America the Dumping Ground

America is a dumping ground

As we all know, America has become a dumping ground for non-whites from all over the world. Check out this New York Times article about “maternity tourism.” The expectant mothers arrive as pregnant tourists and leave with “American” babies who are fully entitled to all the rights and privileges that come with American citizenship.

SAN GABRIEL, Calif. — The building inspectors and police officers walked into the small row of connected town houses here knowing something was amiss. Neighbors had complained about noise and a lot of pregnant women coming and going. And when they went into a kitchen they saw a row of clear bassinets holding several infants, with a woman acting as a nurse hovering over them.

For months, officials say, the house was home to “maternity tourists,” in this case, women from China who had paid tens of thousands of dollars to deliver their babies in the United States, making the infants automatic American citizens. Officials shut down the home, sending the 10 mothers who had been living there with their babies to nearby motels.


For the last year, the debate over birthright citizenship has raged across the country, with some political leaders calling for an end to the 14th Amendment, which gives automatic citizenship to any baby born in the United States. Much of the debate has focused on immigrants entering illegally from poor countries in Latin America. But in this case the women were not only relatively wealthy, but also here legally on tourist visas. Most of them, officials say, have already returned to China with their American babies.

Immigration experts say it is impossible to know precisely how widespread “maternity tourism” is. Businesses in China, Mexico and South Korea advertise packages that arrange for doctors, insurance and postpartum care. And the Marmara, a Turkish-owned hotel on the Upper East Side in New York City, has advertised monthlong “baby stays” that come with a stroller.


The State Department, which grants tourist visas, is not permitted to deny visa applications simply because a woman is pregnant.

What can I say? Only in America.

The only thing worse than the story itself was the “conservative” response:

“These people aren’t doing anything in violation of our laws,” said Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates tougher immigration controls. “But if anything, it is worse than illegal immigrants delivering a baby here. Those kids are socialized as Americans. This phenomenon of coming to the U.S. and then leaving with people who have unlimited access to come back is just ridiculous.”

This guy is the director of some organization that studies immigration and he believes that illegal aliens from Mexico identify themselves as Americans? He’s joking, right?

Illegal aliens

White driver nearly beaten to death by black mob

A white driver accidentally hit a black man who was involved in a mob fight and ran out in front of his car. The driver was attempting to call for help out of concern for the victim when he was attacked by the black mob, sustaining severe injuries.

Henderson, N.C. — Bystanders severely beat a driver who accidentally hit a man running from a mobile home park near Henderson where large fights broke out Saturday night, state troopers said Sunday.

Troopers said the driver, who didn’t want his name released out of concerns for his safety, was driving down Raleigh Road in Kittrell to get his son a late-night snack from Burger King around 9:15 p.m. Several large fights were taking place in a nearby mobile home park, troopers said.

Reuben Wright, 19, of Henderson, ran out into the road in front of the car, and the driver had no time to see him or stop, troopers said. Wright’s head crashed through the front windshield.

Troopers said bystanders from both sides of the road rushed out into the street, dragged the driver from his car and assaulted him, nearly beating him to death.

He has been released from Maria Parham Medical Center, but his lung is still in danger of collapsing.

“The driver had cuts and bruises all over his head, all over his back,” said Trooper B.E. Pulliam of the North Carolina State Highway Patrol.


Cindy Harris, of Kittrell, watched the attack and stopped to help the victim. She said she flashed her lights and held her horn down for five minutes to get the crowd to scatter.

“I’m very angry,” she said. “It was just a brutal, brutal beating.”

She described how they pulled him from the car, and said four or five people kicked him repeatedly while one man sat on him and pushed his head into the cement.

“(I thought) they’re gonna kill him, they’re gonna kill him,” she said. Though she felt powerless to help, “I couldn’t leave him,” Harris said.

The driver was eventually rescued from the scene in the truck of another bystander until paramedics arrived.

Bruce Coleman, a friend of Wright, said he didn’t know the driver was injured.

“My attention was focused on Reuben,” he said.

Just for the record, the driver was white. The good Samaritan, Cindy Harris, was also white. Everyone involved in the mob beating was black, including the liar who said he didn’t know the driver was injured.

Stories like this are a dime a dozen in contemporary America. They happen everyday just as surely as the sun rises. But, hey, it’s a small price to pay in exchange for integration.

“Experts” can’t figure out why Detroit is dying

A recent article by the New York Times makes mention of the fact that Detroit has lost over 25% of its total population during the course of the past decade. It’s always comical for me to read these so-called “experts” attempting to draw a conclusion for the collapse. They’ll conjure every hypothesis you could think of except for the most obvious one of all.

Detroit is dying because it is a majority black city. Crime, violence, and squalor follow non-whites wherever they go. As this story further proves, black people themselves don’t even want to live around one another. I just can’t put it to you any more plainly (or accurately) than that. Everyone, and I mean everyone, knows this is true but they don’t have the guts to say it. I do. You can’t have a First World nation with a Third World population.

Laying bare the country’s most startling example of modern urban collapse, census data on Tuesday showed that Detroit’s population had plunged by 25 percent over the last decade. It was dramatic testimony to the crumbling industrial base of the Midwest, black flight to the suburbs and the tenuous future of what was once a thriving metropolis.

It was the largest percentage loss for any American city with more than 100,000 residents over the last decade, apart from the unique situation of New Orleans, where the population dropped by 29 percent after Hurricane Katrina in 2005, said Andrew A. Beveridge, a sociologist at Queens College.

The number of people who vanished from Detroit — 237,500 — was bigger than the 140,000 who left New Orleans.


Detroit’s population fell to 713,777 in 2010, the lowest since 1910, when it was 466,000. In a shift that was unthinkable 20 years ago, Detroit is now smaller than Austin, Tex., Charlotte, N.C., and Jacksonville, Fla.

“It’s a major city in free-fall,” said L. Brooks Patterson, the county executive of neighboring Oakland County, which was also hit by the implosion of the automobile industry but whose population rose by almost 1 percent, thanks to an influx of black residents. “Detroit’s tax base is eroding, its citizens are fleeing and its school system is in the hands of a financial manager.”


But a major factor, too, has been the exodus of black residents to the suburbs, which followed the white flight that started in the 1960s. Detroit lost 185,393 black residents in the last decade.

“This is the biggest loss of blacks the city has shown, and that’s tied to the foreclosures in the city’s housing,” Mr. Frey said. Because of the Great Migration — when blacks flowed from the South to the North — and the loss of whites, he said, “Detroit has been the most segregated city in the country and it is still pretty segregated, but not as much.” At one point, the city was 83 percent black.

Take note, Marin County.

Detroit, Michigan

At least citizens of Detroit (pictured above) can enjoy the benefits of diversity.

Pastor Manning again

Pastor Manning again

In this recently posted video Pastor Manning speaks about the nature of the African as no one outside of WN will.  At times his frankness and his frustration are almost unbearable.  One cannot help but feel sympathy for the man.  His solution to the serial destructiveness of his own people, unsurprisingly, is to class it as an Original Sin from which only faith in the Almighty can deliver them.  But sociobiology is not Original Sin.  The conjunction of male assertiveness, impulsivity, poor moral apprehension, and a poor capacity to calculate the consequences of personal choices must have been producers of fitness in the Sub-Saharan evolutionary context.  They were producers of human suffering too, of course.  But Nature contains no aversion to suffering, human or otherwise.  So in diaspore, in the context of other peoples existence, these characteristics remain producers of human suffering, and that suffering is not exclusively African.


One or two of the commenters in the thread to the video have picked up on the fact that:

… the 1% he leaves out is vital. It isn’t the “police” or “military” that keeps the negro from tearing this country apart; it’s White society as a whole.

As Europeans it isn’t our responsibility to exemplify the civilised for Africans to imitate or to suppress African nature in perpetuity and minimise thereby the costs to us in lost lives, lost genetic interests, and in hard cash.  It is our responsibility to protect our own.

Thanks to Hugh for mailing me the link.

A white nationalism for non-whites and liberals, maybe

A white nationalism for non-whites and liberals, maybe

I recall visiting Joe Sobran’s site some years ago and coming across a remark to the effect that the very existence of ethnic Europe is an unbearable reminder to the races flooding our lands of their existential inferiority, and our destruction is the only means by which they can look at their reflection in the mirror.  It’s a sentiment I’ve seen since many times on the nationalist internet.  It certainly explains why, when one finds oneself in conversation with a non-white, the will to racial supremacy is always presumed to hide behind all our words.  It does no good to explain that the racial separation we seek cannot, by definition, afford us opportunities to oppress anybody.  Those nationalists who have concluded that the animus is felt too deeply for the foreign to ever release its grip willingly are doubtless correct.

That leaves us with two options.  Persuasion or more persuasion.  More persuasion would be messy.  We must hope that just persuasion, allied to political power, is enough.

So I wonder whether there isn’t some advantage to be got from a discourse of global freedom to accompany the gesture towards the door.  After all, the fear of European racial supremacism is fifty years out of date and counting.  It is the totality of the Money Power, with its favoured political, business and “ethnic” actuators and clients, which is the coming oppressor.

And if this idea doesn’t chime too much with the Third World colonisers – and it probably won’t – it must offer something to that emotional constituency among our own kind described by Desmond Jones on the Pastor Manning thread thus:

The Anglo-Saxon, being the highest trust society, is able to extend his sympathy not just to his own, but men of foreign nations, men of all races and finally, all sentient beings.

OK, don’t get stuck on the Anglo-Saxon thing.  A beautiful but costly empathy is common to all Europeans, and my interest here lies only in the utility of the notion that ethnic Europe is the last bastion of freedom for the world as well as for ourselves.  After the Olam Ha-ba of a European panmixia there will be nothing.  Liberals who cannot comprehend why our race matters to themselves might perhaps comprehend why it matters to the rest of the world, and thereby find a reason to allow the justice and morality of its survival.

So we would say to them: you must try to understand what is at stake, and what Nationalists are really trying to do. You just can’t get past the racism thing now. But you must. Whether you like it or not, we have to separate from our replacers so that ethnic Europe survives and can take down the interest groups which seek to enslave us all.

Just a thought.

Posted by Guessedworker

Tectonics and the European revolution

Have you had the feeling, as you trawl the big news stories for meanings pertinent to our cause, that we are witnessing right now, in 2011, the unfolding of something extraordinary, something that cannot be mapped in advance, that may change the lives of billions of people, including ours, before its energy is spent?  Adrian Hamilton of The Independent certainly has.  He writes in yesterday’s rag:

Events in the Arab world and in Japan are clearly particular to themselves. But the sense they have given of an old order that has run its course, that no longer responds to the feelings of its people, are not unique.

Consider the list of complaints – corruption that enriches the few and oppresses the many, political systems (democratic as well as autocratic) that have lost the confidence of the population, industrial solutions that cannot cope with catastrophe. They are common cries of much of the world.

If the one dominating factor of events today is their unpredictability, then it would be foolish to predict where they will end up. We don’t even begin to know. But the one thing I am sure of is that history is on the move, and we’re only just at the beginning.

There is something in Hamilton’s idea, I think – at least as regards the Islamic world.  One of the commenters to his article weighs up history’s options thus:

One path leads to tyranny, despotism, corruption and violence. The other to chaos, anarchy, corruption and violence.

… and this also is probably a fair appraisal of the way the two tectonic plates of North African and Middle Eastern politics – modernism and traditionalism – are disposed.  But is there anything in this relevant to our situation, above and beyond the very general assumptions that inform Adrian Hamilton’s thinking?  Marine Le Pen certainly thinks so, judging from the quote I reproduced a couple of days ago:

We’re in a pre-revolutionary situation here. What’s happening today resembles what was happening before the French revolution. I think the desire for a revolution like those on the other side of the Mediterranean exists here. Of course, I’m appealing for a democratic revolution – and that’s also perhaps the role of the Front National – for a peaceful revolution by the ballot box, a patriotic revolution.

Where Hamilton with his unpredicatability thesis and Marine with her pre-revolutionary situation differ is on the question of time.  Nationalists know something about revolution.  We have been thinking on the problem for a long while.  We understand that the opposing tectonic plates on which our lives are lived out – racial community and individualism/economism – move at certain moments, and not necessarily with the peaceful results for which Marine appeals.  The American Civil War was perhaps the classic example.  The rise of Hitler and NSDAP was another.  The Kosovo War was the most recent.

So, following (Adrian) Hamilton’s Rule are there signs in the European world that history is on the move at last?  Or is it just that the drive towards the Globality is pushing on and in turn nationalism, in its struggle to resist, is getting things a little more right with Marine, Wilders and associated civic and anti-Islamist politicos?  In other words, the pressure is continuing to build but there’s no sign of any European earthquake, and no matter what happens in North Africa and the Middle-East our historic moment, if it is going to come at all, will come in its own sweet and, one must hope, demographic rather than geological time.

A few beautiful words

A small disagreement has arisen over the casting for the creakingly long-running ITV crime series, Midsomer Murders.  The essence of it that the series, which is set in a rural idyll of middle-class gentility “somewhere in England”, naturally enough employs an all-white cast.  The lead actor is being changed, and the series sexed up.  But the skin colour of the actors remains all too white.

Well, the executive producer Brian True-May, 65, was interviewed by Radio Times and duly challenged.  “We just don’t have ethnic minorities involved. Because it wouldn’t be the English village with them. It just wouldn’t work … I’m trying to make something that appeals to a certain audience, which seems to succeed. And I don’t want to change it.”

The result has been a minor media frenzy, and the production company, All3Media, has rushed to distance itself from criticism by suspending True-May.  The Daily Mail readership is probably closer to the viewer profile for Midsomer Murders than any other English rag, and its reader-vote on whether True-May should have been suspended records a 91% “No”.  But it was one reader comment posted at 1.00 am tonight on the thread to Cristina Odone’s piece at the Telegraph that really caught my eye.  It is by “Henbane”, and here it is:

I grew up in inner city Manchester (where I was the only white girl in my class), and have lived in West Yorkshire and more recently Leicester. A couple of years ago I moved to a small market town in East Anglia. Before this I had thought myself a multi culturalist, I was so used to being surrounded by people of many ethnicities, and often being the minority myself.

But having moved to an area with practically no ethnic minorities (one Indian family and one Chinese family run restaurants here) I have changed my mind. I feel far more relaxed here. Apart from the low crime rate and well behaved children there is such a feeling of community and belonging here.

Although I am an incomer to the area, I feel I belong here far more than any of the multi ethnic places I have lived in previously. It feels like one integrated community, not a town with many different communities. I have no plans to ever leave, it feels like home.


Nazis and Chinese, Palestinian Jews and Americans

by Alexander Baron

Back in the 1990s I spent a considerable amount of time reading the entire backfile of the Jewish Chronicle for the Nazi era, mostly but not exclusively at Colindale. Although I skimmed over a lot of the advertisements and local news, I read and took in most of the significant stories from 1933-45. Actually, I went back to the 1920s and beyond, and forward into the 1950s and beyond the other way, but the story with which I am concerned here appeared in the issue for October 25, 1935. On page 9, an editorial called Scrap the Transfer Agreement! made one of the most bizarre claims against the Nazis I have ever seen.

No, it had nothing to do with “gas chambers”, not at this early date, nor with pogroms, nor was it the usual whining and wailing about how wonderful are the Jews and how everybody has it in for them.  No, it was something much more profound than that. The wicked Nazis were accused of engaging in a most sinister plot to undermine Palestinian Jews … by subsidising them.

Here is the offending paragraph:

These tainted German goods are often being sold … at … far below cost price, thanks to the German export bonus; and the infant industries of Palestine cannot compete with them. Worse still, the Transfer Agreement, by forcing Jewish merchants and commercial houses to buy or sell German products on pain of financial ruin, and at the same time offering substantial advantages for such practices, is … debasing the life of Palestinian Jewry.

I found the above passage so bizarre that I had to re-read it several times. We all know the Nazis had it in for the Jews; let’s leave World War Two out of this. Jews were progressively excluded from the professions; they were subjected to social ostracism; anti-Semitic propaganda … but the one “crime” of which the Nazis were surely not guilty was subsidising their colony in Palestine.

What is a subsidy? Broadly speaking, a subsidy is a sum of money paid by a government to a body – a company, an institution, etc – in order to reduce the price to the consumer or user. However, the word can be used in a broader sense. For example, some companies subsidise their staff canteens, or offer their employees special terms for certain of their products or services – a staff discount. One of the many complaints levelled against supermarkets today is that in some instances they sell alcohol below cost in order to attract custom, ie they subsidise it.

Subsidies are widely perceived to be unfair, but never – be it noted – by the party who receives the subsidy, unless the subsidy is considered to be too miserly. The one exception appears to be the Jews of then Palestine. Or that was then; the other night when I tuned into a current affairs programme I was greeted with the spectre of an American politician whining in similar vein, this time against the emerging Chinese colossus.

This story has in fact been running for some time; last October, the Washington Post – and doubtless many other American newspapers – ran a story about the Obama Administration launching an investigation “into whether the Chinese government improperly supports its alternative energy companies”.

A subsidy is by definition something that is given free to one party – in this case to American consumers who are buying Chinese goods. The downside is that subsidies do not materialise out of thin air, otherwise every government could subsidise everything, and we would have Paradise on Earth. But who is paying for China’s subsidies? The Chinese taxpayer. Right? So why are American politicians and economists complaining instead of Chinese taxpayers? Every cent of the subsidy to American consumers – whatever Americans are buying from China – comes out of the pocket of China’s citizens. How much is this subsidy? Five percent? Ten percent? If it were a hundred percent, they would be giving away goods for nothing. Would the Obama Administration complain about that? Presumably. In their perverted Alice-in-Wonderland world, totally free Chinese goods would cost American jobs.

They don’t stop to consider the reality that the money American consumers save by buying quality Chinese products can be spent on other goods, or invested. I say “they” don’t stop to consider the reality, but perhaps “they” do, depending on who “they” are. Back in the 19th Century, the French politician Frédéric Bastiat (1801-50) wrote a surreal satire on tariffs and protectionism called The Petition Of The Candlemakers; let’s leave aside the surrealism, and substitute something we call all understand – including our simple-minded politicians.

Back in the 1990s, a certain Bill Gates set up a foundation to promote – among other things – global health. Suppose instead he had decided to concentrate on abolishing urban poverty in America, and to this end he had bought up tens of thousands of acres in and around America’s great cities, and turned them into allotments. Then, instead of building a half billion dollar campus and staffing it with highly paid academics – as he has done – he had staffed these allotments with volunteer gardeners, who would grow and distribute food to the poor people of these areas absolutely free. Would this constitute unfair trade? Who do you think would complain?

Or – approaching the surreal – imagine Bill Gates or some other innovator was to develop a source of free energy, a wonder machine that defied the law of conservation of energy, and churned out enough energy to heat and power the average suburban home. Then he began producing these and distributing them to home-owners and tenants alike for free. Wouldn’t this damage the American economy in exactly the same way as, for example, subsidised, or even free, Chinese coal?  Such a practice would certainly damage someone, but whoever is the bad guy in the looming trade war with China, it is certainly not the Chinese.






Defeat of Arizona Patriotic Immigration Reform Package Calls for Vigilance—Not Pessimism

Death of America is all but certain! Long live Global White Nationalist Movement.

Locust: This is what the enemy believes; Cubias [Email him]says that all the screaming about illegal immigration we are hearing now is just a last gasp of the old America who are coming to grips with the fact that “they might not be the unquestioned masters of America for much longer” because “the younger generation doesn’t share their biases. And that undeniable fact means that the old vision of America will soon be relegated to ignominy.”


Defeat of Arizona Patriotic Immigration Reform Package Calls for Vigilance—Not Pessimism

By Washington Watcher

When Kris Kobach and a group of state legislators held a press conference in January unveiling their model legislation to challenge birthright citizenship, the usual riffraff of self-proclaimed “anti-fa” protesters showed up to try to disrupt the event. In addition to passing out flyers with images of Pilgrims with the caption “Who’s the anchor baby?”, they demanded that Kobach reveal his “corporate backers.”

These wannabe revolutionaries are unwilling to recognize that they are on the same side as the corporate establishment which does not fund any patriotic immigration reform groups, but gives tens of millions of dollars to La Raza.

I noted their disconnect immediately after the press conference. And it became even clearer on March 14, when the CEOs of 60 Arizona businesses sent an open letter to State Senate President and SB 1070 sponsor Russell Pearce stating “we strongly believe it is unwise for the Legislature to pass any additional immigration legislation, including any measures leaving the determination of citizenship to the state.” [CEOs on Immigration Letter, Phoenix Chamber of Commerce (Email the President of the Phoenix Chamber, Todd Sanders)]

By the end of the week, the Republican-controlled State Senate voted down five pieces of immigration control legislation including one that dealt with birthright citizenship, made it a crime for illegal aliens to drive, and required documentation at public schools and hospitals to help set the basis for overturning Plyler vs. Doe and other federal mandates for states to accommodate illegal aliens.

Following this vote, many usual suspects already began proclaiming the death of state-level immigration control. The Huffington Post’s self-described Hispanic Fanatic blogger Daniel Cubias asked “Has Anti-Latino [i.e. anti-illegal immigration] Sentiment Peaked?” His gleeful answer was an astounding Si!

“Even Arizona itself is rethinking its lunatic stance on Latinos. The state’s creators of SB 1070, who for some bizarre reason thought that people were clamoring for a sequel to their divisive legislation, recently introduced several new attacks on Hispanics (and upon the Constitution, while they were at it). But those bills all went down in flames.”

Cubias [Email him]says that all the screaming about illegal immigration we are hearing now is just a last gasp of the old America who are coming to grips with the fact that “they might not be the unquestioned masters of America for much longer” because “the younger generation doesn’t share their biases. And that undeniable fact means that the old vision of America will soon be relegated to ignominy.” [Has Anti-Latino Sentiment Peaked, by Daniel Cubias, Huffington Post, March 18, 2011]

But a New York Times editorial celebrating the defeat was much more cautious in its gloating. While it was happy to see the bills die, it realized “it is not the end of harsh, shortsighted laws.”

Fortunately, even the Times relatively restrained editorial overstates how much of a defeat the vote was for the patriotic immigration reform movement. While it was a disappointment, the momentum is still on the patriots’ side, and they can win again in Arizona and across the nation.

The Times editorial bemoans that the bill was defeated by business interests rather than “strong moral arguments against xenophobic anti-immigration bills.” [Arizona Flinches, April 21, 2011] The reason for this is that the voters of Arizona do are not buying any of the sob stories from the ethnic groups–so the bills were only defeated by the undemocratic influence of corporate power into politics, something the Left claims to oppose

But while the moneyed interests are a formidable adversary, they are vulnerable. Despite their strong grip on the GOP, the Cheap Labor lobby in Arizona was not able to stop Prop 200, the Legal Arizona Workers Act, or SB 1070.

Just because they won this time, in aftershave-filled rooms, does not mean they will be able to stop a future challenge to birthright citizenship.

It is also important to note how much progress patriotic immigration reformers have made on the state level. When the Legal Arizona Worker Act requiring E –Verify for all employers in the state passed in 2007, it was by far the strongest state immigration control law in the country. Just three years ago, I would have said the idea of states challenging birthright citizenship was well-intentioned, but unlikely to go anywhere. However, SB 1070 changed the paradigm so much that it became a realistic option. The fact that it even came up for a vote would have been unthinkable a few years ago.

Within this context, the Republican Party has moved (at least in lip service) much closer to the patriot position. As Russell Pearce notes

“In 2004, Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) was the only member of the Arizona congressional delegation to support Prop 200. The Arizona Republican Party, though not the grass roots, opposed the initiative as well. Seven years later, the state GOP, four of the five Republican congressmen (except Rep. Jeff Flake), and both Republican senators—John McCain and Jon Kyl — support SB 1070.” [Washington Watcher note: Flake flip flopped on amnesty last week---expect him to come out strong for SB 1070 as the Senate Primary race progresses]

But despite the progress immigration patriots made with the GOP, there can be no doubt that the Republican Party Establishment is still an obstacle. Even with men like Pearce in positions of power and the ostensible support of some key Republicans, real patriotic immigration reform still needs to overcome the GOP Establishment and its corporate backers.

But as Pearce has aptly stated: We have fought these battles before and prevailed. We will prevail again.” [1 battle in Arizona immigration war, by Russell Pearce, Politico, March 26, 2011]

“Washington Watcher” [email him] is an anonymous source Inside The Beltway.


Locust: They are so wrong, my generation 25-35 year old white males, are more aware of the anti-white movement then even the older generations. They think that we will just roll over and allow them to take this nation without a fight! I don’t think so, not now, not ever!

911 The Achilles’ Heel of the Two-Party System

911 The Achilles’ Heel of the Two-Party System

by James Buchanan

911 is the Achilles’ heel of the two-party system as long as we have the guts to go after them on this issue. Opinion polls show that a vast majority of Americans aren’t buying the government explanation for 911. One article from 2008 pointed out that a “Scientific Poll (shows that) 84% Reject Official 9/11 Story (and) Only 16% now believe official fable according to New York Times/CBS News poll… A monumental new scientific opinion poll has emerged which declares that only 16% of people in America now believe the official government explanation of the September 11th 2001 terror attacks. According to the new New York Times/CBS News poll, only 16% of Americans think the government is telling the truth about 9/11 and the intelligence prior to the attacks… The 84% figure mirrors other recent polls on the same issue. A Canadian Poll put the figure at 85%. A CNN poll had the figure at 89%. Over 80% supported the stance… (claiming) 9/11 as an inside job…..”

So the people supporting the official government explanation for 911 are not only in the minority; they are a small minority making up only 16 percent of the most gullible portion of the population or people who are paid to say that they believe in the official 911 story like our politicians and government operatives.

Over the years, evidence has steadily built up making the government account less and less believable for anyone willing to keep up on the investigations by Americans with various technical expertise, who have been willing to donate their time to get at the truth. One of the first glaring signs, that something was not right, was the collapse of the 47 story world trade Center Building number 7. This building had not been hit by an airplane, but went down perfectly straight just like a controlled demolition. This is still seen as one of the most glaring inconsistencies and has woken up a great many people.

If Building 7 had been secretly set up with explosive charges to collapse it, then that raises the question whether or not the twin towers were also secretly set up with explosives. Both of the twin towers came down into their own foot prints just like controlled demolitions. Add to that, a great quantity of thermite dust that was found in the debris suggesting that explosives were used to cut through the steel columns. Some columns at ground zero were photographed which had clean 45 degree cuts consistent with a controlled demolition.

Add to all this, an ex-president of Italy, Francesco Cossiga has told the respected Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera that “the disastrous (911) attack was planned and realized by the American CIA and Mossad with the help of the Zionist world to put under accusation the Arabic Countries and to persuade the Western powers to intervene in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Another article notes that Dr. Alan Sabrosky, a former director of the Army War College, also stated publicly that 911 was an inside job by traitors within our nation and the Mossad.

Another source notes that Israel was caught trying to set up an al Qaeda cell in Palestine just weeks after 911. Israel has always objected to the US having friendly relations with any Muslim nations. Egypt and Saudia Arabia are two of the friendliest nations with the US. Curiously, almost all the 911 hijackers came from those two nations. The Israeli MOSSAD could have set up additional phony al Qaeda cells to recruit all of the 911 hijackers. Israel, by the way, tried to sour US relations with some false flag bombings in the 1950s in the Lavon Affair. Israel also attempted to sink a US intelligence ship (the USS Liberty) in 1967 without survivors with a probable intention of blaming that attack on Egypt.

One website is made up of over 1,200 engineers and architects who question the official 911 story. One list of points about the twin tower collapse from that website include:

1. Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
2. Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
3. Extremely rapid onset of destruction
4. Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
5. Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally
6. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
7. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
8. 1200-foot-dia. debris field: no “pancaked” floors found
9. Isolated explosive ejections 20 – 40 stories below demolition front
10. Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
11. Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises
12. Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples
13. Evidence of explosives found in dust samples….”

The New Colonialism Goes Both Ways

The New Colonialism Goes Both Ways

Who exactly is occupying whom?

By Paul Craig Roberts

What we are observing in Libya is the rebirth of colonialism. Only this time it is not individual European governments competing for empires and resources. The new colonialism operates under the cover of “the world community,” which means NATO and those countries that cooperate with it. NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, was once a defense alliance against a possible Soviet invasion of Western Europe. Today NATO provides European troops in behalf of American hegemony.

Washington pursues world hegemony under the guises of selective “humanitarian intervention” and “bringing freedom and democracy to oppressed peoples.” On an opportunistic basis, Washington targets countries for intervention that are not its “international partners.” Caught off guard, perhaps, by popular revolts in Tunisia and Egypt, there are some indications that Washington responded opportunistically and encouraged the uprising in Libya. Khalifa Hifter, a suspected Libyan CIA asset for the last 20 years, has gone back to Libya to head the rebel army.

Gaddafi got himself targeted by standing up to Western imperialism. He refused to be part of the US Africa Command. Gaddafi saw Washington’s scheme for what it is, a colonialist’s plan to divide and conquer.

The US Africa Command (AFRICOM) was created by order of President George W. Bush in 2007. AFRICOM describes its objective:

“Our approach is based upon supporting U.S. national security interests in Africa as articulated by the President and Secretaries of State and Defense in the National Security Strategy and the National Military Strategy. The United States and African nations have strong mutual interests in promoting security and stability on the continent of Africa, its island states, and maritime zones. Advancing these interests requires a unified approach that integrates efforts with those of other U.S. government departments and agencies, as well as our African and other international partners.”[Africom FAQ]

Forty-nine countries participate in the US Africa Command, but not Libya, Sudan, Eritrea, Zimbabwe, and Ivory Coast. There is Western military intervention in these non-member countries except for Zimbabwe.

One traditional means by which the US influences and controls a country is by training its military and government officers. The program is called International Military and Education Training (IMET). AFRICOM reports that “in 2009 approximately 900 military and civilian students from 44 African countries received education and training in the United States or their own countries. Many officers and enlisted IMET graduates go on to fill key positions in their militaries and governments.”

AFRICOM lists as a key strategic objective the defeat of the “Al-Qaeda network.” The US Trans Sahara Counter Terrorism Partnership (TSCTP) trains and equips “partner nation forces “ to preclude terrorists from establishing sanctuaries and aims to “ultimately defeat violent extremist organizations in the region.”

Apparently, after ten years of “the war on terror” an omnipotent al-Qaeda now ranges across Algeria, Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal and Tunisia in Africa, across the Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the UK and is such a threat within the United States itself as to require a $56 billion “Homeland Security” annual budget.

The al-Qaeda threat, a hoax as likely as not, has become Washington’s best excuse for intervening in the domestic affairs of other countries and for subverting American civil liberties.

Sixty-six years after the end of World War II and 20 years after the Collapse of the Soviet Union, the US still has an European Command, one of nine military commands and six regional commands.

No other country feels a need for a world military presence. Why does Washington think that it is a good allocation of scarce resources to devote $1.1 trillion annually to military and security “needs”? Is this a sign of Washington’s paranoia? Is it a sign that only Washington has enemies?

Or is it an indication that Washington assigns the highest value to empire and squanders taxpayers’ monies and the country’s credit-worthiness on military footprints, while millions of Americans lose their homes and their jobs?

Washington’s expensive failures in Iraq and Afghanistan have not tempered the empire ambition. Washington can continue to rely on the print and TV media to cover up its failures and to hide its agendas, but expensive failures will remain expensive failures. Sooner or later Washington will have to acknowledge that the pursuit of empire has bankrupted the country.

It is paradoxical that Washington and its European “partners” are seeking to extend control over foreign lands abroad while immigration transforms their cultures and ethnic compositions at home. As Hispanics, Asians, Africans, and Muslims of various ethnicities become a larger and larger percentage of the populations of the “First World,” support for the white man’s empire fades away.


Peoples desiring education and in need of food, shelter, and medical care will be hostile to maintaining military outposts in the countries of their origins.

Who exactly is occupying whom?

Parts of the US are reverting to Mexico. For example, demographer Steve Murdock, a former director of the US Census Bureau, reports that two-thirds of Texas children are Hispanics and concludes: It’s basically over for Anglos.”

Ironic, isn’t it, while Washington and its NATO puppets are busy occupying the world, they are being occupied by the world.

Paul Craig Roberts [email him] was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan’s first term.  He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal.  He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University, and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He was awarded the Legion of Honor by French President Francois Mitterrand. He is the author of Supply-Side Revolution : An Insider’s Account of Policymaking in Washington; Alienation and the Soviet Economy and Meltdown: Inside the Soviet Economy, and is the co-author with Lawrence M. Stratton of The Tyranny of Good Intentions : How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice. Click here for Peter Brimelow’s Forbes Magazine interview with Roberts about the epidemic of prosecutorial misconduct.

The Mud’s on a roll world wide!

The Mud’s on a roll world wide!

Can’t wait to control our own destiny again, whites world wide unite!

Child sacrifice makes huge comeback in Uganda.

Since the end of white rule in Uganda, the nation has been on a steady decline despite massive amounts of aid from the west. Now the BBC looks into the widespread practice of the ritualistic murder of children to gain favors from the spirit world. The Ugandan government states that a minimum of two dozen ritualistic child killings occurred last year. They also report zero convictions. One former witchdoctor admits to performing about seventy child killings during his career.

Uganda parents have started circumcising their sons, because witchdoctors say the spirits don’t want the blood of circumcised children.

From BBC…

A BBC investigation into human sacrifice in Uganda has heard first-hand accounts which suggest ritual killings of children may be more common than authorities have acknowledged.

One witch-doctor led us to his secret shrine and said he had clients who regularly captured children and brought their blood and body parts to be consumed by spirits.

Meanwhile, a former witch-doctor who now campaigns to end child sacrifice confessed for the first time to having murdered about 70 people, including his own son.

The Ugandan government told us that human sacrifice is on the increase, and according to the head of the country’s Anti-Human Sacrifice Taskforce the crime is directly linked to rising levels of development and prosperity, and an increasing belief that witchcraft can help people get rich quickly.

In the course of our investigation we witnessed the ritual torching of the shrine of a particularly active witch-doctor in northern Uganda by anti-sacrifice campaigners.

The witch-doctor allowed ceremonial items including conch shells and animal skins to be burned in his sacred grove after agreeing to give up sacrifice.

He told us that clients had come to him in search of wealth.

“They capture other people’s children. They bring the heart and the blood directly here to take to the spirits… They bring them in small tins and they place these objects under the tree from which the voices of the spirits are coming,” he said.


Caesar Chavez nothing like left-wing portrayal.

The left-wing holds of fantastical versions of who Guevara and Chavez were. None of which have any resemblance of the truth.

Che Guevara was a spoiled brat rich white kid who traveled around Latin America on his rich parents dime and championed non-white Marxists, because he thought it was a cool thing to do. He then became an executioner for Fidel Castro and oversaw the murder of nearly one thousand “thought criminals.”

Castro then sent Guevara to the Congo to arm and train African Marxists. While in the Congo he had a change of heart. He wrote that the Negro race was untrainable, lazy, indolent, and unwashed. He wrote that Socialism would never work in Africa, because it’s people lacked the intelligence to have a complicated form of government.

Non of this stopped left-wingers from waving Che Guevara flags at Obama campaign rallies. Look at the picture of the moron to right with his Che Guevara portrait next to his Obama portrait. After returning from Africa, Guevara was opposed to putting members of the black race in positions of leadership.

Much like Guevara, the left-wing fantasy about Caesar Chavez has nothing to do with reality. The actual Caesar Chavez spent much of his political energy fighting illegal immigration from Mexico.

Cesar Chavez — The First Minuteman
by Steve Sailor

In California, only three birthdays are official state holidays: Jesus Christ’s, Martin Luther King’s, and Cesar Chavez’s. Beatification as a secular saint, though, isn’t always good for the soul. A recent four-part exposé by reporter Miriam Pawel in the Los Angeles Times revealed how the labor leader turned revered ethnic icon descended into paranoia, megalomania, and general crack-pottery in the 15 years before his death in 1993.

Today, his United Farm Workers functions less as a union—it represents only 2 percent of the California agricultural workforce—than as a lucrative Latino-pride fundraising machine providing sinecures for a dozen Chavez relatives. Pawel writes, “Chavez’s heirs run a web of tax-exempt organizations that exploit his legacy and invoke the harsh lives of farm workers to raise millions of dollars in public and private money. The money does little to improve the lives of California farm workers, who still struggle with the most basic health and housing needs and try to get by on seasonal, minimum-wage jobs.”

From 1965 to 1981, the UFW succeeded in raising wages significantly for stoop laborers in California. Since then, their pay has fallen, and they’ve lost most of the fringe benefits they had won. Today, most make less than $10,000 per year. Hundreds were discovered near Salinas living in caves, a mass indignity that even that town’s most famous son, John Steinbeck, barely anticipated in The Grapes of Wrath.

Unfortunately, in focusing on gossip about the personal foibles of Chavez and his successors, the LA Times series completely ignored the politically incorrect paradox of who was most responsible for wiping out the gains Mexican-American farm workers had achieved through strikes and consumer boycotts: illegal immigrants from Mexico.

Why does the left believe such fantasies? Some of their leaders actually know they are lying, but have no problem with lying as a political tactic. The rank and file leftists will simply believe anything.

New York Times editor confesses to censoring information about black crime.

From the Staff.

Photo Right: Philip Corbett, associate managing editor of the New York Times.

A while back the Los Angeles Times publicly admitted to censoring the race of crime perpetrators when they are black or Latino “so as not to stigmatize any one group.”

Now Philip Corbett, associate managing editor of the New York Times, has publicly admitted to doing the same thing.

The New York Times ran a second article on the gang rape of a Mexican girl by 20+ black males in Cleveland, Texas. The first article clearly blamed the victim and caused such outrage that nearly 50,000 people signed an online petition denouncing the coverage. The Times issued a weak apology.

Now the Times has a second article. Once again focusing solely on portraying the victim and her family in a negative light, while censoring information about the perpetrators. The New York Times has yet to even mention that the perps were all black, and censored all the pictures of the suspect that other news outlets have shown.

When asked why there is no information about the perpetrators race in either article, Corbett answered with combination of truth and lies.

“We would mention race in a physical description only if it really is a detailed physical description that readers would learn something from … But if the description is a ‘white man in his 40s’ or ‘a black man in a hoodie,’ then you’re not really providing any useful information and it could be sort of boiler plate.”

What Corbett means by “boiler plate,” is that it would be “politically incorrect.” He would rather censor information about crime, putting the public at risk, than bring attention to the astronomical rates and horrific nature of black crime.

By the way. If a large group of white men did something this horrible to an eleven year old Mexican girl, it would have been the biggest story in the English speaking world. The New York Times would have been screaming “WHITE MEN do such and such…” and the top of the front page.

For a very detailed analysis of the New York Times’s miscoverage of the horrific Cleveland, Texas gang rape, click here.

Georgia Black Caucus: Outlaw majority white cities.

White people have fled Atlanta for obvious reasons. Parts of the majority black city now resemble the third world. Now a collection of “white flight” communities outside Atlanta want to secede from Fulton and Dekab counties and form a new Milton County.

The black legislative caucus of Georgia filed a lawsuit demanding that the city charters of several “white flight” communities be dissolved. They claim that the majority white cities violate their “voting rights.”

Photo Right: Atlanta is a crime ridden cesspool. Instead of trying to improve the black community, race hustling black lawmakers want to outlaw white flight.

From Atlanta Journal Constitution…

The Georgia Legislative Black Caucus filed a lawsuit Monday against the state of Georgia seeking to dissolve the city charters of Dunwoody, Sandy Springs, Johns Creek, Milton and Chattahoochee Hills. Further, the lawmakers, joined by civil rights leader the Rev. Joseph Lowery, aim to dash any hopes of a Milton County.

The lawsuit, filed in a North Georgia U.S. District Court Monday, claims that the state circumvented the normal legislative process and set aside its own criteria when creating the “super-majority white ” cities within Fulton and DeKalb counties. The result, it argues, is to dilute minority votes in those areas, violating the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution.

“This suit is based on the idea that African Americans and other minorities can elect the people of their choice,” said Democratic State Sen. Vincent Fort.

The Office of the Governor and the Office of the Attorney General declined comment pending further review of the case.

Rep. Lynne Riley, R-Johns Creek, called the lawsuit “frivolous” and “disrespectful to the citizens of these cities who are most satisfied with their government.”

According to the 2010 census, Fulton County is 44.5 percent white and 44.1 percent black. About 54 percent of DeKalb County residents are black, and 33.3 percent are white.

Sandy Springs, created in 2005, is 65 percent white and 20 percent black. Milton, formed a year later, is 76.6 percent white and 9 percent black. Johns Creek, also formed that year, is 63.5 percent white and 9.2 percent black. Chattahoochee Hills, formed in 2007, is 68.6 percent white and 28 percent black, while Dunwoody, created in 2008, is 69.8 percent white and 12.6 percent black.


Brutal Rapes Plague Scandinavia

Another brutal rape and murder of a beautiful Swedish girl has stunned the once crime-free Scandinavian country. African and Muslim immigrants, who are pampered by the Swedish state, are conducting a reign of terror against the native population. Africans and Muslims commit virtually all the rapes in Norway and Sweden. The victim (pictured above) was apparently a multiculturalist and supporter of nonwhite immigration into Sweden. Her attacker (pictured, right) shows the true face of multicultural enrichment.

Read the story here.

Locust: Mud’s around the world are poking a stick at the beast within the cage of the west. These anti-white western governments will fall, this will happen without a doubt, question for all you turd worlder’s is what happens when white nationalist take control.  You got it! Boom! I’ll wear a sweater when global temperatures drop due to nuclear bombs dropping on mud cities, I don’t give a damn. See you on the battlefield.

Will “White Flight” be declared Illegal? News from the “City too Busy to Hate”

Will “White Flight” be declared Illegal? News from the “City too Busy to Hate”

Will “white flight” be declared illegal? Why don’t people move to majority Black cities?

In the state of Georgia, the Black Caucus is suing majority white cities ostensibly because of White Flight and the lack of tax dollars being shared with the city of Atlanta. The Black Undertow has been unsuccessful in turning these cities and counties into mirror images of Clayton and DeKalb County, because Dunwoody, Sandy Springs and Johns Creek have kept property values high, keeping a Black influx from transpiring.

The sad fact is the state of Georgia is broke. With an astounding number of Black people moving back to the South after failing in virtually every other city they went to during The Great Migration, the stress levels on an already broken infrastructure are going to become shockingly apparent. As this incredible article from admits, Black people are reliant on local, state, and federal government for employment and entitlements at levels disproportionate to other racial groups:

Poor and working-class Blacks, on the other hand, are caught between a rock and NO place—the “hard place” option no longer exists.

Simply put, the current economic crisis is much deeper than job and business creation. Both can be undertaken and still feature exploited workers with no health benefits or a living wage.

So what options exist for the Black poor and working class?

First, at the very least, poor and working-class Blacks need to organize. They should not be seduced by political slogans of hope.

Black youth, whose unemployment numbers are approaching a staggering 50 percent, for example, have to be aware of Arab young people using the “white man’s magic” (cell phones, Internet, FaceBook, and Twitter) to revolt against oppressive regimes. In doing so, some Arabs have made references to Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X.

Yet, Black youth have failed to capitalize on the growing trend of using technology for political mobilization to address staggering unemployment and other issues that impact their lives.

According to a recent Target Market News Report, Black-Americans spent $9.4 billion dollars on cell phones and connectivity services in 2009.  This is regarded as a growing market. Even so, cutting-edge smart phones do not constitute Black political or economic power, especially for millions of Black youth for who technology is used primarily in the hot pursuit of foolishness.

Second, the disproportionate number of Blacks employed by municipal, state, and federal government need to wake up to the budget deficit game being played in Washington. It is not far-fetched to imagine the possibility that they may be sacrificed en masse. Beyond these workers themselves, budget cuts also translate into an assault on working and middle-class Blacks.

And finally, for Black folks who did not have jobs in the first place, surviving in the underground and barter economy—as they have always done—is the most viable option. They, like many of their counterparts across race trapped in jobless urban centers and rural areas, are caught in the middle of history.

This above article is an honest look at a problem we have pointed out will eventually manifest itself in America. The Federal Government is already attacking all-white counties and cities, scolding them for not making enough concession to Black Run America. Whose side do you think the government will fall on during a massive Black revolt (which seems to be encouraging)?

An artificial Black middle class has been created in Atlanta, largely due to a massive support network that seeks to improve the quality of Black life at the expense of other racial groups:

Local leaders said black business people come to Atlanta because of the city’s strong black middle class, support among other black entrepreneurs and black colleges and universities.

“There are really a lot of proactive efforts to engage small businesses and entrepreneurship here,” said Nancy Flake Johnson, president and chief executive officer of the Atlanta Urban League. “The political climate is supportive.”

Groups such as the Urban League, the Georgia Minority Supplier Development Council, Atlanta Metro Black Chamber of Commerce and Atlanta Business League have assisted these efforts.

The Federal Government has already made it clear that all-white cities, counties and states are a thing of the past (just ask the Somalians of Minnesota and Maine how great the welfare programs are there). Now the Black Caucus is suing the refugee camps outside of Atlanta and calling for the dissolution of these white flight enclaves.

Atlanta is known as The City to Busy to Hate. In reality, it is a city whose Disingenuous White Liberal class has been one of the most dedicated groups in the erection of Black Run America (BRA) and a metropolitan area that saw its Black ruling political class come under fire in 2009 when it became apparent that they were losing control of the city.

It’s a city where 30,000 Black people rioted over the right to sign a waiting list for Section 8 housing that wouldn’t be available for five years.

It’s a city with some of America’s least safe neighborhoods (all Black areas).

It’s a city white people fled from, and in so doing established some of the top counties in the nation. Slowly, and surely, the Black Undertow followed. Gwinnett, Clayton, and even parts of Fayette County all succumbed to the problems that the citizens who fled to them sought to avoid.

The ultimate question is this: Why are cities and counties with majority white populations so desirable and cities and counties with majority Black population so undesirable? 

Now the legal system will be used to break up white flight. As we have seen with Marin County in San Francisco, the legal system is in the pocket of BRA. Strangely, Black people still believe that the legal system operates under Jim Crow. This is why Brian Nichols thought he was a Black Avenging Angel of Death (BAAD), courtesy of people like Michelle Alexander who hold a revered place in Black people’s hearts and minds.

The mentality of people like Alexander has harmfully impacted thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Black people. Maybe even millions. has basically called for insurrection in this nation by Black people, following on the heels of Middle East uprisings.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution, like The Washington Post and New York Times, rarely publishes articles that deal with race and crime (unless its a story like the Duke Lacrosse hoax). If they did, the paper would just be a print version of Thug Report.

If Black people follow’s suggestion and start to use social media to protest a system that provides free lunches, welfare, cell phones, housing, scholarships, allows Black-only groups to help with creating businesses, and employs a disproportionate amount of Black people in government jobs, how do you think non-Black people in America will react?

As we have said before, Black Run America is going to collapse on itself. Attempting to deprive people of the right to “white flight” by suing majority white cities that exist because majority Black cities (and Black-run municipalities) are unsuitable for raising families is a shocking indicator of the power of BRA.

But it’s an act of desperation.

Democracy: The Problem

Democracy: The Problem

Alain de Benoist’s The Problem of Democracy, now in English


Alain de Benoist is a name readers are likely to have come across in these circles, being a founder and leading figure of the Nouvelle Droite—the European New Right—as well as head of the French think tank GRECE. Sadly. This French philosopher’s vast output—50 books, 2,000 essays—has remained largely unavailable in the Anglosphere, due to a lack of English translations. This is something that Arktos has begun to rectify. The Problem of Democracy (originally, Démocratie: Le Problème, first published 26 years ago) is the first book-length political work to appear in English, and the first of a series of volumes to appear on the aforementioned imprint.

De Benoist is an astonishingly erudite and penetrating thinker, yet, like many brilliant minds, and quite unlike his pretentious and intellectually bankrupt counterparts on the Left, he is able to write with singular clarity and economy. This tome offers an eloquent example: De Benoist examines the theory and practice of democracy, analysing it from every angle you ever thought and never thought of and would have never imagined, demystifying and getting right down to the core of the matter, and illuminating the reader with surprising insights, all in a slender volume of just over 100 pages. How many authors do you know who can do that with profundity and academic rigour in such a compressed space and without producing incomprehensibly compacted prose? Homi K. Bhabha could learn a thing or two from this edition.


The fact is that this book is a lot better that it looks. With democracy not being exactly the height of fashion around these parts, and with the cover being rather opaque and impersonal, one imagines that this is going to be a slow and boring read. Yet the opposite is the case: Yes, De Benoist tells the reader much that he already knew or suspected about modern Western democracies; but he also uncovers a mass of otherwise obscure yet crucial realities that shows exactly how much of a charade our governments are, and how modern citizens have been reduced to idiocy—in the classical sense of the word. The sections dealing with the deficiencies of modern liberal democracies are truly fascinating, even for readers who think they know everything there is to know on the topic.

De Benoist begins by problematising this taken-for-granted term, democracy, and by showing that it is, and has been, used very loosely, cynically, imprecisely, disingenuously, and outright deceptively, to describe just about any system of government, from direct democracies to totalitarian communist regimes. To his mind, only the democracy of Athens in ancient Greece can be genuinely referred to as a democracy: after all, those who invented it best know what it was about.

Judged against this standard, modern democracies fail to meet the required definition—they are something else, but not democracies.

De Benoist also demonstrates that democracy is not synonymous with liberalism, elections, or even freedom. In fact, often the opposite is the case: modern elections are effectively a delegation—and therefore an abdication—of sovereignty, the anointment of a self-perpetuating class of professional politicians who then do whatever they like, with complete impunity.

De Benoist’s main thesis is that genuine democracy can only exist in a community with shared values and common historical ties. A secondary thesis is that the larger the political unit, the stronger the type of government needed to hold it together. The liberal democracies of the West, governing over vast multicultural multitudes, are necessarily repressive and tend increasingly towards totalitarianism. As it happens, this is a point I made in a certain novel I wrote:

a homogeneous society [is] easier to legislate for because people shared a concrete set of values; a highly heterogeneous society require[s] mountains of legislation, regulating every aspect of the individual’s life, as well as a bloated and highly complex bureaucracy, designed to invent it, record it, expand it, refine it, and enforce it, alongside an omniscient surveillance apparatus, to constantly monitor behaviour and report non-conformity.

Such conditions, I argued, make it preferable to have

strict controls on who was allowed to come and settle in Europe, rather than strict controls on what people who lived in Europe were allowed to say, write, read, watch, think, or publish, what organisations they were allowed to belong to, what political parties they were allowed to vote for, what music they were allowed to listen to, and what personal associations they were allowed to maintain, in order to keep the chanko stew in the social pressure cooker from exploding.

Surprisingly, De Benoist also posits that a genuine democracy is elitist, not egalitarian. Equality exists among citizens before the law, and in such a system, citizens are given equal opportunities to be unequal. Democracy does not assume natural equality. What is more, a genuine democracy, according to De Benoist, is designed to offer elite turnover, the idea being that if citizens are given equal opportunities to be unequal, the each gets what he deserves, and the best elements rise to the top while the worst sink to the bottom.

Thus De Benoist argues for a fundamentalist understanding of democracy, and a return to the model of Antiquity, albeit adapted to modern times (he offers some suggestions as to how this may be done). This exemplifies perfectly how one can be radical while being traditional.

In sum, this slender volume can be read very profitably and is worth recommending to anybody, irrespective on their love or hatred for democracy—because they are, in fact, so similar in their criticisms, De Benoist has something here for supporters and detractors alike. The Problem of Democracy offers plenty of ammunition for anybody wanting to engage conventionally thinking citizens in thought-provoking debate.

A book like this should be in standard political science reading lists in all Western universities.

Raciology in Russia

Raciology in Russia

I don’t want to fantasize too much about a country I’ve never even visited, but it appears that this is what government-endorsed textbooks are like in Russia.


This image is of the English translation, of course, which you can purchase here. (Hat tip to Constantin von Hoffmeister.)

Reviewing the Russian edition in 2007, Jürgen Graf wrote,

Vladimir Avdeyev: Rasologia. Biblioteka rasovoy mysli,
Moscow, 2007, 665 pages.
a review by Jürgen Graf

Where in the world is it nowadays conceivable that a book about the inherent differences between the human races, which pays tribute to the racial theorists of the Third Reich and explicitly claims that all races are not equal, is not only openly sold in the bookstores but even becomes a bestseller? And where in the world is it possible that such a book is favorably reviewed by renowned scholars and provided with two introductions, one written by a member of parliament and the other one by a prominent representative of a liberal organization?

In Germany, Austria or France? Unthinkable! In these countries such a book would almost certainly be banned; its author would be put on trial for “racial discrimination” or “instigation of the populace”; any member of parliament who would have the audacity of endorsing its contents by writing an introduction would immediately be castigated as a “racist bigot” by the media and would have to relinquish his seat in parliament within days.

In the Anglo-Saxon world? Not impossible, but highly unlikely. It is quite true that the English-speaking countries enjoy much greater freedom of thought and speech than the German-speaking ones or France. In the USA, the First Amendment to the Constitution would certainly protect the author of such a book from legal persecution; in Britain or Canada, there are laws against “racism”, but the author of a scholarly work about race would hardly be prosecuted on the basis of these laws. On the other hand, the media would either ignore or angrily denounce his book without discussing his arguments, and he would risk social ostracism. This is exactly what happened in the United States to Arthur Jensen and Hans Eysenck, two serious scientists who had dared to challenge the dogma of racial equality. They were pilloried as “racists” and “haters” and harassed by left-wing fanatics for whom rational arguments did not count. The late biologist Glade Whitney became the victim of a tremendous smear campaign after writing an introduction to David Duke’s My Awakening. Only a handful of scholars or politicians will muster the courage to incur the wrath of the watchdogs of “political correctness”.

In Russia? Yes, in Russia all this is perfectly possibly. The proof is Vladimir Avdeyev’s books Rasologia, the second edition of which came out in late 2007 in Moscow.

Vladimir Borisovich Avdeyev was born in 1962. After acquiring a university degree in Economics, he served in the Soviet Air Force where he was promoted to the rank of First Lieutenant. Since 1993, he has been a member of the Russian Writers’ Association; in 1991, he founded the journal Atenei together with his comrades-in-arms Anatoli Ivanov and Pavel Tulayev. Since 1999, V. Avdeyev has edited a series of books under the title “Biblioteka Rasovoy Mysli” (The Library of Racial Thought), and in 2005, the first edition of his Rasologia appeared. This book was highly successful, and already two years later its author was able to publish an improved and enlarged second edition. The two introductions were written by Andrey Savelev, a delegate of the Russian Duma {parliament) and close personal friend of Avdeyev, and by Valeri Solovei, a historian and member of the ultra-liberal Gorbachev Foundation, who aptly summarizes the book as follows:

“Humanity is entering a new epoch. The world that was shaped by the Enlightenment and Modernity using melodious words such as ‘democracy’, ‘equality’, ‘progress’ and ‘human rights’ is becoming part of a past that will never return. Together with this world, the scientific concepts and the intellectual ballast which belonged to it are doomed too. All this will be replaced by a world based on blood and soil, strength and hierarchy, which will need a new theory and new concepts.”

Avdeyev’s book is subdivided into eight chapters: 1) Racial Science and Anthropology: What are the differences? 2) The Fair Race: Historiography and Anthropology. 3) The Biological Foundation of the Northern Conception of the World. 4) Thoughts about Racial Prejudices. 5) A New Paradigm in Racial Science. 6) The Anti-Racial Myth of the “Melting Pot”. 7) Racial-ideological Neurology, and finally, the striking chapter 8, A Racial Theory of Time. The book contains a large number of excellent photographs and illustrations.

For me as a non-specialist, who only had a very general knowledge of the question, Avdeyev’s history of racial thought was particularly fascinating. I had erroneously taken it for granted that almost all racial theorists had been German and that the Frenchman Arthur de Gobineau (Essay on the Inequality of the Races, 1855) and the Englishman Houston Stewart Chamberlain (Foundations of the Nineteenth Century, 1899) were exceptions. Thanks to Avdeyev, who has carefully studied the writings of all the important racial theorists, I learned I was wrong: the subject of race has been dealt with by numerous and illustrious French scholars, and the study of race flourished in Russia before 1917. Who would have guessed that the term “Nordic race” was not coined by a German, but by a Russian, Joseph Denniker (1852-1918)?

There is a great irony to the existence of a volume like this. As Graf points out, Russia was once the homeland of Lysenkoism; it is now one of the few places in which one can pursue, honestly and rigorously, the study of race.

And it is in the “land of the free” that scientists like Arthur Jensen and Glayde Whitney are attacked as heretics. (In 1995, Whitney was shunned and condemned for his views on race by the Behavior Genetics Association, a body of which he was, at the time, president (!).)

The Marxian Left were not always opposed to Darwinian evolution and its implications: Marx himself believed his theory was perfectly compatible with Darwin’s, and many prewar Leftists considered themselves eugenicists. Whatever the case, by the 1930s, Communists and Western Marxists had become, almost monolithically, “environmentalist”: genetic differences, they claimed, were the stuff of Nazi propaganda; the scientists studying them should be denounced (if not shot); if you want a new plant, just change the fertilizer, soil, and pot.

After the flame of the purges and the tearing down of cathedrals burned itself out, the Soviet Union settled down as an authoritarian empire, in which free thought was possible, so long as it didn’t touch on the domain of the state. As the story goes, if one praised the proletariat in the introduction and conclusion of an essay, one could write pretty much what one pleased in the middle.

America and Western Europe, on the other hand, became countries where leftism was pursued more vigorously, thoroughly, and radically—in which the state took an interest not in owning the means of production but in stamping out racism and sexism in the minds of its citizens. It is America, and not the Soviet Union, that has more fully implemented a “universal society,” in part because its consumer-capitalist economy has proven more sustainable than the Soviets’ backwards industrial socialism.

In fearing America’s descent into “socialism,” America’s self-styled “conservatives” love to depict their Democratic enemies wearing Soviet garb or the traditional Russian ushanka. In reality, it is the late and post-Soviet regimes, and not Washington, DC, that have more evinced “conservatism,” if this term is to have any meaning beyond an eagerness to bomb Middle Eastern countries into democracy and hold mass rallies in honor of Black Marxist preachers.

Looking at the outcome of the 20th century from a Hegelian standpoint, one might suggest that it was America that was on the left—and the post-Lenin USSR, on the right—all along; tag lines like “capitalism” and “socialism” simply obfuscated the inner natures of each regime.

Whether Russia is simply behind America—and will soon follow it into cultural decadence—or is truly charting an independent course remains to be seen.

Brian Nichols Channels Omar Thornton: Waged War on Racist Justice System in the name of Black People

Brian Nichols Channels Omar Thornton: Waged War on Racist Justice System in the name of Black People

You remember Omar Thornton, right? The media darling in that horrible mass murder of evil white bigots. Oh, he was the Black guy who pulled the trigger, ending the lives of eight former white employees he claimed were
Brian Nichols wanted to start a race war, against a racist Atlanta police and justice system
racist (and thus deserving of death).
The company he was fired from discriminated against him – with only his account necessary for such accusations to be confirmed –and those nine deaths were just collateral damage in the war on whites being waged nationwide.

Just see what Eric “My People” Holder had to say on the situation of the Justice Department deciding to side against white people.

With what Omar Thornton did at his former place of employment, it should be noted that 88 percent of Black people believe they have experienced discrimination at the work place.

A regrettable number of Black people are shooting police officers. In Miami and New Orleans, a regrettable number of Black people have been shot by Black people because these people break the law.

Black people believe the police, the Justice Department and Justice system are aligned against them. In reality, the opposite is at play. Just look at what Seattle is doing in the name of “social justice”:

City Attorney Pete Holmes defends the city’s progressive policies.  For example, driving with a suspended license is almost always charged when a person’s license has been suspended for failure to pay a fine, Fox News reports.  But Holmes says 44 percent of those prosecuted for the crime were African American.  According to Holmes, the disproportionate number of blacks being charged is a direct result of economic inequalities.

Racial minorities are more likely to be poor than whites and unable to pay their fines, Holmes says, adding that it’s a waste of city resources to prosecute those cases.  “If we start to learn and understand that one of those institutional causes of racism is actually in the criminal justice system,” Holmes says, “it’s our obligation as prosecutors to address it.”

The Justice Department is making every attempt to excuse away Black crime. Black people are placing the justification for high levels of Black crime on a racist criminal justice system, instead of realizing high levels of Black crime are responsible for police increasing their presence in Black areas.

It’s time people realize that the majority of Black people will always believe police and the criminal justice system operate straight out of a 1960s Bull Connor play book. Thus the reason Brian Nichols, a Black criminal who killed a judge, court reporter, Federal agent and a Sheriff’s Deputy in Atlanta back in 2005 decided to wage a racial war in the name of perpetually oppressed Black people:

The Atlanta courthouse gunman said in letters that he escaped from guards and then killed four people in a shooting rampage to fight back against what he believed was a racist justice system, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.

In the letters, which were among thousands of Georgia Bureau of Investigation documents reviewed exclusively by the AP, Brian Nichols lays out his motive for the March 2005 slayings in stark racial terms.

“Certain dogs you can kick and they tuck their tail between their legs and run,” he wrote in a July 2005 letter to a man who criticized him. “Others if kicked will turn and bite the individual responsible. I hate to say it, but it’s the truth that black men have done way too much tail tuckin.”
While awaiting trial on rape charges, Nichols overpowered a guard at the Fulton County Courthouse and fatally shot a judge, court reporter, deputy and federal agent. He was sentenced to life in prison without parole in December 2008.

Trudy Brandau, the sister of slain court reporter Julie Ann Brandau, said the letters show Nichols is delusional.

“If you want changes made, make smart, intelligent choices that would actually wind up causing improvement,” she said. “What he wound up doing was extremely selfish and hasn’t changed a thing for anybody.”

Nichols said he was infuriated that the judge, Rowland Barnes, was holding him without bond on rape charges while other inmates awaiting trial were set free.

He compared himself to Dany Heatley, a former AtlantaThrashers star, whom Barnes allowed to remain free on bail after he was charged with vehicular homicide in a 2003 crash that killed a teammate.

“White boy, driving crazy killed somebody. Was he not a threat to the community having killed a person as a result of his reckless behavior?” he wrote.

He said “no black man has ever made a stand such as mine” and insisted the shootings sent a message.

“Perhaps my children of another generation won’t find their back against the wall, subjected to unequal treatment under the law. Unfortunately, my sacrifice is not enough to prevent that from happening, but perhaps it’s a start.”

The gunman also described a perverse legal strategy. Writing to his prison pen-pal girlfriend Lisa Meneguzzo, Nichols said he was going on a letter-writing campaign to try to influence the jury pool and avoid a guilty verdict.

“And believe me, in Fulton County, where there are a large number of people pissed off at the way the criminal justice system treats people, it can happen,” he wrote. “All I need is the right people on the jury, and I go home. I’ve got to put in the grass-roots effort it takes to pull something like that off.”

Remember that Black people are mad that seven criminal Black people have been gunned down in Miami, demanding that the police chief resign for this obvious indicator of racism. Brian Nichols saw himself as a Black Avenging Angel of Death (BAAD), which is how any cop-killing Black person will now be viewed.

Because Black people believe the justice system of the past — and by extension the police perpetuate racist policies — never left.

The media made Omar Thornton’s victims the antagonists in that story of mass murder spawned by the white people’s racism.

Nichols saw himself as a BAAD; a Black guy waging war against a system created to keep Black people perpetually down. In reality, the justice system in America is just another extension of Black Run America (BRA), operating to help Black people who by their own actions keep themselves perpetually down.

The Justice Department, criminal justice system and police departments across the country no longer represent Bull Connor America. Ever since Rodney King, a slow evolution to the Justice Department of Eric “My People” Holder has occurred.

Nichols attempted to galvanize fellow Black people to wage war against a system that does everything possible to excuse away poor Black behavior. That’s all modern America has become: a nation that excuses away horrible Black behavior as a response to lingering vestiges of white racism.

Brian Nichols tried to start a war against a system that does everything possible to keep the root cause of Black behavior censored. That system is Black Run America; that root cause is Black people themselves.




Media fakes surprise over Hispanic explosion.

Media fakes surprise over Hispanic explosion.

It is exactly what the CofCC has been saying for the past ten years. We are being invaded by the Latino world. The Latino population exploded 150% in the past ten years. That means for every 2 Latinos in 2000, there are now 5!

Watch as left-wing taxpayer financed PBS gloats over the demographic change of the South. They praise the reversal of demographic trends in the South to one that disfavors white people. The show praises the decline of the white population as a good thing.

The video touches on another phenomenon. Black people universally want to move to the whitest neighborhood they can afford. Whites and blacks are fleeing majority black or Latino areas for the same reason. Both want to live in whiter neighborhoods.