by Daniel Sienkiewicz

When our advocates call our enemies the Left, they are making a crucial mistake: obfuscating our two greatest problems and the means of solution at the same time.

In an interview with Dr. Sunic, Professor MacDonald says, “these neocons, their only interest is Israel. [Otherwise] they tend to be on the Left [?]. They still are on the Left [?] when it comes to immigration. All these things are just really leftist.” [?]

Dr. Lowell says that “the Left” [?] has shipped industry and with it, jobs, to China.

In his article Women on the Left, Alex Kurtagic discusses some of the same subject matter that I had dealt with in a previous article, and to which I have given some consideration over the years – among that, sorting out different kinds of feminists in relation to White interests. In concluding that these “leftists” [?] have nothing to offer women, he places feminists in the same category: de Beauvoir, who did indeed fashion herself a leftist of sorts (taking women as her advocacy group, and Marxism as her guide), but was not Jewish; and Friedan, who was Jewish, but more liberal than a leftist.

In an interview for Alternative Right, Kurtagic goes on attacking “the leeeft, the leeeft, the leeeeft,” and I cringe, not for the reasons that he may think; ie, he may think that I am lamenting an attack on a centralized economy, or open borders multiculturalism, PC “enrichment”. Maybe he would think that I am waxing nostalgic for the Soviet Union where he and Sunic had the misfortune to grow up, or that I want to take away private property? Maybe he thinks I am cringing because I want to jealously limit his horizons, tell him what kind of art and architecture that he can have? Maybe he thinks I want everybody to be equal or treated equal? No, I am cringing because another perfect Jewish trick is being promoted to the detriment of White people.

These counterproductive ambiguities are circulating among our best advocates – hence the need of clarification and definition emerges salient. It is not about competing with them and showing them up; it is about getting the framework of our advocacy correct.

READ MORE...

With the recent successes, of the “liberty movement” among Ron Paul supporters, in taking over the Republican Party in several States, the issue among them now has become immigration and it is very intense.  There is now a full-frontal assault going on within the liberty movement to dispense with any notion of national borders so that the threat of the founding stock Americans finding their political voice is terminated.  Founding stock Americans, highly individualistic as they are, become very animated and moved by rhetoric appealing to the “individual” but are bereft of any outside the Austrian School of economics to provide an organized voice on their behalf in the verbose stew of confusing words that is political discourse.  This is where the decades of preparation by the Jews of the Austrian School of economics pays off for them.  They saw this coming.  They prepared for decades.  Now is unleashed a highly disciplined, well versed vanguard.  The hapless founding stock American is deluged by words from high verbal IQ sophists that attack his core being and betray all his deeply rooted feelings about liberty and America.

My prior discussions of the uniquely innate individualism of Euroman making him uniquely valuable at the same time that he is uniquely vulnerable to abuse by civilization, are illustrated in excruciating detail by this heated battle of words that has real potential to go “hot” in the physically violent sense.

Two of the most heated battle of words on the topic of immigration appear at the website “ronpaulforums.com”.  Below the fold, I offer the two responses that appear to have terminated those respective battles within the liberty movement.  Although there will be many more such battles in this war of words (and even these battles may yet linger) they are offered as a kind of instrument for analyzing the structure of that movement as well as a summary of my political economic views that are “friendly to civilization while upholding the individual”.

READ MORE...

Last November Daniel Sienkiewicz published an article at VoR criticising the tendency, prevalent in much WN intellectualism, to target “the left” rather than Jewish activism.  We agreed that I would reproduce the article with some minor revisions at MR and I would offer a commentary on it.  Daniel’s article will be published separately on our page immediately after this first part of my essay.  Here, I am going to put forward my own, no doubt idiosyncratic and shamelessly provocative view of the central problem here, which is the foundation of Jewish thought in the Western religious and secular intellectual canon, and the open doorway that offers Jewish ethnocentric activism.

I am English.  My beautiful, brave, precious people are, today, suffering a vast and shocking physical colonisation by, to my northern eyes, unbeautiful and utterly alien peoples.  These peoples are unadmired, unwanted and unloved by the overwhelming majority of us.  Our will in the matter is clear and is known, and is, on all historical evidential bases, perfectly justified.  But because the power of choice in the matter has been taken from us, and our dissent delegitimised, we can do absolutely nothing in our own defence.  As things stand, the colonisers will minoritise us within the normal lifespan of anyone in his or her early forties today, and beyond that tipping point lies only one foreseeable outcome for us: an increasingly dark and vertiginous descent to the hell of a despised and threatened rump minority.  My child will see the first, my unborn grandchildren the second.

By any reckoning, and notwithstanding the extended temporality of the process, this is a genocide event.  But it is a genocide that nobody is interested in talking about, which is odd because we are given to believe that the decent, educated liberal abhors genocide above all crimes, and strives mightily to eradicate it from the life of Man.  As a creature much given to moral crusades, to non-aggression and opposition to colonisations, to sniffing out any injustice, to empathising with victims, to human rights, and to peace in perpetuity you might think he would have some sympathy for the English, and for all Europe’s children who face this same terrible and final existential disaster.  But he cannot.  He just can’t do it.  Prior considerations exercise too much, in fact, vastly too much control over him.

READ MORE...

In response to the steadfast support for homosexual marriage from the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, a DT thread-jockey named Hugh of Oxford offered the following gut reaction:

Even an illiterate peasant from Peru knows the difference between a pair of men and a husband and wife. Even a nomad in the Namib knows that marriage provides society with children and a future, and same-sex unions deprive society of that benefit and place a burden on it.

As so often with gut reactionaries, good instincts are liable to run out into sketchy assumptions at the slightest test.  A homosexual who regularly pops up to debate his special interest on the DT threads responded with “How?”.  Hugh did not answer.  But any Salterian could have, and one did:

Homosexuals - 1.5% of men and 0.5% of women - are not well-regarded among normal people.  The male homosexual act is especially reviled.  This is so for evolutionary reasons, and it cannot be changed - it might be papered over a little if that is the fashion.  But there is no real choice in the matter for anyone.

This negative feeling is not without consequences. One such is that homosexuals are not role models for normal people.  The effect of this on marriage, should homosexuals succeed in grabbing title to it, can only be negative.  Specifically, marriage will be cheapened and reduced to the status of a lifestyle choice.

But marriage is not a lifestyle choice but the naturally arising, optimum condition for raising healthy children.  It is, therefore, a genetic interest of our ethnic group and our race.

Homosexuals have the same genetic interests as normal people, so the productive course for homosexuals and heterosexuals alike is to increase the status of marriage and not decrease it.

The response to this line of argument was, rather surprisingly, not that genetic interest is voodoo, which was how mention of it was received a few years back, but that the perception among sexually whole people that marriage has been violated and made cheap by its homosexualisation is just conjecture.  The GI element may be becoming more workable in political discourse - something we used to say could never happen because of its abstruse nature.

by Alexander Baron

Anthony Hancock was no saint, let’s be clear about that, but by the same token he is a man to whom all true lovers of freedom owe a considerable debt. What follows is a warts and all portrait from a purely personal perspective.

His friends called him Tony, which as most of you will know was also the name of a famous though in my humble opinion not particularly funny comedian. I always called him AH, another and far more appropriate double entendre.

I began reading Revisionist and related literature in 1980; one of the first such publications I read was The Hoax Of The Twentieth Century, which was published by Historical Review Press, the company started by the father and son team of Alan and Anthony Hancock. I didn’t meet the man though for another ten years, by which time I had moved back to London. Our first meeting was reasonably affable, especially as I had been given an introduction to him by a trusted third party, after that though, things were not so cordial, the reasons for which were due to not so much a misunderstanding as mischievousness by another third party.

This is where it gets rather complicated but I’ll keep it simple. At his Uckfield print works he employed on occasion someone I will call The Cameraman. Shortly before the London meeting organised by David Irving at which Fred Leuchter spoke, I did something totally innocuous which sent him into hysterics. I’ve related this in my book The Churchill Papers, but basically he decided to make me persona non grata with everyone on the so-called far right from then on. Among other things he conspired with Irving to send me a fake ticket for this meeting. This ticket was printed at Uckfield with the connivance of AH’s right hand man, Tom Acton. I know this because when I inquired about it prior to the hoax revealing itself, Acton sniggered. I thought AH was in on the joke, but as things turned out, he wasn’t.

READ MORE...

A response to the recent article at VDARE titled “John Derbyshire On Immigration, Liberty, and Mating Choices”:

Dear John,

mtDNA vs Y Chromosome geography demonstrates pretty conclusively that peaceful gene flow is primary a result of the geographic exchange of females.

What would happen if our “broken” immigration policy were “comprehensively reformed” to honor this apparently deeply ingrained aspect of human nature, and simply outlaw border crossings by males while leaving the borders open to females?

Its a wild and radical thought until, well, you THINK about it.

Sincerely,

James Bowery

The Chinese have cloned Hallstatt:

The Chinese have also perfected the art of taking virtually any cell from a mammal, converting it into the equivalent of a zygote and producing a healthy clone from it.

This presents a solution to the race replacement genocide of Europe:

The real reason most immigrants come to Europe to replace Europeans isn’t because they want to live in a place with a bunch of cute buildings.  The real reason they invade Europe (and its settlements elsewhere) is to fuck our women. 

So of course the thing the Chinese lack in their clone of Hallstatt are clones of Mensa-IQ blonde bombshells. 

They used to exist:

and not all of their DNA has been cremated, although it is being rapidly fucked out of existence, when it doesn’t simply end up on the cutting-room floor.

Now, I know what you’re thinking:

“Jim”, you think, “the Chinese aren’t the biggest problem in the ongoing erocidal aspect of Euroman’s race-replacement genocide.”

Yes, I know.

But the Chinese are nothing if not good merchant/manufacturers, and they’ll need the moral superiority of African MEN in places like the United Nations and Washington, D.C. to authorize the mass production of the Euro fuck-dolls these Black MEN so demand from their social status of moral superiority to Euro males (Euro males, as anyone in media, academia and government knows, don’t deserve to be called “men” due to their genetically dishonorable, if not closeted gay, character).  I can easily imagine a deal being struck whereby the Chinese mass-produce Hallstatts for Africa, fully loaded with two, three or even four fuck-dolls for every African MAN—in exchange for the moral authority of the Black MAN.  Then, through the miracle of the Industrial Learning Curve, that should bring the price down to the point that the Middle East, South Asia and Latin America can all afford to plaster their territories with these little bits of heaven.

Right on cue this morning Mary Riddell, one of a clique of left-liberal journalists working at the DT, has produced an article titled, Now the stage is set for some sensible immigration policies.  “Sensible” for Mary means more - in whatever form the masses will accommodate - because Mary is a moralist par excellence of the universalist persuasion.

I might not contribute much to the thread myself.  The postings have started to sky-rocket, and it is always tiresomely difficult with DISQUS to maintain contact when that happens.  However, I did get an early swipe in against Mary’s universalism, for which she references Shakespeare, no less, and the influential Oxford academic Marc Stears ...

It appears from Mary’s description of Marc Stears’ influence and thoughts in respect to the English genocide by race-replacement, the euphemism for which is “immigration”, that the guiding political principle on the left is “the common good”.  So let us brefly examine the meaning of the words “common” and “good”.

Universalism, as one of the four principles of classical liberalism, is derived from the Paulian dispensation.  Paul simply reprocessed and re-focussed the Judaic notion of a chosen tribe distinct from, and superior to, the mass of humanity - a humanity fit only, indeed living only, for service to Jews.  This is the anti-universalism of Judaism, and in it the Jewish supremacy is delivered not through an evolutionary process of Jewish goodness, since Jews already have perfect souls, but through the “perfection” of the gentiles.

Perfection means pacification, which in turn means the destruction of all borders, boundaries, difference ... all cause of conflict with Jewry.  Gentile ethnicity is one such difference, and anything that leads towards its loss is “good” and anything that leads away from its loss is “bad”.

The Christian ethic of love never escaped this paradigm, and today we Europeans still suffer from the obviously false idea that “good” and “virtue” are somehow wrapped up in self-sacrifice, ie, the loss of ethnicity, which, in truth, is the loss of existence ... genocide.

Of course, this argument is compressed ... just skin and bones.  But you should be able to see that the loss of European ethnicity - our genocide - is not at all a good, not virtuous, and the whole of humanity, gentile and Jewish, has no claim on us in that regard.  We are not morally obligated to submerge ourselves in the bottomless seas of the Third World.  It is, equally obviously, also a lie that this is “good” for the greater number.  No genocide is ever good for humanity.  “Good” in respect to ethnicity is always the polar opposite - self-preservation.

In sum, the moral truth is that our good, in respect to immigration, resides in our self-preservation.  The very idea that we do good by admitting racial aliens who, in a matter of decades, will minoritise us and very rapidly marginalise us thereafter, is an evil contrivance from which our forefathers would have instinctually recoiled.  All those who moralise to the contrary today, whether as liberals or Christians or Jews, are doing evil.