relationship to be intrinsically unjust. It is noteworthy that in his points 7-9, Piper makes several comments about Philemon and Onesimus being brothers in the Lord, as Paul refers to them in verse 16. This is fine, but it is apparent that Piper has purposefully omitted reference to Paul calling Philemon and Onesimus brothers in the flesh in the same verse. Could this be because appeals to physical kinship do not have a place in Piper’s atomistic and individualistic worldview? The rest of Philemon is covered in too much detail to believe that this is a mere oversight on the part of Piper.

Piper concludes his article on Paul’s letter to Philemon by stating, “The upshot of all this is that, without explicitly prohibiting slavery, Paul has pointed the church away from slavery because it is an institution which is incompatible with the way the gospel works in people’s lives.” This conclusion raises the question of why Paul didn’t just come out and say that slavery was incompatible with the Gospel, if that was what he was teaching. Jesus and the Apostles were no strangers to giving straightforward commands when they were appropriate. The great Nehemiah Adams can be cited contra Piper:
There is no public wickedness which they merely girdled and left to die. Paul did not quietly pass his axe round the public sins of his day. His divine Master did not so deal with adultery and divorces. James did not girdle wars and fightings, governmental measures. Let Jude be questioned on this point, with that thunderbolt of an Epistle in his hand. Even the beloved disciple disdained this gentle method of dealing with public sins when he prophesied against all the governments of the earth at once. . . . On the contrary, masters are instructed and exhorted with regard to their duties as slaveholders. Suppose the instructions which are addressed to slaveholders to be addressed to those sinners with whom slaveholders are promiscuously classed by many, for example: ‘Thieves, render to those from whom you may continue to steal, that which is just and equal.’ ‘And, ye murderers, do the same things unto your victims, forbearing threatenings.’ ‘Let as many as are cheated count their extortioners worthy of all honor.’ If to be a slave owner is in itself parallel with stealing and other crimes, miserable subterfuge to say that Paul did not denounce it because it was connected with the institutions of society; that he ‘girdled it, and left it to die.’ Happy they whose principles with regard to slavery enable them to have a higher opinion of Paul than thus to make him a timeserver and a slave to expediency.6
There is no doubt that Piper considers slavery to be an unmitigated evil. In his interview he condemns slavery as it was practiced here in the United States. If slavery is evil, why didn’t the Apostles condemn it as such? As Nehemiah Adams pointed out in the nineteenth century, the Apostles cannot be accused of being too lax in their confrontation of sin and evil. Obviously the Apostles didn’t agree with Piper’s pietistic, egalitarian attitude, so Piper has to imagine that appeals for clemency are in reality a subtle, coded condemnation of servitude in general. This approach particularly fails in regards to forms of slavery explicitly proscribed by the Bible. Piper ends by saying that this approach of general appeals would undermine all forms of slavery. “Whether the slavery is economic, racial, sexual, mild, or brutal, Paul’s way of dealing with Philemon works to undermine the institution across its various manifestations.

One need only consider something as heinous as sexual slavery to see just how little consideration that Piper has given to his position. Imagine that instead of keeping Onesimus as a servant, Philemon was keeping a young girl as a sexual slave. She flees to Paul and is converted by his preaching. Would Paul have sent her back to Philemon? Would Paul have written Philemon an epistle even remotely similar to the one that is included in the New Testament canon? The obvious answer is no. Paul would have condemned Philemon in no uncertain terms. The praise for Philemon in the canonical epistle would be entirely absent if Philemon were holding a girl in sexual slavery, and by no means would Paul have sent a girl that he considered to be a daughter in the Lord back to a sexual predator with nothing more than appeal to treat her with Christian charity in the hopes that Philemon would understand Paul’s subliminal disapproval. The aforementioned passage in Deut. 23:15-16 is relevant to this issue. While the law commanded that those fleeing from cruel masters be granted shelter, those who did not have just cause to flee were to be sent back.

This is explained again by Matthew Henry, “The angel bid Hagar return to her mistress, and Paul sent Onesimus back to his master Philemon, because they had neither of them any cause to go away, nor was either of them exposed to any danger in returning. But the servant here is supposed to escape, that is, to run for his life, to the people of Israel . . . to save himself from the fury of a tyrant; and in that case to deliver him up is to throw a lamb into the mouth of a lion.” Paul correctly applies the principles of servitude that are revealed throughout the Bible. If Paul had a sound reason to believe that Philemon was abusive towards Onesimus, he would be obliged to shelter Onesimus from Philemon’s wrath. Undoubtedly this would have included a stern rebuke by Paul to a professed Christian who behaved in such a manner. Paul likely would have cited Deut. 23:15-16 in his rebuke, as he had a habit of quoting the Law of Moses to bolster his case. The same would obviously apply to sexual slavery. Paul is obligated to send Onesimus back to Philemon because Philemon hadn’t done anything giving Onesimus just cause to flee. Like the angel sending Hagar back to Sarah, Paul sends Onesimus back to Philemon with God’s blessing. What is ironic and sad about Piper’s treatment of slavery from the writings of the New Testament is that he is blinded to the clemency and compassion that undergirds the Law as revealed in the Old Testament.

Piper’s Espousal of Cultural Marxist and Egalitarian Morality

Piper’s comments on slavery shouldn’t surprise us given his recent lack of discernment. While opposition to servitude in any form has become common among self-described conservative Protestants, Piper has certainly upped the ante in his recent online musings. He has made waves with his Facebook and Twitter posts over the last few years that have made manifest his hard shift towards social liberalism. Piper voiced his support for thug Trayvon Martin, and blamed George Zimmerman for killing Martin in self-defense. When Piper’s position was opposed by those of us who pointed out his ignorance of the facts and willingness to take the leftist narrative at face value, he responded by doubling down in his condemnation of those who would dare to confront black criminals. Piper’s cuckery has only become more pronounced since this episode. Piper opined that Christians should not arm themselves for the purpose of self-defense, even to protect wives and children! Competent responses7 have already been published, so there is no need to point out the all-too-obvious flaws in Piper’s pacifism. Suffice it to say that the anti-self-defense position taken by Piper would be a violation of the sixth commandment against unjust killing, since this commandment also requires us to defend innocent life by resisting evildoers when it is necessary.

Not long afterwards Piper tweeted: “The enemy called terrorists kills dozens in America. The enemy called love of self-preservation kills millions—forever.” In this amazing post, Piper suggests that those who kill would-be murderers are worse than terrorists who kill innocent people. Presumably this is because the would-be murderers are not Christians and their death would logically seal their destiny in judgment. Piper’s logic represents his stunning departure from his Calvinistic profession. It is true that the killing of potential rapists and murderers would likely seal their destiny, but from a Calvinistic perspective we ought to acknowledge God’s sovereignty over the circumstances that we encounter. This means that we acknowledge that God can and will bring about the salvation of His elect. It isn’t our job to preserve the lives of heinous criminals while allowing them to victimize innocent people in the hopes that they will repent of their crimes before they die. God will convert the elect, and if He has determined that unrepentant murderers are killed in an act of justified self-defense, then so be it. Piper ignores biblical laws respecting the right and responsibility of self-defense on pragmatic grounds while implicitly denying the sovereignty of God.

As if this wasn’t bad enough Piper also recently tweeted: “If ‘Black Lives Matter’ matters, know why from their own website. blacklivesmatter.com. See What We Believe and Herstory.” This is stunning for a couple of reasons. First is Piper’s abject duplicity in dealing with the race question. Piper’s advocacy for interracial marriage and transracial adoption is well-established. Piper frequently preaches the irrelevancy of race, and yet the very movement that he endorses on their website states that they are “unapologetically Black” while endorsing “black families” and “black villages” as well as their membership in the “global black family.” Piper wouldn’t be caught dead endorsing a movement, Christian or otherwise, that identified itself as “unapologetically White” or that endorsed white families or white villages. For the social justice warrior like Piper, homogeneity is only for non-whites. White solidarity is “racist,” plain and simple. Piper’s double-mindedness is obvious and inexcusable.

Even worse are the specific beliefs of this particular black advocacy movement. If Piper simply endorsed a group of Christian blacks advocating for the specific welfare of black people, that would make him a mere hypocrite considering his preaching against any kind of a white identity. The reality is that Black Lives Matter is a radical cultural Marxist front that encourages black violence against white “oppressors.”8 In addition to their encouragement of anti-white violence, Black Lives Matter is radically pro-feminist and pro-sodomy, and there is no way that Piper missed this when he went to their website. On the front page of their website, Black Lives Matter describes their position: “Black Lives Matter is a unique contribution that goes beyond extrajudicial killings of Black people by police and vigilantes. It goes beyond the narrow nationalism that can be prevalent within some Black communities, which merely call on Black people to love Black, live Black and buy Black, keeping straight cis Black men in the front of the movement while our sisters, queer and trans and disabled folk take up roles in the background or not at all. Black Lives Matter affirms the lives of Black queer and trans folks, disabled folks, Black-undocumented folks, folks with records, women and all Black lives along the gender spectrum. It centers those that have been marginalized within Black liberation movements. It is a tactic to (re)build the Black liberation movement.9

Recall that in his tweet Piper encouraged his readers to view the “What We Believe” and “Herstory” pages on the group’s website. On the “What We Believe” page, we find that BLM denounces the “patriarchal” oppression of black women, the “Western-prescribed” (and biblical) family structure based upon a father and mother raising their children. It is noteworthy that Piper specifically points his readers to read the “herstory” of the Black Lives Matter movement. “Herstory” is a feminist revision of the purportedly chauvinistic, patriarchal word “history.” The fact that Piper uses such a blatantly feministic term demonstrates his utter lack of discernment.

To endorse Black Lives Matter is to endorse its agenda of opposition to traditional Christian values. Piper’s pietistic and egalitarian morality is rooted in his feelings about what is “nice” or “loving.” This has led Piper to reject institutions rooted in inequality such as servitude, concocting untenable explanations for why the Bible never condemns servitude. Consequently, he has muted the Bible’s testimony on ethical matters. Piper’s crusade hasn’t stopped with his condemnation of slavery. He has debased the memory of his Southern ancestors, portraying them as backward “racists” instead of the refined and genteel Christians they genuinely were. Now Piper has regressed to advocating that Christians should not defend themselves against rapists and murderers and endorsing the violent black liberationist movement known as Black Lives Matter.

What better way to stay relevant in a world increasingly hostile to whites. This is the natural consequence of rejecting biblical morality and adopting the language of the left, as Piper and a whole host of Christian celebrities have done. It is impossible to accept the language of cultural Marxism and the sins that they condemn such as racism, sexism, ageism, heterosexism, speciesism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. without simply accepting the underlying presuppositions of cultural Marxism itself. Piper has stopped trying to simply use cultural Marxist language in a Christian sense, because this is impossible. Now he simply endorses cultural Marxism without any qualification at all. There is no middle ground, and Piper is living proof.

Footnotes

  1. See “Slavery: Its History, Morality, and Implications for Race Relations in America,” Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
  2. Mal. 3:6, Heb. 13:8, Jam. 1:17
  3. Deut. 32:4, Job 4:17, Is. 45:21, Acts 22:41, 1 Pet. 3:18, Rev. 15:3
  4. Matthew Henry’s commentary on Deuteronomy 23
  5. Ibid.
  6. Religion and the Demise of Slavery, taken from A Southside View of Slavery. Nehemiah Adams. Boston: T.R. Marvin and B.B. Mussey and Company, 1854.
  7. See “John Piper on Guns: Suicidal, Arminian, Pacifist, and Statist” and Iron Ink: “Dr. Piper and His Insistence That Christians Should Lie Down and Die,” Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, and Part 5
  8. See also, “Black Activists Call For Lynching and Hanging All White People and Cops
  9. Emphasis in original.

Feminism Is Now Completely Outed as Anti-White and Must Be Replaced

via Majority Rights

One of the most remarkable aspects of the migration wave that is presently sweeping over Europe, is how organised liberal-feminism has basically acted as an extension of the government, advocating precisely what the wealthiest male stakeholders in the liberal-capitalist state would like them to advocate. The demography of the migrant flow is 70% male between ages 18 and 35, and the percentage of males rises to 90% when the age range of 16 to 17 years old alone is considered.

With liberal-feminist theorists and commentators in Europe now devoting themselves almost exclusively to the defence of Arab and African men, some people are beginning to ask how it could have ever been possible for things to have reached this point.

If we start with the consideration that incidents of violent crime, homicide, and sexual assault are statistically being committed overwhelmingly by men, and if we consider that feminism has been highlighting and talking about these statistics for as long as it has existed as a movement, why has this been completely forgotten now? Why is it that talking about the violent and anti-social tendencies of men has now been condemned as ‘prejudice’, where it was never condemned as such before?

It stands to reason that if men in general are a hazardous demographic, that the last thing any reasonable feminist would want to do is to set about inviting more men into a region that they are living in. What makes it even more of an absurd trend, is that the particular men who are being invited into Europe subscribe to social views which are magnitudes worse than the views held by European men. If young European men are a problem demographic, and they indeed are, then wait until you see young Arab and African men!

Some have advanced the absolutely bewildering argument that since there are already trouble-causing men in Europe, there should be no problem inviting millions more men into the continent. This makes no sense. Why would anyone want to increase the amount of a problem that already exists?

There seems to be no rationale until you realise that big business, specifically manufacturing, always wants more migration of ‘strong’ workers. And manufacturing essentially controls the German state, which forms the centre of this trend. European feminism has found itself acting as the cheerleaders for the most retrograde liberal economic policy preferences of German manufacturers and their Jewish-German financiers.

Given that feminism is a movement that originated not as a liberal movement, but rather, as a socialistic movement—which is to say, a movement which correctly perceived the liberal state as being a male-dominated capitalist assault vehicle against women and as such was opposed to the liberal state—it is quite a distance that has been travelled since the mid-1970s to get to the destructive pro-liberal capitalist position it is in now. There are important lessons to be learned on why this deformation happened and how to prevent such a deformation from happening again in the future.


Entering bourgeois government without a connection to working class organisations

After the events of May 1968 in France, it seemed as though there could be no limit to where feminist organising might go. The door had been thrown open, and the rise of ‘state feminism’ as a tendency was made possible. The conception of ‘state feminism’ was that by entering the bourgeois government, people who were feminist advocates could shape public policy in ways which delivered results for regular women.

As well-intentioned as this was, it suffered from the classic problem of how the needs of regular women, most of whom were working class, could continue to be met if they were unable to connect the engine of feminist theory to the drivetrain of policy-making after feminists and feminist-allies had entered the government.

Entering government without a coherent movement and a party structure behind them which was rooted in the struggles of the working class, meant that these attempts at ‘state feminism’ would become dependent almost immediately on campaign donations and grants from sections of the bourgeois state itself, and would become linked to bourgeois parties and made to conform to their concerns and priorities whenever feminist theory and liberal-capitalist economics came into contradiction.

Some women insisted that ‘gradualism’ was what was happening, and that it was not concessions that were being made. They insisted that those women who cautioned against these compromises were ‘too purist’ or ‘paranoid’, or even—ironically—‘man haters’.

Yet it has emerged in the end that those who were ‘paranoid’ were correct. The priorities of the ‘state feminists’ became warped and deformed, and the contours of their deformations aligned exactly with the demands of the liberal-capitalist state.
For example, the liberal-capitalist state requires compliant female workers who carry out double-duty in the home and the workplace. Rather than calling for the socialisation of childcare and home duties, instead the ‘state feminists’ studiously ignored that problem and began talking about quotas in boardrooms, boardrooms which most women will never get to inhabit, given that 67% of women are working class. That is just one example, and I’m sure you can think of many more, I don’t need to elaborate on all of them. Basically, all economic issues were shelved, and ‘state feminism’ became a talking shop in which only a minority of women were being catered to, or otherwise there was a lot of talk about ‘feelings’. I actually cannot count the number of times I’ve had to tell people “feminism is not your therapy session.”

This is what happens when you end up with liberal-feminism rather than socialist-feminism.

Rather than having a philosophy of praxis, and rather than seeking out policy preferences which ran contrary to the established system and which trended toward setting the stage for socialism, ‘state feminists’ instead became the cheerleaders of almost every destructive domestic policy proposed by European capitalists.

At the end of the day, the form of feminism which triumphed in the west, liberal-feminism, was a hollow triumph which only became more hollow as time wore on. In liberal-feminism, the part in front of the hyphen is killing the part behind the hyphen. And that’s only to be expected, given that liberalism is the ideology of the haute-bourgeoisie.

The tricks and deceptions of the haute-bourgeoisie

One of the most often repeated claims that are made by liberals, and which is now parroted by liberal-feminists everywhere, is the claim that “Europeans are not having enough children”. What exactly decides how much is ‘enough’? Nations and regions have a carrying capacity, beyond which it becomes more and more difficult to house people and provide basic infrastructure without causing serious damage to the environment and stressing state budgets. There is also the fact that increasing automation and mechanisation of the economy has created a future in which structural unemployment looms unless the population is reduced.

In what world are Europeans not having enough children? They needed to have less children, because the development of productive forces and the advent of robotics on the production line and information systems cutting out ‘middle men’ everywhere, made it completely logical to have less children.

European populations should be applauded for having reacted so rationally to the prevailing economic conditions.

The manufacturing industries which are lamenting this trend, are those industries which failed to develop themselves because they failed to invest in capital equipment, and which now want to offset their bad decision making with a shot-in-arm through the importation of labourers from the Middle East and Africa. They should not be allowed to do that, and in fact, they should be made to run onto the wall and become bankrupt if they cannot adapt to an era of reduced population levels. Swim or be bankrupt is how it ought to be.

The more slothful manufacturers who have influence over the crafting of state policy refuse to accept that fate however, and so their strategy has been to induce the governments which they own to pile up workers from the Middle East and Africa as their ‘get out of a bankruptcy free’ card, and they’ve used their interface with the state to lobby for that outcome. False pseudo-economic pleas are made, appeals to humanitarianism, and faces of the most profound pity are all marshalled to support the mass migration cause.

The thing is that they can never win with that strategy anyway, because they are only delaying the inevitable. There is no way that any number of human beings can be more effective at carrying out mass production of widgets than robotics will be in the long term, so all the European companies who insist on adopting that strategy will ultimately find themselves being eclipsed by their Asian competitors who are increasingly investing in more capital equipment and will defeat them on the global market with rival products that are both higher quality and cheaper.

The end result is that these European manufacturers will still go bankrupt in the end, and then all their employees, be they white, Arab, or African, will all end up as ‘excess population’ claiming unemployment benefits and stressing the treasuries of European governments.

The public faces of European feminism have been marshalled as cheerleaders of this dire trend too. A movement and tendency which once—correctly—espoused positions that bordered on being anti-natalist and deep ecologist, now in 2016 mysteriously and insanely appears to be mouthing platitudes that are pro-natalist, quiver-full, and pregnancy fetishist. It’s as if they are saying “Too bad you weren’t a pregnancy fetishist, now we’ll have to invite in all these Arabs and Africans who are!”

Those strange and uncharacteristic positions that are being advanced, are another indicator of just how deformed and degenerated European feminist thought has become. It is scarcely recognisable as feminism.

The answers change depending on how much they want to kill you

We’ve heard that women are the curators and guardians of culture who are usually targeted first for pacification, and that whenever ethnic violence breaks out anywhere, women end up being targeted in acts of immense violence.

I had the dis-privilege once of having to talk to some liberal-feminists about feminism and nationalism, and what the complimentary and contradictory elements of these tendencies are when they are brought under the same roof.

Somehow the conversation came to the issue of violence in the Middle East and North Africa. A liberal began arguing that the instability in that region should not be attributed to the choices made by men in those societies entirely, because “it was the European powers who drew the borders the way that they were, and it should only be expected that conflicts would erupt when so many diverse peoples are placed within the same borders.”

And someone else piped up with something like, “Don’t forget that some of these borders were deliberately arranged so the inhabitants would be unable to form a common front to advocate for their interests.”

I then asked why it was that they could so clearly see the concept of ‘the state as tax franchise’ and ‘divide and rule’ being used in the Middle East and North Africa, and yet at the same time still facilitate the creation of the precursors to the exact same ‘divide and rule’ structure inside the western world via mass migration. I followed up by slyly asking whether they thought that this would be a structure which would make it even more difficult to advocate for socialism, or whether they thought it would make advocacy for socialism easier.

Majorityrights readers will not be surprised to hear that it was decided that the conversation should end there and that I should be unceremoniously dis-invited from the venue in the future. The comedic element was that the liberals couldn’t come to agreement amongst themselves on the precise way in which I had offended their sensibilities, should they accuse me of being ‘a racist’, or ‘a communist’? Maybe I was a socialist, of the nationalist variety?

At any rate, it was all getting very illiberal, and they were having none of that thank-you-very-much.

Again, what we are seeing is a feminism that is afraid to reach conclusions that contradict the policy preferences of the liberal-capitalist state. It’s a form of epistemic closure.

The patriarchal rapefugee dialectic

Think about it. For years we’ve all been told about how heteronormativity and patriarchy is something that needs to be challenged, yet suddenly no one seems to be interested in challenging it anymore. That concern which feminists took up, has now been superseded by a new concern, which is the concern to make sure that every African and Arab male feels happy and appreciated by the lands which they are essentially invading.

At the same time, the same feminists are to be found chanting “we are not your women”, when white males try to defend local women from sexual assault and rape at the hands of the African and Arab migrants.

This is part of what I like to call ‘the patriarchal rapefugee dialectic’. It goes like this:
  • Western liberal-feminists short-sightedly try to defy ‘white men’ and ‘the repressive state’ by cheering for the importation of eleventy quadrillion ‘refugees’ from the Middle East and Africa.

  • ‘Refugees’ become a massive problem for law and order, and begin raping women promptly.

  • Because of the targeted anti-female nature of the violence, and the biological differences between men and women, it becomes difficult for most women to fight off the sexually violent ‘refugees’.

  • ‘White men’ and ‘the repressive state’ become the only blunt instrument through which the sexual violence can be stopped, and as such they become more necessary and relevant than ever.
And so the circumstances in which male power would become more relevant in modern society, were ironically fostered by those who claimed most loudly to be opposed to such male power.

One way to have avoided that outcome may have been to have not imported the migrants in the first place, and to have thus avoided the ‘the patriarchal rapefugee dialectic’ entirely.

It’s kind of like how if you don’t want to be forced to pick up the phone and call the police to save you from rapists and serial killers because you are so ‘independent’, then you probably shouldn’t leave your front door wide open in the night with a sign up that says “Random Men Welcome”. That kind of scenario will have you requesting someone’s help pretty quickly, and you won’t stay independent for very long.

It’s simply an objective fact that in a society where the ontological framework of political discourse is defined by women and from the perspective of women, the bedrock foundation of all ‘independence and liberty’ most rationally flows from the firm establishment and enforcement of security. Security is fundamental to everything. Closed borders, CCTV, stiff counter-terrorism measures, and plenty of police officers on the beat, along with the kind of reporting process that comes from having tight-knit communities with strong bonds of blood and ethnicity, constitute the environment in which there is the most room for female liberty.

From a security standpoint, “Refugees Welcome” is a massive undermining of state security and the basic safety of women on the street as the streets descend into perpetual savagery, and consequently it is a massive boost for patriarchy because male power and narratives which support male power will obviously end up being marshalled to counteract it. It’s just that obvious.

To expect western feminists to understand this reality is perhaps too much ask, given that the (((professors))) in western (((humanities departments))) don’t have an interest in teaching this kind of basic logic.

Instead, they are singularly interested in talking about frivolous issues that they encounter in their relationships with men, and have done everything that they can to turn feminism into a gigantic therapy session for jilted women, the ones who are of course fat and disgusting.

There simply is not a real feminism in the West anymore.

Completely weaponless

At some point it seems that western liberal-feminists decided that the only people who should be allowed to have guns are the ruling class in western states, the military, police, and criminals, all of whom are mostly male. You know you aren’t ‘sticking it to the man’ when your policy preference is that only ‘the man’ shall be armed with guns that can kill you.

It is said that “Smith & Wesson created all women equal”. Yet for decades, western liberal-feminists have stood four-square against the idea of raising the average combat strength of women in any way, much less relaxing gun control laws.

So many of the arguments advanced by the gun control advocates are absolutely fallacious, the most fallacious one in this context being the myth that ‘owning a gun for home defence usually results in greater risks being posed to yourself and your family rather than to the potential home invader’.

In fact, this is why I would always recommend that in cases where it is legally possible, one of the best home defence weapons is a decent quality shotgun like the Mossberg Model 88 Maverick 12-gauge special 8-shot shotgun, or the Model 500 12-gauge 6-shot shotgun. The main difference between these shotguns is the number of shots you have, but also the barrel length, as the former is 20 inches long and the latter is 18.5 inches long.

In all cases, these shotguns can be outfitted with a lot of tactical furniture that assist in handing the gun, the most salient additions being railed accessories such as a flashlight, an adjustable stock, and pistol grip. A pretty comprehensively useful long gun can be built in that way.

The best thing about pump action shotguns is that they are very easy to just pick up and use, when you hear something go ‘bump’ in the night and it turns out to be a home invader, you can just pick it up, chamber, point, and fire. A shooter should of course be aware that the spread after about 12 to 15 feet distance is somewhere between about 2 ½ inches and 3 ½ inches, so it is not just a matter of ‘point and shoot’ literally, a person still has to actually aim in order to hit the target.

“But won’t the shot go through the wall and hit your own family as well?”, the gun control advocates might ask.

Naturally, when pointing a loaded weapon at anything, you should be conscious of what may be behind the target, including beyond walls and other partitions that are typically found in the interior of a building. The way in which shotguns like the ones which I’ve described are useful in this case, is that there is a real versatility in ammunition that shotguns have.

There are a plethora of options, plenty of shotshell ammunition is designed to avoid overpenetration of a target and thus can be used for home defence since some ammunition may not travel through walls. However, the kind of loads that won’t travel through walls, such as birdshot, are also the kind of loads in many cases which will not have any real stopping power and might only lightly injure the target. This presents a unique problem. What is the correct compromise to make, so that you have a capability to deliver real stopping power, but also not travel too far through other objects in the case that you should miss?

Slugs are out of the question immediately, because slugs will travel through many walls, and will also travel completely through the human target, meaning that even if you hit the target, the slug will still continue on through several walls.

00 Buck and 0 Buck will go through the walls as well, and so will #4 Buck. #8 will also go through walls, it’s only when you get down to something like #7.5 with ~1350 feet per second muzzle velocity, which is essentially a clay target shooting shotshell, that the walls are not guaranteed to be completely penetrated if you miss a target. Missing with #7.5 with ~1350 feet per second inside of an apartment for example, would probably penetrate the outer surface of the wall and become embedded on the inside of the other side of that same wall.

The ideal solution to this problem is to have your shotgun set up with a diversity load, the best kind of diversity. Shotshells with increasingly greater pellet size and muzzle velocity are loaded into the weapon in ascending order. If #7.5 doesn’t stop the home invader, then your next shot will have to be placed more carefully and would be #8, and then #4 Buck, and so on, until you reach 00 Buck.

Above all, the most important thing is to know the inside of your own house in the dark, so that you can know where to stand and which are the best and safest positions to shoot from, taking into account the shotshell being used.

These are the kind of nuances that are unfortunately are completely lost on gun control advocates, and are entirely overlooked during gun debates. That’s mostly because gun control advocates ironically tend to know very little about guns themselves, they only know that ‘guns are scary’.

‘Guns are scary’ has been a deliberate part of the narrative in post-war Europe, because liberal governments are also afraid of how European populations might behave in the face of governments that are wildly unpopular, if those Europeans happened to also have ‘threat of force’ as one of the social bargaining chips on the table.

Guns and hatpins

An interesting comparison can be made between the stance on self defence among western liberal-feminists today, and the stance on self-defence that existed previously during the time of the suffragettes in the United States.

The controversy had first emerged with the rise of a phenomenon called ‘mashing’, where men would try to grope women in the street on on public transport, during a time in the early 1900s in the United States when women were only just beginning to gain and utilise the kind of personal autonomy which everyone takes for granted today. A social worker called Jane Addams phrased it as “never before in civilization have such numbers of young girls been suddenly released from the protection of the home and permitted to walk unattended upon city streets and to work under alien roofs.”

Hat pins were used by women as a form of self-defence against these attackers, because they were extremely sharp and sometimes could be between nine and twelve inches long.

By the year 1909, the phenomenon of hatpins being used as a weapon of self-defence had become an international issue, and cities in France and Germany were seeking to regulate their length.

In 1910, Chicago’s city council would, in a way that pre-echoes the gun rights debate that would come later, debated and passed ordinance that restricted all hat pins to less than nine inches long, and anyone who violated this would be arrested and fined $50. One of the male supporters of this law is said to have opined, “If women care to wear carrots and roosters on their heads, that is a matter for their own concern, but when it comes to wearing swords they must be stopped!”

Nan Davis, who was speaking on behalf of several women’s clubs, asked to address the council, and gave the response, “If the men of Chicago want to take the hatpins away from us, let them [first] make the streets safe,” she said. “No man has a right to tell me how I shall dress and what I shall wear.”

That was 1910.

Isn’t it remarkable how the situation in 2016 is the exact opposite now?

Now there are female mayors in Germany like Mayor Henriette Reker who seem to believe that women need to change their ‘code of conduct’ to accommodate the irrepressible urges of rapist Arab men, and there are senators in the United States like Dianne (((Feinstein))) along with former congresswomen like Elizabeth (((Holtzman))) who want to do everything possible to stop the spread of so-called “deadly assault weapons”, which they have of course defined as being basically anything that is not an antique musket.

Names that echo strangely

When it comes to those who are at the forefront of crafting the mass migration narrative which western liberal-feminists adopted, there is a notable gender and ethnic bias involved. I tried to compile a list and something really strange happened.
See here:
  • George Soros
  • Peter Sutherland
  • David Schwarz
  • Robert Aschberg
  • Peter Wolodarski
  • Barbera Lerner Spectre
  • Anthony Lester
  • Barbara Roche
  • Jack Straw
  • Emanuel Celler
  • Jacob Javits
  • Norbert Schlei
  • Elizabeth Holtzman
  • Dianne Feinstein
  • Chuck Schumer
  • Laurence Fabius
  • Harlem Desir
  • Bernard Henri-Levi
  • Josepf Schuster
  • Gregor Gysi
  • Anetta Kahane
  • Walter Lippmann
  • David Manne
  • Alan Schatter
  • Ronit Lentin
  • Franca Eckert Coen
  • Job Cohen
  • Ervin Kohn
  • Angela Merkel
  • Giles Fraser
  • Pinchas Goldschmidt
  • Albert Guigui
  • Nicholas Katzenbach
  • Earl Raab
  • Marc Schneier
  • Michel Serfaty
  • Awraham Soentendorp
  • etc, etc.
Not only is most of the list over the years actually male, it’s also the case that almost all of these names have (((strange echoes))) on them.

The list is of course incomplete, but I don’t see what the point of continuing to compile the list would be. With the exception of Peter Sutherland, absolutely every one of them has Jewish blood. It was not my intent to draft a list that is comprised of almost 100% Jews. It just happened to come out that way, because it is that way.

Remember this. Almost every single name that has decisive influence over the narrative on the migration issue, is Jewish.

There’s nothing more that even needs to be said about that.

Theory of social reproduction: the way to understand the problem

Capitalism is an integrated system. It encompasses management of workers, but what is often not considered is that it also encompasses the management of the means through which the workers themselves are physically produced and maintained. The means through which worker power is produced and maintained is called ‘pregnancy’ and ‘motherhood’, respectively, activities and processes which are considered to be part of the ‘informal’ economy.

The three informal economic activities that reproduce labour power are:
  • Regenerative actions: All the tasks involved in ‘home-making’, which allow workers to replenish themselves calorically, physically, and psychologically, so that they can return to work the next day.
  • Preparatory actions: All tasks involved in ‘motherhood’, which is the act of maintaining non-workers who may one day become workers.
  • Expansionary actions: Making fresh future workers. Literally childbirth.
Any system of production fundamentally requires that these actions shall occur, yet these actions are performed by heterosexual childbearing women absolutely for free.

Since women alone are the gender which is capable both of being workers and of producing new workers, women contribute enormously in both the formal and informal economy. Using a developed economy like the United States as an example, if women were to be removed from the formal economy, which is to say, if no additional women joined the workforce after 1970, the GDP of that country would be 25% less than it is today. If women’s work in the informal economy were to be assigned a value and enumerated as though it were part of the formal economy, official GDP figures would increase by 26%. So in total, women are already accounting for 51% of the economic activity in that country, if both their formal and informal contribution is accounted for.

Who on earth would think that this should be ignored when talking about the working class? The ruling class knows and understands very well how the two spheres of the economy are tightly integrated, and they exploit this knowledge constantly.

Repressions in the formal economy against organised labour through policies of reducing abilities to engage in collective bargaining—both female or male—can have ripple effects that extend into the informal economy in the form of (a) foreclosures, (b) domestic abuse, (c) unsettled life for children, and (d) poorer school performance which impacts job opportunities and makes the class system more rigid over the course of generations.

Deprivations targeted at the informal economy against childbearing women through policy preferences such as (a) reinforcing stringent means testing for access to social services, (b) enacting cuts to social services and cuts to education, (c) linking education funding to land taxation, (d) eliminating access to reproductive health services, and (e) eliminating access to abortion services, all have diverse ripple effects that negatively impact the ability of organised labour to engage in collective bargaining in the formal economy.

It may be instructive to describe how some of these attacks play out.

One of the most obvious attacks is found in the attempt to limit or discourage access to abortion services, coupled with systems of morality that make child-birthing seem like an obligation. If members of the working class are deprived of the ability to control the number of births per woman, then capitalists are being gifted with a reserve army of labour which can be used as a battering ram against wages. After all, labour is obviously going to be worth more when there is not an unending glut of more labourers being constantly produced without fail.

Another attack that should be explained is the attack against the school system. If working mothers are deprived of the ability to choose what kind of school environment their child will be raised in, because of integration policies that produce confused identities and neighbourhood infighting, then they will similarly find themselves unable to adequately organise at the picket line later on.

Another attack which may need explanation is how stringent means-testing is an attack against working mothers. First developed by capitalists in London during the Irish Great Famine, the model of means-testing that is in use everywhere today is the product of a vicious social experiment carried out against Irish workers and peasant farmers. By demanding that at every major economic downturn a worker or peasant must divest themselves of any assets they have in order to qualify for temporary assistance, it guarantees that at every major economic downturn, there would be no possibility of workers or peasants having the financial wherewithal to protest against the system which caused the downturn. They’d be trapped within a system where accepting ‘assistance’ is predicated on first making economic sacrifices which perversely deprive the workers of any ability to support themselves, causing them to fall into dependence on the very government which demanded those economic sacrifices in the first place. Through these privations, workers are kept in line, and in the case where they are female, they are told that if they don’t like it, then they ought to go and subject themselves to a man, a man who is himself experiencing those same exact privations.

The reason that capitalism supports these kinds of attacks on the informal economy is because these make the entire working class weaker and more vulnerable, and thus less capable of resisting attacks in the workplace. The capitalists attack the home and the neighbourhood because they know it enables them to win the battle later on in the workplace.

To struggle against these attacks, an integrated approach of criticising and subverting capitalism in both the formal and informal economy is needed, and women’s liberation must be a central part of that process. That integrated approach can be found in a form of socialism known as national syndicalism.

But why should we want a syndicalist economy? Because national liberation is impossible otherwise.

Any gains that are made in the ethnic or gender space can never be made permanent, unless there is bound up along with it a simultaneous plan for gradually bringing about the end of the capitalist system itself after its historical role has been exhausted, since it is the capitalist system which is the material basis of these problems.

Traditionalism is a shameless con-game

Some people—traditionalists—might start complaining about how advocating syndicalism, and about how talking about the inseparable necessity of women’s liberation to that process is ‘divisive’ among ethno-nationalists because it might alienate certain big capitalists and because it might alienate traditionalists and various old-fashioned moralists.

Okay, yes. But what would such complaints actually mean?

Through their complaints the traditionalists would be asking us to be conciliatory toward big capitalists, conciliatory toward traditionalists, and conciliatory toward clergy of various types.

It becomes clear that the thing which they would most want to hear, is an assurance that once the nation—whichever nation is being discussed—has been liberated, their disgusting privileges will not be taken away from them. They are requesting that once liberation takes place, the next form of government should guard all of the systems of exploitation and all the accumulated wealth—the ‘granaries’—of the previous rulers so as to protect it from falling into the grasp of the ‘thin hands of the poor’. And that they should do this with exactly the same viciousness and remorselessness as the murderous round-table of Liberal party lords, clergy, bankers, and media figures did to the Irish during the Irish Great Famine, and to the Gaels in Scotland at an earlier juncture.

They would be saying that without an agreement that the exploitation by the capitalists and by the clergy shall continue forever, they would not cooperate with us. Instead they would decry us by screaming the word “Leftist” at us as though it is an epithet.

Someone who is progressive and who advocates national syndicalism is always going to be more of a threat to the established power than any of the people who are engaging in the vagueries of ‘radical traditionalism’.

‘Radical traditionalists’ are the kind of people who somehow claim to believe that it is possible to reconcile national liberation with the maintenance of the worst and most retrograde forms of economic repression against women in the informal sphere of the economy, as though somehow magically it would not have disastrous effects which ripple outward everywhere. But in fact it would create economic ripples which would only serve to sustain the most rapacious forms of capitalism and every other twisted form of social organisation flowing from the time of the Norman Conquest in England.

A national liberation which is not progressive and syndicalist, is one which is doomed to failure. International (((finance capitalists))) would still end up ruling everyone by proxy, and they would bring everything to ruin.

Setting out a plan to maintain capitalism and traditionalism forever and ever, would basically be like saying that the (((world-enemy))) had so successfully inculcated everyone with their perverted conceptions of morals and justice, that everyone had finally decided to accept those perverse ideas as their own, and no longer needed those people to violently enforce those ideas upon them.

It should be obvious: that which has enslaved you cannot make you free.

Driven to the edge of the unknown

Total systemic change is needed in order to remove the class of people who have infested the halls of power and who are making Europe weak and defenceless.
How can we get Europe to win at solving the problem of economic inequality and lack of productive growth? How can we get Europe to win on providing opportunities to all? How can we get Europe to win with progressive outcomes on healthcare, education, infrastructure development and military spending? How can we get Europe to win on women’s liberation and bring an end to systemic oppression of disadvantaged women, particularly in Eastern Europe and Southern Europe? How can we make Europe into a strong bulwark that can win against the rising tide of Arab and African reactionaries?

The answer is national syndicalism.

Ethno-nationalists should take the broad short-term concerns (8 - 16 years) of the mass of the people and link those short-term concerns to ideas about what actions have to be taken so as to secure their long-term interest (50 years) of carrying out total systemic change, through:
  • The construction of counter-institutions that will engage in a ‘war of position’ so as to eventually facilitate a national syndicalist revolution.
  • The fomentation of a crisis of legitimacy from which the liberal ruling class in the west would be unable to recover, something which becomes a more realistic possibility the longer that the twin crises of economics and migration continue.
  • A transition to a ‘war of manoeuvre’ followed by regime change and the structural reform of Western states as the national-syndicalist counter-institutions become the only institutions.
Everything we do should be done with that long term goal in mind. Everything we do should be about trying to nudge the flow of history in that direction, by engaging in careful analysis of political and geopolitical developments and then making memetic and organised political interventions that make a positive difference at each conjuncture.

That may sound like a tall order, even a mere dream right now, but in order to realise your dreams you have to have heart. You first have to be willing to take everything away from the (((world-enemies))) and tell them, “No, you do not represent our ethnic or gender interests, and I am not your shield.” That is the groundwork that needs to be done first.

Make a stand

The (((world-enemies))) have erected a massive moral, religious, memetic, and philosophical edifice which is designed to demoralise and destroy the European continent. That whole edifice has to be gradually torn down brick by brick, in its entirely, comprehensively, so that the people who are trapped within it will be able to realise the truth. For most people, if we are able to have a conversation with them outside of the present framework that they are imprisoned in, and we are to say, “Hey, person, at the root of everything, when all artifice is stripped away down to the genes-eye view, we all want the same thing here, don’t we?”, they would be able to see the utility of defending their genetic heritage and the development of thought-forms which are most suited to their geographical and geopolitical reality.

People everywhere are talking about ‘the end of Europe’. But Europe is not finished. The real story of Europe is only just about to begin. It ought to begin with the unmasking and destruction of all false historical-philosophical-ideological thought-forms. It will not happen overnight. It will take many years and it will be extremely slow work at first. But together we can do this, we can take that first step, and to an extent it has already begun. Together we can make it happen. It’s going to happen. And we are going to do it.

James Edwards at a Donald Trump Rally in Memphis

via The Occidental Observer

I attended a Donald Trump rally in Memphis on Saturday night as a fully credentialed member of the media and enjoyed the unique experience of being able to air a live broadcast of The Political Cesspool Radio Program from inside the press pen while the event was in full swing. (Next Saturday’s show [March 5] will feature a previously taped 20-minute interview with Donald Trump, Jr.) It was a very memorable day and I’d now like to take my audience behind the scenes.

After receiving my credentials from the campaign, I was instructed to get there early for set-up and to go through security. At approximately 1:30 PM I arrived at the Millington Regional Airport, where the rally was to be held inside one of the hangars. There was already a long line of supporters waiting to gain entry even though I was on-scene nearly five hours before Trump ascended to the podium. With rock music blaring and people tailgating in the parking lot it felt very much like a college football atmosphere. There were plenty of vendors hawking Trump merchandise, but the most impressive display was a concession stand offering the “Make America Great Again Trump Burger.” Naturally, this monster featured 100% American beef and 100% American cheese. Other items being offered included the “Ted Cruz Burger” (which featured Canadian Bacon), Bernie Sanders Pork Nachos, and Hillary Clinton SOFT drinks — that had been scrubbed clean.

I was fortunate to be able to bypass the crowd and long line by parking in a VIP area designated for members of the press, which was located directly behind the hangar. When I got out of my car I almost immediately ran into Trump beat reporter Katy Tur of NBC News. Katy first became known to me a couple of months ago after watching an interview she did with Trump.I must say though that she comes across as having an overall pleasant personality on television, and she was most certainly a sweetheart when we talked. Interestingly, she is the former girlfriend of Keith Olbermann, who once referred to me as “the worst person in the world” on his unimpressive and now thankfully canceled television show.

The time seemed to pass quickly. After picking up my press badge and clearing Secret Service, it felt as though the crowd was already starting to gather inside the venue. My co-hosts, Keith Alexander and Eddie “The Bombardier” Miller, were already waiting for me by the time I set foot inside the hangar. The three of us, along with a TPC correspondent, brainstormed for a few minutes and developed an outline for our radio broadcast that night. As the crowd continued to build, it was nearing time to go to work.

Credentials
Reporting for duty

As “game time” approached the energy in the room became palpable. There was a sense of excitement that was undeniable inside of a rusted, concrete hangar that looked like it had been built during the Cold War to shelter Memphians if Cuba ever decided to drop the bomb. It’s amazing how such an unassuming location can transform into the place to be when filled to capacity with the right people. And filled it was. A crowd of at least 10,000 packed inside a space with no chairs — and no complaints.

Crowd
A view of the crowd from my vantage point inside the press pen long before the start of the event

As vigorous as the crowd was in advance of his arrival, Trump sent them into an absolute frenzy when his personal 757 came in for a landing in full view of those assembled. This man knows how to make an entrance. The plane rolled to a stop right in front of the podium before the door opened and out emerged New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and the Republican front-runner. Christie provided an admirable warm-up act during which he comically savaged “Little” Marco Rubio.

Christie
Feed from a television inside the press pen

Trump himself took over the mic just minutes before 6:00 PM Central Time and gave his patented stump speech. The crowd roared when he asked them who was going to pay for the wall and nearly made the ground shake when he told them the wall was going to get ten feet taller if Mexican officials continue to use foul language.

AirTrump
Another picture from my point of view

Believe it or not, I was actually able to hear very little of Trump’s speech because shortly after 6:00 my radio program went live on the air and I had to connect to the studio. However, it was a pretty incredible experience to be able to broadcast live from the press pen while Trump was simultaneously making his remarks. Being able to paint a verbal picture of the scene for my audience was a real novelty and something that will definitely be remembered. If you’ve not yet listened to our most recent show, please check our broadcast archives.

A highlight of the evening was when a scraggly protester attempted to disrupt President Trump’s remarks by holding up an unoriginal sign that read, “Make America HATE Again.” The crowd erupted when a hero emerged to rip the sign to shreds before security could escort the vanquished Social Justice Warrior to the parking lot. The press ate up the confrontation and scribbled furiously to cast this malcontent as someone worthy of praise.

Quite frankly, the media is wetting itself in reaction to Donald Trump’s surging candidacy. So-called reporters and journalists must feel absolutely impotent to find that, after spending decades attempting to brainwash people with a constant inundation of unnatural ideas, their best efforts have resulted in a colossal failure. As the media watches its grip slipping away, they have become desperate to paint Trump as a “racist.” It’s the same old, worn out card they always play. I wrote a book about it.

Trump has risen to the top of the polls by simply stating he will enforce our immigration laws and by showing he is a real man who won’t cower to political correctness. By throwing out some red meat to the starving base of the Republican Party, he has firmly positioned himself to execute a hostile takeover the GOP. Thank God!

Media
After long since abandoning objective reporting, the media now sees itself as the enforcer of political correctness

The only downer was having to work in such close proximity to my “colleagues,” I really do despise the press and have gotten to the point now where I rarely give interviews anymore. They’re contemptible and obnoxious creatures. Rather than take advantage of having room to maneuver in the pen, I chose rather to stick close to the fence and mingle with the crowd during breaks in my program.
After he wrapped up a stem-winder, the Donald worked the ropes for a while before climbing back aboard AirTrump. Minutes later, he was rumbling back down the runway and into the Tennessee sky.

Notes
Holding my show notes while touching base with my producer

I handed the show over to my co-hosts during the second hour and took pictures with a few fans who had been patiently waiting for me. The last woman who approached me had driven in from Nashville and remarked that she, too, was a Southern Baptist who agreed with me on the situation plaguing our church. I believe that I gave her comfort by assuring her that Trump was going to win Tennessee and carry the evangelical demographic throughout Dixie.

After a short exchange, I autographed her campaign sign and encouraged her to pray that Trump becomes our next Charlemagne.I must admit that this rally lived up to my expectations. I’ve been saying for years on the radio that the majority of Americans fundamentally agree with us on the issues and that the neocons were generals of a phantom army. I am being proven right. Our people just needed a viable candidate and they’ve identified Trump as that man. There is no doubt that Trump’s populism and nationalism is galvanizing our nation and may change the course of American history for the better right before our very eyes. After getting my start in politics with Pat Buchanan in 2000, Donald Trump will be the first Republican nominee that I have ever voted for.

Buchanan was a man ahead of the times and Trump is his vindicator. With family men like myself, it can be argued that Trump is now growing the party because there isn’t a chance that I would have ever considered voting for any of the other cuckservative losers bidding for the White House under the GOP banner this year. A fellow traveler remarked to me in private that the ingredient in Trump’s historic rise that makes it so delicious is that it’s nuclear powered. It is unstoppable. It is impervious to foot-shuffling, complaints, whining, hysterical cries of “racism” and so-called “white supremacism.”

Trump supporters don’t care, and there is something undeniably infectious about Trump’s masculine attitude. He is a prototypical alpha male.We don’t have to agree with everything Trump says, and he doesn’t need to agree with everything we say. In fact, it wouldn’t bother me if Donald Trump himself denounced me and all of my friends. He can denounce me until the cows come home so long as he follows through on his pledge to build a wall and ensures that the aliens self-deport. I am supporting him because immigration is the single biggest problem that our nation needs to solve. Demographics is destiny. He doesn’t have to support me.

The bottom line is that Trump is the only candidate who gives us a chance at having a fighter who will put America first. He’s the only candidate who isn’t owned and operated by special interests. With Trump, America has a chance to regain her identity.

A new day is dawning and it’s a beautiful sight to behold.

Vulnerable Girls in Britain and Cologne: Who's Exploiting Them?

via The Traitor within

On 28 January 2016, Jess Phillips, Labour MP for Birmingham Yardley, compared the New Year's Eve attacks upon Cologne's women and girls with being 'bated and heckled' in Birmingham city centre.

She said:
"A very similar situation to what happened in Cologne could be describing Broad Street in Birmingham every week, where women are baited and heckled."
The reason Phillips spoke as she did is simple. As the nastiness in Cologne was carried out entirely by non-natives, she sought, as the left-wing politician and feminist invariably does, to play it down. At the same time, if the viewer gained the impression that the Broad Street hecklers were of indigenous origin, that would be a bonus.

Anyway, the viewers took exception to what she said and were soon voicing their disgust on social media. Chris Humphreys tweeted:
"Did Jess Phillips just compare the apparent mass sexual assault in Cologne with Birmingham city centre? Oh dear oh dear."
James Wilby said she was 'an example of a feminist hiding from reality.'

Harry Yorke said the comparison was 'utter tripe and disingenuous.'

Mike Olley, who looks after Broad Street in his role as manager of the Westside Business Improvement District, said:
"It's preposterous, ill-informed nonsense."
 Ms Phillips also said this:

"We have to attack what we perceive as being patriarchal culture coming into any culture that isn't patriarchal and making sure we tell people not to be like that. But we should be careful in this country before we rest on our laurels when two women are murdered every week in this country."
Yeah, that'll do it. Tell the Cologne newbie and the Rotherham paedo 'not to be like that' and, hey presto, those who molested German womankind on New Year's Eve and those who have raped and prostituted our children since God knows when, will, just like that, see the light.

'Preposterous' to the power of nuts.


As for resting 'on our laurels,' the three political parties, that have ruled our world since before all of us were born, created the dreadful situation that we are all now supposed to suffer without complaint. Of these, Jess Phillips' fanatically PC Labour Party was, undoubtedly, its foremost architect.

Look at what the Blair government was prepared to do to create its 'longed for immigration boom.'

On 23 October 2009, Andrew Neather, former advisor to and speech-writer for Tony Blair, Jack Straw, David Blunkett and immigration Minister, Barbara Roche, wrote the revelatory essay, ‘Don't listen to the whingers - London needs immigrants' in The Evening Standard.

This said:
“The deliberate policy of Ministers from late 2000 until at least February last year… was to open up the UK to mass migration… Mass immigration was the way that the government was going to make the UK truly multicultural... The policy was intended… to rub the right's nose in diversity…  
There was a reluctance... In government to discuss what increased immigration would mean, above all for Labour's core white working-class vote. This shone through even in the published report: the ‘social outcomes’ it talks about are solely those for immigrants… 
The results were dramatic. In 1995, 55,000 foreigners were granted the right to settle in the UK. By 2005 that had risen to 179,000... In addition, hundreds of thousands of migrants have come from the new EU member states since 2004, most requiring neither visas nor permission to work or settle… The government had created its longed-for immigration boom.”
On 13 May 2013, at a rally for the Blairite think-tank, 'Progress,' Baron Peter Mandelson, chief architect of the ‘New Labour’ project, put it like this:
"In 2004… we were sending out search parties for people and encouraging them, in some cases, to take up work in this country!”
Just in case the youthful Jess Phillips type isn't aware of how things were before mass migration altered our world forever, a curiously honest Labour MP by the name of Frank Field (Tony Blair's first Social Security Minister), enlightened us thus in the 1 October 2009 edition of The Telegraph:
"In my constituency of Birkenhead, there are now more crimes against the person that there were in the whole country 50 years ago!" 
So, if Jess Phillips is right about a Cologne every week in Birmingham, perhaps it might have something to do with the fact that, in the last 50 years, huge numbers of foreigners have descended upon the city?

How about it, Jess, does the 'Broad Street' situation we must all now endure have anything to do with your party's favourite folk? That's not what you were trying to suggest, is it? It's not what you were hoping the viewer would pick up from your Question Time comment?

Here are a few of the women and girls who have contributed to the tragic 'two women... every week in this country' statistic in recent times:


All of the above (many more than this have been killed) were murdered by those Jess Phillips' deceitful remarks were designed to protect. Eight of the above were very young boys. All the rest were women and girls.

Thing is, Jess, if you were to seek out those non-native women murdered by native British men since the death of Stephen Lawrence, how many do you think you'd find? British men do murder British women but they almost never murder Asian or Black women.

The same cannot be said for the immigrant.

If I was to say that Black murders White in England and Wales around 90 times more often than the reverse, would you believe it? How about Asians (mostly Muslims) murdering white people in England and Wales about 30 times more often than the reverse?

If you think that this cannot possibly be true (and who could blame you, given at least forty years of government and media propaganda that would have you presume the opposite to be the case), you should check out the statistics, they are VERY telling.

The above PDF document seems to have disappeared down the rabbit hole but the 2000-2003 statistics are still extant. These tell us (table 3.6) that white people killed 34 Blacks and 22 Asians during this 3-year period. Blacks killed 71 Whites and Asians (4.4% of the population) killed 33.
Using the same census extrapolation, we arrive at the following figures:
Black = 86.7 times more likely to kill White than the reverse.
Asian = 31.1 times more likely to kill White than the reverse.
Anyway, it can be seen that the trends demonstrated the 1999-2002 document were no statistical blip. 
Don't you think this damning information should have been broadcast generally? Don't you think Jess Phillips and co. should have warned us of the dangers? Well, they didn't. They kept the truth to themselves and called those of us who tried to get the truth out 'racists.' And, when we kept on trying, they invented race laws to criminalise those who wouldn't shut up.
They were at war with us then and they are at war with us now. 
On 11 February 2015, defending her Cologne remarks in a Cathy Newman interview for Channel 4, Jess Phillips said:
“The one incident I spoke about in Parliament was one of many in my younger years that I could have spoken about, when I was basically pinned up against the wall in a bar by a bloke who was with a group of his mates... He stuck his hand up my skirt inside my knickers... 
Throughout my childhood there has been lots of incidents where men have pulled up in cars, asked me to get in, masturbated in front of me. I remember walking down the driveway of my school and a man standing in the park just exposing himself to me and all the girls at school. It becomes part of something you shrug off... 
Me and my friends were in a park in Birmingham when a group of lads came over and assaulted on of the lads we were with, beat him up and dragged one of my friends into a bush and sexually assaulted her quite badly, I mean really quite badly... 
What I would like to say to the men and boys of the world is don’t rape and sexually assault women."
Have you ever  asked the men and boys of Birmingham, Rotherham, Rochdale and Keighley not to rape, Jess?

Have you ever stood up in front of a Muslim gathering and asked them not to rape our little girls?

I don't think you have and I don't think you will. By and large, when it comes to wrongdoing, the British politician is quite content to point the finger at his or her own kith and kin, but the Muslim? The black man? The Jew? No. Those who ancestors are not buried in our lands have been comparatively exempt from criticism for almost five traitorous decades.

So, Jess, as regards the 'incidents' you described in your C4 interview, tell us straight, will you? Were the attackers always native, white lads? Or were they a racially mixed mixed bunch? You don't make it clear, you see. Thing is, by not describing your various assailants, a good few will just assume that most were English natives. I also think that, if the facts do actually contradict the perception, you won't be informing the gullible of the reality any time soon.

Prove me wrong, Jess. Tell all and I'll be happy to apologise.

I don't think she's about to do so, ladies and gentlemen. You see, later on in the interview, Ms Phillips says this:
"We shouldn't think that this is somehow something that is perpetrated by another group of people. It is perpetrated by all groups of people, all ethnicities."
So we can presume that all sorts of predatory low-life had their unwanted hands in your knickers, can we, Jess? It wasn't just Whitey? Well, that would be a start but it would still be vastly misleading. Remember this? 'If you were to seek out those non-native women murdered by native British men since the death of Stephen Lawrence, how many do you think you'd find?'

The same applies to rape. British men do rape British women but they almost never rape women who are Asian or Black. I can assure you that, if the interracial rape statistics were available, the comparisons would be even more startling than those demonstrated by the homicide data.

Jess Phillips also said this during the course of the C4 interview?
"What I will not let happen is for the far-right to use the exploitation of vulnerable girls in this country and what happened in Cologne for their own ends when they've done absolutely nothing about sexual violence and the culture of sexual assault until it fits their purpose."
Here, at last, Jess nails her bright, Red colours to the mast. As it happens, she would be correct in suggesting that those nationalistically-minded folk who blow the whistle do tend to concentrate on pointing out the evil doings of the non-native. However, the reason they do so should really be obvious to all. The BNP, the National Front et al say what the mainstream political parties and, until recently, the mainstream media also, do NOT say.

They say what the LibLabCon anti-Brits have, in order to keep a traitorous 'Eurasian-Negroid race of the future' project on track, done their damnedest to cover up for more than fifty years.


Patriotic British men and women were doing their best to warn us of the politically inconvenient facts, when Labour, Liberal and Conservative politicians were either ignoring them completely or aggressively insisting that such facts did not exist. For forty years the politicians brushed the Birminghams, the Rotherhams, the Rochdales and the Keighleys under the carpet. As they did this, they were, despite our protestations, filling up our country with foreigners and singing the praises of diversity and multiculturalism.


The horror that has overtaken us in recent times was deliberately manufactured by high-minded zealots like Jess Phillips, professional liars who were prepared to deceive tens of millions of indigenous Britons in order to create their 'truly multicultural' Utopia. 

Their Utopia, as it turns out, is a Cologne every weekend in our major towns and cities, according to the lady herself.

One last thing.

When Jess says we've 'done absolutely nothing about sexual violence... until it fits (our) purpose,' she is, I think, suggesting that we should be criticising our own as we do the alien. This too is utterly disingenuous. The politician and the media are happy to trumpet and, indeed, exaggerate white, British criminality. Why on earth should the patriot add to the negative propaganda?

So, Jess, we tell the truths you don't want known and we're the bad guys? We must be admonished for warning our own kith and kin of the danger when you will not? No, my dear, your artificial indignation just won't wash. A child of three could see it for what it is.

You've been rumbled. The ugly face of Tony Blair's Brit-loathing Labour Party is alive and well in you.

Jess Phillips is a physically attractive woman, but when she's sneering at the British people, 'ugly' means ugly.