By Bo Sears

A conference with the title “Preserving Western Civilisation” takes place in Baltimore on February 6 to February 8.  It’s purpose is advertised on its website as follows:-

We believe that America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and European identity must be defended. Today, our glorious Western civilization is under assault from many directions. Three such threats will be discussed at this conference.

First, the massive influx to the United States and Europe of Third-World immigrants who do not share our fundamental political and cultural values.

Second, the threat from Islam, a militant ideology that is hostile to our society and, in principle, committed to destroying it.

Third, because of the persistent disappointing performance of blacks (which many whites mistakenly blame on themselves) many whites have guilt feelings that undermine Western morale and deter us from dealing sensibly with the other threats.

Are all the speakers sincere?

The lead speaker is Lawrence Auster. At other times and in other contexts, he has quite a different interpretation of Western civilization. Consider his remarks in FrontPageMagazine on June 22, 2004F. His subject was Jewish organizational opposition to immigration reduction.  He liberally sprinkled this piece with the word “gentile” to make clear what he thinks of Euro-Americans (plus one “goyim” if we were in any doubt). As weird as these remarks sound, they are perfectly typical Austerisms.

To seek to overturn entire societies [by Jewish organizations] in order to get rid of one’s own ethnic identity may seem a rather drastic approach to solving the Jewish problem, yet it reflects, in a uniquely exacerbated and destructive form, Jews’ recurrent pattern of forming some global ideology for reasons relating to their particular situation as Jews. (Let us note that this tendency, while it can take negative forms as in the current example, is natural for a people whose tribal history and beliefs became the basis for all of Western civilization.)

To label our heritage “Judeo-Christian” ...

“a term used to describe the body of concepts and values which are thought to be held in common by Judaism and Christianity”

... is already begging a very Jewish question.  But to assert that the entire cultural edifice of Western Civilisation is based on “the tribal history and beliefs” of Jews, and by implication Greece and Rome and the Nordic traditions, the Renaissance and the Enlightenment amount to nothing, is a remarkably narrow and exclusive view. But at least now we know what Auster thinks about our civilization, and about us and why we are nothing more than “gentiles”.

Such a view, of course, is at considerable odds with the matters to be discussed at the Baltimore conference in February.  It doesn’t sound as though he believes in anything remotely like a “European identity.”

Perhaps Auster will find time to discuss it with the second speaker listed for the conference, Peter Brimelow.  He has revealed over the past year that his immigration reduction efforts spring from a neocon philosophy, demonstrated by his frequent publishing at VDare of racist labels like the Spanish-language epithets “gringo” and “anglo”, as well as the artificial “WASP”.  The latter, by the way, is defined by Wikipedia as “a sociological and cultural pejorative ethnonym that originated in the United States”.

Maybe the comedian Julia Gorin or the junior BNP politician Pat Richardson, both also speakers at the conference, will be able to offer a pejorative-free way out of the impasse.  Or maybe not.  European identity is a subject best left to those of European descent.

At least Prof Phillipe Rushton is on hand to illuminate his audience about the “persistent disappointing performance of blacks”.  Personally, I’m not too disappointed, but maybe that’s just me.  To judge from the “Statement of Purpose” reproduced above, the meat of the discussion won’t be about black performance at all.  It will be about the “guilt feelings” that grip “many whites” and which apparently “undermine Western morale”.

Naming us, then, isn’t enough.  Our foolish gentile minds and our self-destructive gentile ways must stand exposed to the gimlet gaze of the conference organisers.  And why, precisely?  So that the “folly of the gentile ... no, make that the gringo” can explain the failure of our “Judeo-Christian heritage” ... and the “the massive influx of immigrants” ... and the “threat of Islam”.  No other explanation in sight.

And just who are these gimlet-eyed conference organisers?  Well, the chairman of the organizing committee is ... Michael Hart.

It will be interesting to see how the dominant media culture reports this conference, and whose voice they say was spoken during it.  Not a voice with a “European identity”, that’s for sure ... not the voice of the diverse white American peoples.

I can’t help but wonder what the “gentiles” slated to speak there actually understand about the conference’s real purpose ... Brimelow, Phil Rushton, Brenda Walker are intelligent people.  Sadly, they are also too trusting.

Bo Sears is a senior activist at ResistingDefamation.org.

Some suggestions to commenters and posters, in the interest of making this site a better experience for everyone:

READ MORE...

“We never said that we don’t recognise the state of Israel.  We are part of it, but we will never accept Zionism, which is an ideology that aspires to banish us from our homes.”

These were the words of Ahmed Tibi, chairman of the United Arab List, a proponent of the Two-State Solution and one of the two Arab parties disqualified this week from running in the forthcoming Knesset elections.

For his part, the chairman of the other party, Jamal Zahalka, said:-

“Balad is a democratic and progressive party, and we believe in the basic principle of equality for all people.  All we demand is democracy!  What are you afraid of when we ask for equality?  We are the sons of this country, we were born here and we are willing to treat you with equality, so why don’t you?”

These two statements come pretty close to encapsulating the dual essence of Jewishness: the rigid and reflexive belief in a supremacy that licences Jews at all times and in all places, not just in Israel today, to direct the lives and affairs of lesser men along certain, time-worn paths, allied to an ineradicable fear of the Other which necessitates that direction.  The consequence - banishment “from our homes” - is something that will ring a bell for every nationalist of European descent looking on at the remorseless cosmopolitanisation of his own land.

But in Gaza the old zionist magic isn’t working.  Just as Hezbollah could not be defeated in the Lebanon in 2006, so Hamas cannot be overcome now - no matter how much violence the IDF and the Israeli Air Force do to Gazans.  The dissident Israeli jazzman and part-time political commentator, Gilad Atzmon, writes:-

READ MORE...

Like breathing, being racist isn’t considered very important until one stops doing it. Then the people who never paid any attention to being racist but figured it would take care of itself, suddenly find themselves choking to death and on the edge of extinction. The need for explicit, conscious racism instead of implicit, subconscious racism is more dire than ever before, due to the breakdown of impersonal natural forces keeping the races apart. Our people are having an asthma attack, the natural working of the lungs has failed, and only explicit, conscious, reasoned racism can be the inhaler that rescues them. The impersonal barriers of separation are gone. It is time for personal barriers to be thrown up, and thus the time for Racism the ideology, the reasoning process of this survival mechanism, to emerge.

Which brings me to the second point that until recently, it was hard to know if racism was true, or truly necessary, or just an outdated prejudice due to ignorance. If everyone were truly the same if raised in the same way, then racism would have no meaning. If everyone were just as related to each other as everyone else, then racism would have no meaning. There was a brief period of time where it was intellectually feasible to reject racism as a primitive prejudice born of ignorance instead of knowledge. These people were objecting to the inborn racism built into everyone not used to seeing foreigners or differences, they assumed time and education would erase all the observed differences and the age of aquarius would roll in. However, the exact opposite occured. Science proved the exact opposite point, and every single study only showed how vital, how intransigent, how unchangeable our genetic differences were.

READ MORE...

Bo Sears sent me the link to an Antiwar.com post with a Fox News interview of Tony Blankley, an Englishman turned American turned lawyer turned journalist turned Jewish extended phenotype who denies he is a neocon.  But Blankley has a new book out titled American Grit in which he pans Obama’s ideas about national service and calls for “a full-on military draft”.

Now, it happens that Bo and the RD guys have already predicted the return of the draft:-

My colleagues and I have considered all kinds of situations in which a new president might need local community leaders to follow him blindly in some new foreign adventure.  The only one we can see that would be nation-shaking … the only one that would fit in the model of a black president and a dangerous military entanglement abroad, and which would give rise to the circumstance where lots of local support had to be brought behind him, would be the re-introduction of the draft.

So Blankley’s timely arrival with the self-same idea is not entirely unexpected.  The intriguing question is: Does a connected guy like Blankley think it up all by himself, or does he get fed it by a Nameless Other or two?

Hat-tip to Andy on Troy’s New Right Forum for this re-run of a 2003 article on Johann Herder at Robert Steuckers’ Euro-Synergies website.

Johann Gottfried von Herder (August 25, 1744 – December 18, 1803) was a philosopher considered, with Johann Gottlieb Fichte, to be one of the fathers of German nationalism and romanticism.  He was a figure of sufficient substance to have approved of the French Revolution - and upset German royalty thereby.  He rejected Kant and also Hamann’s Sturm und Drang, and was an early inspiration to Goethe.

The article, which is by M. Raphael Johnson and which I will reproduce in full below the fold, interests me for two reasons.  First, I think the history of the ideas of European nationalism, which flow from the reservoir of continental Idealist philosophy, is something of which all those who call themselves nationalists should have an understanding.  And while it’s true that historical circumstances change enormously, there is still much in Herder’s analysis which chimes for us today.

Of the Volk, of whom he was a champion and, in the ideational sense, the inventor, he said:-

“What of us lies in the hearts of others is our truest and deepest self.”

And of the inner motivations of those who proclaimed the universalist cause he said:-

“Those that embrace the entire universe with love for the most part love nothing but their narrow selves.”

Second, it is obviously impossible to contemplate the meaning of, and the towering need for, synthesis without the poles of nationalist thought, and of Western philosophy generally, being well fixed in the mind.  Ideas matter, and the history of ideas matters.

M. Raphael Johnson quite vividly and insistently explicates the bad faith and intellectual snobbery which exists, and has always existed, among continental European thinkers for their analytical Anglo-Saxon counterparts.  Science, they say, is the epistomology of the lab sample.  All higher organic meaning is lost or distorted through the empirical prism.  The Idealists, you see, are unique in knowing the meaning - and, therefore, appreciating the beauty - of things.

You may disagree, but you had better have some damned good arguments why.

READ MORE...

By The Narrator

There is an old, outdated saying that goes, “Charity begins at home”. I say outdated because, obviously, today charity begins at least a thousand miles from home. Whether it is flying half-way around the world to bring their self-righteous selves to the savages or just simply bringing the savages back home, the missionaries and charitable types love to seek out those who are least like themselves and take the opportunity to bask in their own benevolence.

And to note, I use the word “savage” in the true spirit of these people who travel about the globe and dazzle various primitives with their presence.  After all, charity automatically requires one person to be in a superior position and another to be in an inferior position.

No wonder then that the most charitable people often strike us as the most arrogant and pompous.  So referring to the beneficiaries of such self-aggrandizing types as savages or primitives is only done in deference to the social vantage point the aggrandizers enjoy.

Actually, this kind of super-charity (as opposed to the kind that flows naturally back and forth between peoples of similar racial, social and cultural standings) finds its greatest acts of giving through indirect compulsory sacrifice on the part of others.  For example, if you and your church/charity arrange to bring a savage into America, you are, through force and cohesion, compelling other members of your community into giving as well.  Their taxes and resources will be automatically re-distributed to the savage through healthcare, education, housing and so on.  This also happens when tax dollars are sent abroad for charitable purposes.

This, then, is not the community giving but rather the charitable taking.  Thus charity has now become an act of aggression which ultimately leads to the despoiling and plundering of communities and (eventually) nations.

READ MORE...

Typically, whenever anyone advocates any policy that remotely favors whites, he will be assailed with the usual cacophony of ‘racist,’ ‘white supremacist,’ ‘hater,’ ‘neo-nazi,’ etc. Many people insist they are not white supremacists, not racists, not haters, they just want ‘x.’ As the argument goes, “x” isn’t racist, it’s just common sense. Or “X” isn’t hateful, it’s just benevolent towards our own. Or “X” isn’t white supremacy, it’s just nationalism, separatism, realism, etc, etc.

Various groups are giving strange dichotomies like ‘it’s okay to be proud of your race, so long as you aren’t a white supremacist.’ ‘it’s okay to oppose immigration, so long as you aren’t a white supremacist.’ Etc. Most of the right wing groups, in a desperate wish for respectability, play by the liberals’ rules and truckle under their demands. We’ll be ‘only so far to the right and no further.’ And in order to prove their true PC credentials, they will sharply vilify and attack anyone to the right of them, to show the leftie liberals that they’re really good people, that they’re basically on the same side, and they hate the evil white supremacist nazis too. This moral cowardice infects even the ‘hardest core’ which turns out to be quite spinelessly soft in the end.

Let’s call a spade a spade. There are two definitions of white supremacy that make any sense, the objective and the subjective. I’ll explain each of them, and if you don’t fall under either category, if you are not a white supremacist in either sense, you should have no interest in being anything else either. Instead of disavowing white supremacism while clinging to white separatist, white nationalist, survivalist, etc, you should just give it up and go back to being a good communist left-winger. Nothing is more pathetic than people who refuse to maintain a principled and orderly moral system but contort themselves into loops and pretzels of contradictory views. Basically, you’re just a chink in our moral armor, a weak point liberals can chisel away at, dividing us amongst ourselves, causing friction and ultimately dissension and surrender in the ranks. Once you’ve admitted it’s immoral to be a white supremacist, everything else is immoral too, and it’s time to file for extinction. That’s the only other path that lays before us. People must choose.

READ MORE...