The Loss of Reality

The Loss of Reality

The Ideological Caste and its Tyranny

The Loss of Reality A world built on abstractions soon loses its reality

There is a distinction between natural and artificial societies. Natural societies grow organically within a group of people with a shared ancestry. This is why patriotism is natural – it grows from emotional relationships and does not need a theory or ideological underpinning. There is more to human nature than reason and the act of bonding with your people and territory is a process of feeling, instinct, intuition and other human qualities.

I live in England so I will use England as my exemplar. England has been a nation since the time of Alfred the Great, and it is an emotional, organic growth, not an intellectual agreement. Intellectual nationalism came from the Enlightenment and, like other forms of thinking derived from the Enlightenment, is theory to be applied to men and women, that is, forced on people. It is a mistake for The New Right to adopt rationalist theorising in imitation of Marxist thinkers.

Education in the liberal era emphasised ideas, with people thinking that we are in a battle of ideas, as if ideas rule the world. In actual fact the world at a Global and local level is run by rich power groups. Power groups are changing our towns and cities into something different and separating us from our culture and history. These are being made un-British. Local councillors stand for election and promise benefits to the local community. If elected they act as agents for corporations and finance. The new buildings in London are financed by money from other countries and built and designed by global corporations using imported labour while our people remain unemployed.

We are educated to be unrealistic and naïve. We are encouraged not to judge others, but the way to live safely is to assess human nature and make judgements on the suitability of others as friends or people we do business with. We are told it is prejudice to decide who to associate with, but making such decisions is essential human wisdom. To neglect this is to open oneself up to being harmed or taken advantage of.

Running a family is a practical activity, as is running a nation. The use of concrete nouns instead of abstract ones would effect how people think and would return them to reality. The abstract way of thinking was brought in by the French Revolution and has led people out of the world of reality into the realm of fantasy, because the words they think in have no substance. This is why immigrants, for instance, are thought to be the same as us, but if you believe they share the same basic human nature with us, then immigration is alarming because they are taking over our territory as earlier invasions have done.

It is their human nature to do so, as it was ours when we were in their countries. The mode of entry is not the point. The point is that, once in a country, human nature decrees that a people start claiming territory and that includes women. The widespread raping of young White girls some as young as eleven and twelve (and some Indian and Black) by the rival Muslim community is for them the taking of the spoils of war. The police and social services have been covering these child-rapes for years. They can not face the fact that their imported pets are not bringing us benefits and enriching our culture.

The use of concrete nouns instead of abstract ones would have an immense effect on how people think – it would bring them back to reality. The French Revolution and its abstract way of thinking have led people from reality into fantasy, because the words they think in have no substance.

When a world view becomes dominant it marginalises the opposing view, and that is what has happened to traditional or national conservatism. Another complication is that new Liberalism is different from Classical Liberalism. Liberalism was replaced by Cultural Marxism in the late 1960s.  They kept the name but changed the content so that there were two Liberalisms – Classical and New. New Liberals changed the nature of the ideology into what we now see as Identity Politics and Political Correctness. For example, individual rights became group rights, and that worked against us, as we are “oppressors” and the immigrants are “victims.”

The Progressive way of thinking that stems from the Enlightenment marginalizes traditional systems in favour of a way of thinking that disdains the past and looks forward to a future perfection. Progressives think that we are ineluctably destined for the brotherhood of man – an obvious Utopia! This is no more than an irrational superstition, and any examination of the world around them would show that the opposite is happening. They think human nature is malleable and can be re-fashioned to fit into their ideology and future utopia.

A formal ideology is written down like a “How to” book, which tells people how to think and behave. Ideology grew out of the Enlightenment as a secular replacement for religion with a programme of correct thinking and behaving, and with intolerance for deviation. The rulers changed from an aristocratic class, based on blood and land, to a secular elite defined by their ability to think and say the right things – in other words an “Ideological Caste.”

Ideological thinking starts with first principles and requires underpinnings to support or justify beliefs. Conservatism by contrast is a view of the world that grows out of our emotional bonds with our families and expands outwards through neighbourhood and community to the nation. It emanates out to Europe and the Anglosphere, though weaker. For example, we feel for the South African Boers in these days of their genocide. It is stronger at home, and a parent who wishes other children to do better than their own is perverse.

The Ideological uses of language

The elites try to change people’s thinking by changing the vocabulary: the British government guidelines to the media suggest certain words about non-white crime be replaced. The words to be suppressed included immigrant, illegal immigrant, illegal asylum seeker, bogus asylum seeker, non-white, non-Christian, mixed race, half-caste, mulatto. There is the substitution of euphemistic terms for those that reflect reality, as in the official designation of Anti-Islamic activity for Muslim terrorists.

The use of Political Correctness is a way of training people to think of, and to perceive, reality in the official way. If you think differently you are a “hater,” a “racist.”

Ideological change of the meaning of words passes for common usage as people innocently adopt them: bigot and tolerance are prominent examples. Bigot means one who refuses to listen to the opinions of others but is misused as a connotative word that only applies to “right-wingers.” A classic example of this Doublespeak was during the 2010 general election campaign when Gordon Brown described a woman who asked him about imported labour as a bigot; but he was the one being bigoted because he refused to listen to her opinions! Tolerance meant to tolerate an action or to put up with something one did not like, but is now misused to make indigenous British people passive and accept being replaced by immigrants.

We need a concrete, definite vocabulary, not vague linguistic terms like person and humanity, but terms like Englishman or Englishwoman, Welshman or Welshwoman, Scotsman or Scotswoman or Irishman or Irishwoman, boy and girl; land rather than country. They are more specific and convey a solid idea of substance; they get away from the woolly vocabulary that is a cause of our collective loss of touch with reality. This would clarify what we are referring to and make our common intercourse more realistic.

The great Welsh national anthem Land of My Fathers is a pertinent example as it makes a clear statement of debt to ancestors and suggests the piety necessary to honour what the ancestors have left us, and our obligation to hand it on to our descendants. This is embodied in the Fifth Commandment to honour thy mother and father; unless they are very cruel parents, of course.

On abstractions, the counter-revolutionary Josef de Maistre stated:  

“there is no such thing as Man in the world. In my lifetime I have seen Frenchmen, Italians, Russians, etc… I declare that I have never in my life met him; if he exists, he is unknown to me.” 

Brainwashing 

A television programme Gypsy Wars contrasted a local woman with tinkers who had invaded her land, and effectively reversed the roles. The intellectual and media elites think our traditional view of the world is pathological and try to correct it for us. No young Gypsy men were shown, because they would be aggressive, and the programme makers did not want to show them as a threat; village life was not shown because that is appealing and viewers would sympathise with the woman; the woman was selected because she is not typical of rural people but was a bit eccentric and could be set up as the aggressor even though she was in fact the victim. This role-reversal was undertaken to mould the public’s views and change attitudes. This was an example of how television re-structures thought in accordance with the establishment’s Progressive ideology. 

In August 2011, police closed the largest gypsy camp in Britain at Dale Farm and the biased television news reports once again left gypsy men out of their news reports. 

For years vacancies in television were only advertised in the Bourgeois-Socialist Guardian newspaper to help filter out applicants with the wrong attitudes. 

We are derided as prejudiced if we protest against the elites having us dispossessed, which is used to mean ignorant and narrow-minded, but prejudice is in fact traditional wisdom passed down by our ancestors, and is knowledge which is much broader-based than the narrow solipsism of the contemporary era. It saves us learning the hard way, and we would have been spared this dispossession if natural prejudices had been followed after the last war. 

The great Conservative satirist Michael Wharton would have recommended Prejudometers. 

We are being dehumanised and made a non-people. We must abandon this inculcated niceness, this apologetic approach and assert ourselves. We need to give our people a sense of their collective worth for the common good, and succeeding generations need to be built up to inherit the responsibility for our life and culture. The media are occupying them with trivialities like what to wear, how to get your hair done and where to have a tat! It is done to get their money, and is morally evil, as they are being debauched by temptations and distractions. 

Government from Brussels, economic control by global corporations, and Afro-Asian colonization is part of the progressives’ new dream for an ideal future, but in practice it disinherits our children of community and association with their own kind, which we are duty bound to preserve for them. 

Throughout history wars have been fought for territory, and by allowing newcomers to stake claims, our emasculated ‘elite’ are encouraging them to fight for yet more. Our rulers are handing our ancestral homeland to invaders and protecting their welfare over and above that of their own people. 

MPs also want children taught how to have relationships and make “informed decisions” about when to have sex. Propagandising homosexuality is another threat to our demographics.

A world view to unite us 

How do we counter the dominant ideology? The way to develop a new world view is to gather examples from the world around us, of what is really happening as a result of, say, immigration, collate it and form our version of reality. The first thing is to understand human nature and what people are capable of doing to one another. We also need to consider what gives life meaning, and this leads to the idea that nationalism is about our nation and a nation means a group of racially linked people with whom we belong by emotional attachments. I openly admit to being a racialist because I believe in racial differences between people, but do not hate other peoples and do not accept the Marxist pejorative term “racist.” 

Power groups are changing our towns and cities into something different and separating us from our culture and history. We must not endlessly rehearse what has come to pass but what we are going to do. How will people cope in the social disorder the elites are plunging us into.

 We have a responsibility for our kin and a duty to them. We have a duty to pass on what we have inherited to our children, as they, in turn, will have a duty to their children. We owe a debt to our ancestors who bequeathed to us our nation and culture and we must honour that. 

The elites promote a version of progress and see the past as obsolete. But the present grows from the past as the future grows from the present, which is why we have to get things right now, in the beginning of our revival. 

The attitude of those who control public life is to transfer power away from their own people and disinherit their descendants for the benefit of rival communities. We are morally obliged to put our people first, as we do with our families, even when foreigners are more in need of help. Supporting outsiders against our own people is morally wrong. 

We have natural bonds with our families, a responsibility for them and a duty to them as we have a duty to pass on what we have inherited to our children, as they, in turn, will have a duty to their children. This extends to our fellow nationals who share the same ancestral descent. We owe a debt to our ancestors who bequeathed to us our nation and culture, and we must honour that. 

A people need the numinous things in life – religion, art, culture, a wholesome countryside. The numinous is a feeling of, and a need for, the sacred, the holy, and the transcendent; not just the material and the hedonistic. 

Simple people say, “So what? It doesn’t matter if different people take over!” This shows a failure to understand human nature. They think it will be painless, like handing the baton on in a relay race, but examples from history like the Norman Conquest, show the oppression the conquered have to endure; other countries like South Africa and Zimbabwe show what will befall our children if the evil elites are not countered. 

The ideology of multi-racialism was a righteous reaction to the opening of the camps and the watchword was, “It must never happen again.” This has come full circle and now the Jews are being persecuted in France, Sweden and elsewhere by imported Muslims. Everyone must have seen Muslims brandishing placards that read: “God Bless Hitler” and chanting “Jews to the gas!”  They must know that The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is on sale in Muslim shops all over not only England but Europe. I have written elsewhere and repeat it here: if David Cameron and Ed Milliband and the other fantasists succeed in getting Turkey into the EU the number of Muslims will be so large that the EU forces will not be able to protect European Jews from, I dare say it, possible extermination. This has been imported by the elites who are not facing the reality of what they are doing. 

Unlike the rational ideologies that have been manifold since the Enlightenment, our views derive from an emotional and instinctive relationship with our people and our territory. It is more profound than rationalising an ideology to be learnt from a book because it grows from natural, human instinct and emotion. 

To give favourable treatment to aliens over our own people is morally wrong. A nation’s manners, morals, religions, political institutions, and social structures, are inherited from its ancestors and our loyalties begin with affection within families and this emanates outward to neighbourhood and nation. We belong to our kin, above strangers. 

Look at data from the Office of National Statistics (which doesn’t take into account the births to mothers born here), then look at your children and ask yourselves: “Am I betraying my children? Where will they live and work?”

 

Recommended Reading

A conservative classic: The Quest for Community by Robert A.Nisbit 

For the New Left’s takeover of Liberalism: The Politics of the Forked Tongue by Aidan Rankin 

For Ideology: Suicide of the West by James Burnham.

For the conservative interpretation of history: Anything by Keith Feiling

In Defence of the Natural Society by David Hamilton

The way forward not found

Eulogy to the west.

As the end came near for mankind’s greatest civilization, barbarians from all corners of the earth flooded across her borders, wreaking havoc, spreading the corruption and chaos so prevalent in their own homelands. The body nations of the western world shook to their collective cores, birth rates already below replacement levels, culture almost nonexistent, racial strife in many major cities, the core populations knew only the corporate capitalist of live for now, for them their is no future. Years of entitlement spending and unrelenting wars of aggression to spread the demon of materialism to the non-western world had bankrupted the oligarchs of the west, leaving broken, confused nations, without purpose, without a common identity, without loyalty or honor. The convergence of cataclysmic crises created generations past, sealed the western world’s end, the final chapter of a 1600 year struggle was about to begin.

It was during the last years when the financial upheavals brought the western world to it’s knees, populations already under the oppressive weight of massive corporate fascist nanny state and stripped the population of thrift and savings, the resulting collapse of the four pillars of the west, took away any belief of a revival and renewal, leaving only the fear and hatred experienced by many people’s of the past when confronted with reality.

Equality driven principles in which all are created equal created an everlasting distrust, fragmented society, fostered continued balkanization of the nations. Never mind genetic predisposition, hereditary intelligence, and social biology, the priests of universal brotherhood would not be stopped from reaching the lowest common denominator.

“Thus they needed a reason to feel important and justify their increasingly selfishness. A cult of victimhood was born, leading to the lynch mob that demands equality for all, which turns out to be a code-word for tearing down the higher so aimlessness, mediocrity and deviance are tolerated.”

“As these people voted, they drove an ordinarily vapid cluster of democracies into overdrive. These democracies opted to buy out their own citizens, literally offering them social programs in exchange for political allegiance. The result was a surge of expensive programs designed to create the Utopia of liberal ideals, in which all were equal, no national borders existed, and all lifestyle choices were as valid as any others. There was no longer a “right” way or a “wrong” way. Everything was the same.”

“While this state of entropy destroyed people from within, the consequences of their social equality drive began to show. First, many more people went to college and entered the work-force. Second, new rules like affirmative action and anti-discrimination legislation made it close to impossible to fire or refuse to hire certain groups, including women, homosexuals and minorities. Finally, in order to accommodate the rebellion against standards, everything was dumbed down and made simplistic.”

Liberal democracy founded on property owners and civil duty, degenerated into one body one vote, popularity contest, What’s real and what really matters, no one cares, they ignored the mass of parasites, predators, and cries from the productive, tax and spend, became a way of life, not only in government but in the life of the individual, why work hard when the state will punish one for it. Tax loopholes allowed the wealthy to avoid the burden of the middle-class, and in the end the gap between rich and poor grew ever more massive, while those on government payrolls swelled to unprecedented levels. As a result, people are encouraged to cast aside concern for how their actions will affect civilization as a whole, and encouraged to think in terms of short range personal reward. They think the way they think about products on the shelf, in the here and now, of things falling into their hands, when in reality their nations are morally bankrupt, culturally degenerate, their infrastructure incapable of meeting the needs, in disrepair, Social decay now set in, the long collapse all but certain.

Consumerism bleed the west dry, it’s inhabitants moving about like busy little bee’s, spending their life’s earnings on the latest and greatest technical marvel, vacations to no Where, and a luxury car in every garage, trying to keep up with the jones created a society of jealous, ungrateful, unreasonable, unapologetic, unrealistic, delusion childless narcissistic aging children. These very habits destroyed the populace. The people’s only concern in life was money, and every relationship was judged by this Daily fact. The people dehumanized themselves through this process, the family order crumbled, the human element decayed, a herd of sheep the people’s of the west had become, ripe for the slaughter they most definitely were.

The system is so corrupt and beyond repair, that a solution that we can live with cannot be found, the stench of denial is hiding what is at the core of this corrupt society. The foundation of this nation “currently” is equality driven multicultural diversity in the form of population replacement, pro-minority laws, anti-white media, and the resulting ethnic cleansing of white population in totality. We cannot educate the populace away from this direction, we cannot vote our nation off this path, we cannot convince the dark skinned masses that this is self-destructive for everyone involved and will not work. We can only sit back and enjoy the ride, if we are right, which I’m sure we are, then the west has seen the last years of existence, the western economy will slowly and at some points rapidly, go down the tube, cities one by one will go bankrupt, states will run out of money, in the end some cities and states will push for economic and political sovereignty from the dieing parts of their nations. Where are the solutions, there are none, this is the terminal stage of civilization, you are responsible for all that has occurred and all that is to come, you have no one to blame but yourselves.

Many in the United States and Europe are currently so enraged with their elected leaders that they want to throw them out, or jail them, or worse. What they forget is that these are elected leaders. They managed to get into office by convincing people with their words. But we trust these people to make the right decision. Either these words are witchcraft, and should be banned, or the people made a bad decision. It’s amusing to watch the old white males struggle to understand what they see before them, a society which has regulated them to the pages of history, that somehow somewhere along the road to Utopia they were mislead, they are enraged at society because they Know in their hearts, that they did this to themselves, their own weak human selfishness, they thought they were so better than everyone else, and low and behold, their inability to live up to the standards of their ancestors has doomed this civilization. Take a walk in their shoes, everything you once believed is wrong, the natural order consumes all, and the cosmic balance always in every way wins out in the end. Tell them that their father’s, brothers, and uncle’s, died for nothing in the wars of the last 100 years, watch their reaction.

In the end, history books will be written, universities will teach what once was, what came, and what went wrong. This all has meaning, it is merely the end of one path for humanity, we tried to go against God in all his creation, and in his role as our teacher, he will teach us what our ancestors learned through centuries of blood, sweat, and suffering. There exists a cosmic order, one that applies to all things, you, me, the air we breath, and everything in between. The wisdom of the ages is never lost, it must simply be rediscovered the hard way. While those in the future may read this, we wish them to understand that not all of us were like the whole, many of us looked for meaning, tried to find our place in the whole of creation, while we could see the gut wrenching upheavals approaching our voices mattered not. Learn from our mistakes, and forgive our blindness.

“Far right” to rally this weekend in Europa

(CNN) — Far-right groups from across Europe are gathering in Denmark on Saturday for a rally they say is meant to make their governments act against the threat of Islamic extremism.
Those attending want to send a “clear message to the leaders of Europe,” according to the English Defence League (EDL), one of the organizers of the event.

The rally is due to take place in the port city of Aarhus, with speeches from a dozen speakers.

“Our governments and our media behave as if Islamic extremism exists only in the head of a few extremists, and claim that it is unfair to make the connection between Islam and extremism,” an online EDL statement says.

“This is ridiculous, just as it is ridiculous to claim that anyone who criticizes Islam must be an extremist in their own right. We believe in fair criticism of Islam and in the defence of our cultures, our nations, and the rights and freedoms that they have long protected.”

America is Dying! About damn time!

The Power of Genetics Once More Proven in Major Study

http://www.whitecivilrights.com/

Locust: Are You Ready? Everything is going to change, whatever it means to be an American, to be a member of the historical majority, to believe in the false hopes of universal brotherhood and democracy is going to change. Get Ready to defend yourself, rebuild our civilization, and take the battle to the enemy.

 

 

Commentary by Dr. Duke — A new, extensive study of adopted children in Sweden shows that adopted children who have biological parents who abused drugs are twice as likely to abuse drugs as adopted children whose biological parents had no drug problems. Once more the power of genetics is proven even in areas of social behavior. Just a few decades ago most people believed that such behavior was completely the effect of environment alone. For instance many studies have shown that Scottish people and Amerindians have much greater tendency toward alcoholism than say Italians or Frenchmen, no matter where they may live. Genetics is real, ethnic variations are real, and understanding differences helps deal with and lesson societal problems rather than pretending the differences don’t Exist –DD

 

(CBS News) – Adopted children are twice as likely to use drugs if their biological parents used them, according a study of more than 18,000 adopted children in Sweden.

 

But don’t discount a child’s environment in the nature vs. nurture debate just yet: The same study showed that adopted children who lived with families with problems, such as divorce, death or criminal activity, also had a high risk of drug abuse.

 

“For an adoptee, having a biological parent with drug abuse who did not raise you doubles your risk for drug abuse,” said first author Dr. Kenneth Kendler, director of the VCU Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics, said in the press release. “But we also found an important role for environmental factors.”

 

The study was conducted by researchers at Virginia Commonwealth University and Lund University in Sweden, who looked at 18,115 children born and adopted in Sweden between 1950 and 1993, as well as over 78,000 biological family members and over 51,000 adoptive family members.

 

Read More

 

 

Jewish Groups Fight Demographic Shift in Israel But Work for It in America!

 

 

 

Jewish groups support immigration invasion While Demanding America Support Israel as a Jewish State!

 

Commentary by Dr. David Duke

 

It is mixed irony that mixed-race Barack Obama had to grovel before AIPAC and express his concern about the “demographic shift” of Israel when he has relentlessly supported every policy meant to insure a demographic shift for America and Europe. Imagine the ultimate contradiction of the President swearing his allegiance to Israel as a “Jewish State.”

 

Of course the ultimate irony is that the same Jewish-influenced government and media that supports Israel as a “Jewish State” has been working relentlessly to displace the European majorities of America and Europe. A perfect example is shown below.

 

One of the leading Jewish lobbies in Washington is the Hebrew Aid Immigrant Society, formed for the purpose of bringing Jews by the boatload from Europe to the United States. It is a society totally dedicated to the Jewish State of Israel and Jewish interests, but for some reason supports massive immigration into America of people different than the American majority, but has not a word of criticism of Israel preserving their “Jewish State.”

 

So, if they think that preserving Jewish heritage is so vital, why are they trying to destroy European and American heritage. Obviously they must know that it harms nation that becomes ethnically divided. Alien Immigration then becomes something that Zionists oppose for Jews, but support for everyone else. Some European Americans suffer under the illusion that organized Jewish power in America is now an ally in our efforts to stop immigration and preserve the heritage and freedom of our American and European homelands. An article in one of the leading Jewish newspapers in the United States, The Forward, thoroughly crushes that illusion.

 

Aronoff of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society

 

It shows that the organization that “tends to set policy for the Jewish community,” the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS), has been instrumental in supporting the new amnesty for illegal aliens legislation passed by Senate Judiciary Committee and opposing a contrary bill by Sen. Bill Frist. It also shows the great power and influence of the Jewish lobby on this vital issue. Finally, the article reveals how leading Jewish organizations backed the recent illegal alien march in Los Angeles.

 

Of course, none of this is new. As my book, Jewish Supremacism, thoroughly documents, the drive and movement to overturn protective American immigration policies of the last century have been so dominated by Jews that prominent Jewish organizations routinely label it a “Jewish movement.” My book, as well as Dr. Kevin MacDonald’s articles and papers, and numerous articles on http://www.davidduke.com thoroughly document this undisputed fact.

 

It is true that a small smattering of Jews oppose immigration from what they see as a danger to their own political power, and it is true some Jewish organizations are for tighter controls to stop the infiltration of terrorists who are themselves driven in no small part by America’s support for the terrorist and criminal state of Israel. But, the evidence is clear that the overwhelming organized power of Jewry been historically influential in an “open borders” American immigration policy. Such continues today.

 

There is growing understanding that the Iraq War is a war created by Jewish extremist Neocons and their allies in government and media. It is clearly a war waged for Israel’s strategic objectives, and not America’s. This war for Israel has deeply harmed not only the over 20,000 Americans maimed or killed, but American interests across a broad spectrum. Indeed, it is Jewish extremist influence over America’s foreign policy that has led to hatred and terrorism against Americans. But, as the article in The Forward shows, it must not be forgotten that the same Jewish-Israeli Lobby that influences American foreign policy also influences critical American domestic policy.

 

In a starkly revealing article obviously written for their Jewish audience, The Forward shows how the organized Jewish community has been instrumental against the effort to halt the illegal and legal immigration that steadily is destroying the heritage of European Americans in the American nation.

 

By E.J. KESSLER
Forward Friday 31 March 2006
http://www.forward.com/articles/7589

WASHINGTON — As the Senate struggled this week to hammer out legislation on the contentious issue of immigration reform, Jewish groups were in boardrooms and on the streets advocating for the most liberal approaches to the issue.

 

The article goes on to cite Jewish Senator Arlen Specter’s spearheading of the illegal alien amnesty bill recently passed by Senate Judiciary Committee. All the excerpts indicated are from The Forward, March 30, 2006.

 

On Monday, in a surprise move, the Senate Judiciary Committee, led by Senator Arlen Specter [ an Jewish extremist Israeli Partisan] of Pennsylvania, approved by a 12-6 vote amendments that would create a guest worker program and give undocumented immigrants a path toward legalizing their status—moves that are opposed by many conservative Republicans. The committee also rejected provisions of a House bill passed last December that would have made it a felony to enter the country illegally or to aid someone who did so.

 

Hebrew society blasts immigration restrictions

 

Frist’s approach was blasted by the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, the organization that tends to set policy for the Jewish community.

 

HIAS is part of faith-based coalitions supporting the more liberal approaches to immigration reform proposed by the late Senator Edward Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, and Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican.

 

In recent years, some Jewish groups that were concerned about terrorism have come to stress border enforcement. But HIAS and other Jewish groups argue that such concerns can be accommodated within laws that help undocumented immigrants come out of the shadows. Immigration critics and advocates estimate that 10 million to 12 million undocumented migrants are living in the country…

 

It then goes on to show that the most powerful Jewish organization in America, the American Jewish Committee is solidly behind the amnesty bill:

 

Richard Foltin, legislative director and counsel of the American Jewish Committee—a group that often is hawkish on security—said the relatively liberal bill that was passed by the judiciary committee was the right approach. “It strikes the right note in striving for the appropriate balance of enhancing our national security while protecting those who are most vulnerable in our society through earned legalization and increased worker protections,” Foltin said.

 

Powerful Jewish organizations have long seen a multicultural America as one which they can “divide and conquer” and continue to dominate. Former head of National Policy for the American Jewish Committee, Dr. Stephen Steinlight, put it very succinctly in an article he wrote for his fellow Jews in an article he wrote in October of 2001.

 

For perhaps another generation, an optimistic forecast, the Jewish community is thus in a position where it will be able to divide and conquer and enter into selective coalitions that support our agenda.

 

Jewish groups join rallies for illegals

 

As The Forward points out, officials of the leading Jewish organizations supported the rallies for illegal aliens such as the recent illegal alien march in Los Angeles:

 

As HIAS pressed its approach, other Jewish groups were joining the giant rallies in Los Angeles, Chicago and Washington in support of immigration and against the punitive approaches of the House bill. About a half-million people demonstrated in Los Angeles, while the protests in Chicago, Washington and other cities drew tens of thousands.

The PJA’s executive director, Daniel Sokatch, said that Jewish communal groups could do more…Sokatch called immigrants’ rights “a major focus of our organizing,” saying: “We’re arguing that, like economic justice, this is a profoundly Jewish issue. Our soul hinges on this debate. It’s the issue of what kind of country we want to be and who we are as an American people.”

 

It is certainly the height of hypocrisy when Jewish activist groups dedicated to the preservation and interests of the Jewish people, the same Jewish groups that support a racist, apartheid State which has a Jewish-only immigration policy, one based not simply on religion but primarily on Jewish genetics – now work to destroy the overwhelming European heritage of America.

 

Israel, of course, is a segregated society that divides Jews from non-Jews in schools, neighborhoods, even in many whole towns and settlements. The same liberal Jews who are upset because our country is overwhelmingly European-American, support the Israeli state where Jews and non-Jews cannot legally marry!

 

Gideon Aronoff, the head of HIAS, is quoted in The Forward once more confirming the inordinate Jewish political power. Now that’s the same Jewish political power cited by the recent Harvard Kennedy School of Government paper called “The Israeli Lobby and US Foreign Policy.

 

Jewish critics call all the talk of Jewish power in the Harvard paper an “anti-Semitic lie only worthy of David Duke,” but their own publications quote Jews such as Aronoff bragging of “inside group pressure from a broad spectrum of Jewish groups…” Aronoff praises the rallies such as had occurred in Los Angeles, but talks about the real power, the inside Jewish power swaying Republicans to betray America on the immigration issue. Read this and marvel at it:

 

Gideon Aronoff, the new president and CEO of HIAS, said that while “the rallies have been very important and have contributed to highlighting support on this issue, inside group pressure from a broad spectrum of Jewish groups is a significant player in a game where you need to turn only a small number of Republican senators.”

“I don’t know if Republican senators are going to be swayed by big rallies,” Aronoff said, “but a careful analysis by Jewish and faith-based immigrant advocates can make a statement that moral values are involved in the debate.”

 

Let’s talk about those “moral values” for a second and find out who this Aronoff is. The HIAS website says this about their new leader:

 

Teller stated that Aronoff has a keen and insightful knowledge of government relations and refugee issues in Washington, D.C. and brings a strong sense of traditional core Jewish values to drive the timeless mission of HIAS.

Aronoff has been a respected voice of the American Jewish community in Washington, D.C. on refugee and immigration issues and has earned the admiration of those in the immigration advocacy field. He has been an integral force behind a number of key legislative successes with Congress and the White House…

Aronoff earned a JD from Cornell Law School and a BA in History from Brandeis University. He is a member of the board of directors of the National Immigration Forum and has brought to the fore his knowledge of Jewish community institutions, interests and community relations concerns throughout his career…

 

So, there it is. By the HIAS own words, the man setting the Jewish community’s position on immigration into the United States and greatly affecting American immigration policy is man totally dedicated to “Jewish community institutions” and “interests.” And, they say he has been “an integral force behind a number of key legislative successes with Congress and the White House.”

 

There I go again, imaging Jewish power brokers working for what they see as Jewish interests! Mr. Aronoff is obviously one of those “neo-nazi, anti-Semitic” folks who believe that Jews exert powerful influence in the American political structure, in fact, he boasts of their influence! But, Lord help a Gentile who mentions it! I hope my readers notice the “integral” Jewish influence the immigration issue openly spoken about by major Jewish publications. This from a Jewish leader not http://www.davidduke.com. Can you imagine the level of influence they exert over the important issues discussed in the Harvard paper: the control over American foreign policies directly important to nation of Israel!

 

If Mr. Aronoff and the other Jewish extremists are really interested in open immigration and human rights and moral values, why do they support a Jewish state that has terrorized and driven out hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, that doesn’t let those Palestinians return to their own homes, businesses, and farms, and that now steals more of their precious land in the West Bank for Jewish-only settlements? Where is Mr. Aronoff’s rage about the Israeli State’s policies that far more fit the bill of being labelled “neo-nazi” than anything I advocate. Where is the rage of the clearly Jewish influenced mass media?

 

This issue is at the core of what I repeatedly speak about in exposing Jewish extremism. Not all Jews endorse these extremist policies, but radical, supremacist Jews control the most powerful Jewish organizations as well as now influencing the American government and media at large.

 

It is unfortunate that I am among but a very few political figures in the United States that dare to discuss these important issues, but it is understandable when you see that if someone dares to speak out – an unholy torrent of Jewish supremacist power and hate will be turned upon them. Yet, the truth is growing, as shown by the Harvard paper, and an awakening is coming. There is nothing more they can say about me, they have made almost every slander humanly possible against me. But, those of you who can think for yourself who will read my words will see the sense and indeed i say it, the humanity in them!

 

If you are moved by my words you have a responsibility to help the truth to power. Spread this article across the Web. Reprint it on broadsides for your school or work and quietly distribute them. If you feel bold enough, speak out openly about this issue as I do! Support those who stand up for principles you believe in. Your heritage and your freedom is at stake.

 

David Duke, http://www.davidduke.com

 

http://www.forward.com/articles/7589

ICE Agent Shot Dead by Another ICE Agent

 

 

 

by Jeff Davis

 

A Yahoo News article reports: “A U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent is dead after a workplace dispute erupted into gunfire at the agency’s offices in a California federal building, officials said. In the incident at the Glenn M. Anderson Federal Building in Long Beach, Calif., an ICE agent allegedly opened fire on a colleague Thursday evening, leaving that colleague hospitalized in stable condition with multiple gunshot wounds.”

 

“’This situation began with what we can characterize as an incident of workplace violence,’ Steven Martinez, assistant director in charge of the FBI’s Los Angeles office, told reporters late Thursday Pacific Time. However, a third ICE agent evidently intervened by firing at the initial shooter. ‘This resulted in the death of the shooter,’ Martinez said. ‘At this time, we believe this was an isolated incident and the shooter was acting alone.’ The intervening ICE agent was unharmed, officials said.”

 

“The incident occurred at approximately 5:30 p.m. PT inside the ICE offices, according to a written statement by ICE, which added that the victims were with ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations unit.”

 

Bear in mind a couple of things:

 

A large percentage of ICE agents are Latinos so this may be just a case of drunken Mexicans going berserk with government-issue guns. The Democrats want to undermine immigration enforcement in as many ways as possible so they hire Latinos, including -no doubt- Latinos, whose parents were illegal aliens.

 

Secondly, ICE doesn’t really have much to do since Obama ordered by Imperial Edict, an executive order bypassing Congress and the lawmaking process, that ICE stop arresting and deporting illegal aliens, whom the regime views as potential Democrat voters once they get legalized. So it could be the agents were simply bored from having nothing to do and getting on one another’s nerves.

 

In any event, we have an entire government agency which is supposed to be enforcing immigration laws, which is not doing its job, and to add insult to injury, we’re still paying them. Arizona tried to step in and enforce immigration law for the Feds, but Barack Obama had federal employees file a lawsuit to prevent Arizona from enforcing the law. Amazingly, no one in Congress saw fit to impeach Obama over this. Then again, the failure to control the border is a bipartisan betrayal. The Tea Party needs to clean out the phony pro-illegal Republicans before we can expect that party not to betray us on immigration.

 

Israel Media Says What American Media Won’t Dare: Israel Controls America!

 

Commentary By Dr. David DukeHaaretz is one of the leading newspapers in Israel. The Jewish State of Israel allows Jews to have a much freer media than the Jewish dominators of the American media allow. The article pictured to the left tells the naked truth that Israel literally controls the American government and warns that the American people “will get tired of it.” Well, I hope and pray so!

 

One could not even imagine the NY Times or the Washington Post having such an editorial.

 

That fact alone should tell Americans just how controlled we Americans are.

 

We are not even allowed to know that we are controlled!

 

Read the first two paragraphs of the article:

 

An elephant and an ant will meet in Washington on Monday for a critical summit. But wait, who here is the elephant and who the ant? Who is the superpower and who the patronage state?

 

A new chapter is being written in the history of nations. Never before has a small country dictated to a superpower; never before has the chirp of the cricket sounded like a roar; never has the elephant resembled the ant – and vice versa. No Roman province dared tell Julius Caesar what to do, no tribe ever dreamed of forcing Genghis Khan to act in accordance with its own tribal interests. Only Israel does this. On Monday, when Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu meet at the White House, it will be hard to tell which one is the real leader of the world.

 

Read these juicy excerpts:

 

…on the list of the seven wonders of the world than the statue of Christ the Redeemer in Rio de Janeiro, than the Roman Colosseum or the Great Wall of China: Israel’s wondrous power in the face of the United States.

 

…Israel features in the American presidential campaign as no other foreign country does, with the candidates vying for the sobriquet of “biggest Israel-lover” to the point where it often seems to be the main issue. Rich Jews like Sheldon Adelson donate enormous war chests to candidates for the sole purpose of buying their support for Israel, while the president of the United States, who won with a message of change, was forced to fold up, at lightning speed, the flag of planting peace in the Middle East simply because Israel said “No.” If last week a British member of the House of Lords was forced to resign from Parliament after daring to criticize Israel, in the United States she would never have even considered making her views known.

 

…Israel is teaching the world a lesson in international relations: Size doesn’t matter. When it comes to foreign policy Europe toes the U.S. line much more than tiny Israel does. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also taught the world that it’s possible to tell the American president “No,” bluntly and explicitly, and not only remain alive but even to gain in strength. So Obama begged for an extension of the settlement construction freeze – so what? Netanyahu will take care of it: He took the issue off the agenda.

 

When he goes to the White House on Monday he will make a new demand: Either you or we (attack Iran ), putting the leader of the free world in a tight spot. Obama does not want to ensnare his country in another war or in an energy crisis, but when Netanyahu hath demanded, who will not fear?

 

No, you won’t read this article in America’s newspapers at all, much less on the editorial page!

 

You won’t hear this sentiment so straightforwardly pronounced by any of the talking heads on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox News or the BBC!

 

One man who skirted the issue with very careful guarding of very word for the Jewish thought police, Pat Buchanan, was sacked from MSNBC because of very mild references to the fact that America is under the thumb of Israel.

 

I will say the unsayable for an American political figure:

 

America is now run by traitors who put the interests of Israel first, with catastrophic affects for the American people and for the world.

 

Just a few of them include:

 

The Iraq War and a dangerously approaching, insane war against Iran. How many more tens of thousands of Americans must be maimed or killed? How many more trillions of dollars of cost, how much more fostering of hate and terrorism upon all Americans because of these insane wars for Israel?

 

Got to Haaretz and read the entire article, then go to the search engine of http://www.davidduke.com and search for Zionist war. Watch my videos on these subjects, and listen to my daily radio show on the Rense Radio Network.

 

Read, listen learn, think for yourself. Free your mind from Zionist brainwashing.

 

Free yourself, your children, your family and your country from the tribalist invaders who rule over you and lead you to destruction.

 

Why Conservatives Always Lose

Why Conservatives Always Lose

In our modern Western societies, liberals do all the laughing, and conservatives do all the crying. Liberals may find this an extraordinary assertion, given that over the past century their preferred political parties have spent more time out of power than their conservative rivals, and, indeed, no radical Left party has ever held a parliamentary or congressional majority. Yet, this view is only possible if one regards a Labour or a Democratic party as ‘the Left’, and a Conservative or a Republican party as ‘the Right’—that is, if one considers politics to be limited to liberal politics, and regards the negation of liberalism as a negation of politics. The reality is that in modern Western societies, both ‘the Left’ and ‘the Right’ consist of liberals, only they come in two flavours: radical and less radical. And whether one is called liberal or conservative is simply a matter of degree, not of having a fundamentally different worldview. The result has been that the dominant political outlook in the West has drifted ever ‘Leftwards’. It has been only the speed of the drift that has changed from time to time.

This is not to deny the existence of conservatism. Conservatism is real. This is to say that conservatism, even in its most extreme forms, operates against, and is inevitably dragged along by, this Leftward-drifting background. And this is crucial if we are to have a true understanding of modern conservatism and why conservatives are always losing, even when electoral victories create the illusion that conservatives are frequently winning.

It would be wrong, however, to attribute the endless defeat of conservatism entirely to the Leftward drift of the modern political cosmos. That would an abrogation of conservatives’ responsibility for their own defeats. Conservatives are responsible for their own defeats. The causes stem less from liberalism’s dominance, than from the very premise of conservatism. Triumphant liberalism is made possible by conservatism, while triumphant conservatism leads eventually to liberalism. Anyone dreaming of ‘taking back his country’ by supporting the conservative movement, and baffled by its inability to stop the march of liberalism, has yet to understand the nature of his cause. The brutal truth: he is wasting his time.

Defeating liberalism requires acceptance of two fundamental statements.

  • Traditionalism is not conservatism.
  • Liberal defeat implies conservative defeat.

Much of our ongoing conversation about the future of Western society has focused on the deconstruction of liberalism. Not much of it has focused on a deconstruction of conservatism. Most deconstructions of conservatism have come from the Left, and, as we will see, there is good reason for this. It is time conservatism be deconstructed from outside the Left (and therefore also the Right). I say ‘also’ because neither conservatism nor traditionalism I class as ‘the Right’. Neither do I accept that ‘Right wing’ is the opposite of ‘Left wing’; ‘the Right’ is predicated on ‘the Left’, and is therefore not independent of ‘the Left’. Consequently, any use of the terms ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ coming from this camp is and has always been expedient; I expect such terms to disappear from current usage once the political paradigm has fundamentally changed.

Below I describe eight salient traits that define conservatism, explain the long-term pattern of conservative defeats, and show how liberalism and conservatism are complementary and mutually reinforcing partners, rather than contrasting enemies.

Anatomy of Conservatism

Fear

Proponents of the radical Left like to describe the politics of the Right as ‘the politics of fear’. Leftist propaganda may be full of invidious characterisations, false dichotomies, and outright lies, but this is one observation that, when applied to conservatism, is entirely correct. The reason conservatives conserve and are suspicious of youth and innovation is that they fear change. Conservatives prefer order, fixity, stability, and predictable outcomes. One of their favourite refrains is ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’. There is some wisdom in that, and there are, indeed, advantages to this view, since it requires less effort, permits forward planning, and reduces the likelihood of stressful situations. Once a successful business or living formula is found, one can settle quite comfortably into a reassuring routine in a slow world of certainties, which at best allows for gradual and tightly controlled evolution. Change ends the routine, breaks the formula, disrupts plans, and lead to stressful situations that demand effort and speed, cause stress and uncertainty, and may have unpredictable outcomes. Conserving is therefore an avoidance strategy by risk-averse individuals who do not enjoy the challenge of thinking creatively and adapting to new situations. For conservatives change is an evil to be feared.

No answers

We can deduce then that the reason conservatives fear change is that they are not very creative. Creativity, after all, involves breaking the mould, startling associations, unpredictability. Conservatives are disturbed by change because they generally know not how to respond. This is the primary reason why, when change does occur, as it inevitably does, their response tends to be slow and to focus on managing symptoms rather than addressing causes. This is also the primary reason why they either plan well ahead against every imaginable contingency or remain in a state of denial until faced with immediate unavoidable danger. Conservatives are first motivated by fear and then paralysed by it.

Defensive

Unfortunately for conservatives, the world is ever changing, the universe runs in cycles, and anything alive is always subject to unpredictable changes in state. Because they generally have no answers, this puts conservatives always on the defensive. The only time conservatives take aggressive action is when planning against possible disruptions to their placid life. They are the last to show initiative in anything else because being a pioneer is risky, fraught with stress and uncertainties. Thus, conservatism is always a resistance movement, a movement permanently on the back foot, fighting a tide that keeps on coming. The conservatives’ main preoccupation is holding on to their positions, and ensuring that, when retreat becomes inevitable, their new position is as close as possible to their old one. Once settled into a new position, any lull in the tide becomes an opportunity to recover the previous position. However, because lulls do not last long enough and recovering lost positions is difficult, the recovery is at best partial, never wholly successful. Conservatives are consequently always seen as failures and sell-outs, since eventually they are always forced to compromise.

Necrophiles

Their lack of creativity leads conservatives to look for answers in the past. This goes beyond learning the lessons from history. Averse to risk, they mistrust novelty, which makes their present merely a continuation of the past. In this they contrast against both liberals and traditionalists: for the former the present is a delay of the future, for the latter it is a moment between what was and will be. At the same time, conservatives resemble the liberals, and contrast against traditionalists more than they think. One reason is that they confuse tradition with conservation, overlooking that tradition involves cyclical renewal rather than museological restoration. Museological restoration is what conservatives are about. Their domain is the domain of the dead, embalmed or kept alive artificially with systems of life support. Another reason is that both liberals and conservatives are obsessed with the past: because they love it much, conservatives complain that things of the past are dying out; because they hate it much, liberals complain that things of the past are not dying out soon enough! One is necrophile, the other a murderer. Both are about death. In contrast, traditionalism is about life, for life is a cycle of birth, growth, maturity, death, and renewal.

Boring

Fear, resistance to change, lack of creativity, and an infatuation with dead things makes conservatives boring. Dead things can be interesting, of course, and in our modern throwaway society, dead things can have the appeal of the exotic, particularly since they belong to a time when the emphasis was on quality rather than quantity. Quality, understood both as high quality and possessing qualities, is linked to rarity or uniqueness, excitement or surprise, and, therefore, creativity or unpredictability. Conservatives, however, conserve because they long for a world of certainties—slow, secure, comfortable, and with predictable outcomes. Granted: such an existence can be pleasant given optimal conditions, and it may indeed be recommended in a variety of situations, but it is not exciting. Excitement involves precisely the conditions and altered states that conservatives fear and seek to avoid. It thus becomes difficult to get excited about anything conservative.

Old

There are good reasons why conservatism is associated with old age. As a person grows old he loses his taste for excitement; his constitution is less robust, he has less energy, he has fewer reserves, he has rigidified in mind and body, and he is less capable of the rapid, flexible responses demanded by intense situations and sudden shocks. It makes sense for a person to become more conservative as he grows old, but this is hardly a process relished by anyone. Once old enough to be taken seriously, the desire is always to remain young and delay the signs of old age. Expressing boredom by saying that something ‘got old’ implies a periodic need for change. Conservatives oppose change, so they get old very fast.

Irrelevant

Preoccupation with the past, resistance to change, and mistrust of novelty eventually makes conservatives irrelevant. This is particularly the case in a world predicated on the desirability of progress and constant innovation. Conservatives end up becoming political antiquarians, rather than effective powerbrokers: they operate not as leaders of men, but as curators in a museum.

Losers

Sooner of later, through their refusal to adapt until they become irrelevant, conservatives are constantly left behind, waving a fist at the world with angry incomprehension. Because eventually survival necessitates periodic surrenders and regroupings at positions further to the Left, conservatives come to be seen as spineless, as people always in retreat, as, in short, losers. The effective function of a conservative in present-day society is to organise surrender, to ensure retreats are orderly, to keep up vain hopes or a restoration, so that there is never risk of a revolutionary uprising.

Liberalism’s Best Ally

With the above in mind, it is hard not to see conservatism as liberalism’s own controlled opposition: it may not be that way, but the effect is certainly the same. Conservatism provides periodic respite after a bout of liberalism, allowing citizens to adapt and grow accustomed to its effects before the next wave of liberalisation. Worse still, conservative causes, because they eventually always become irrelevant, provide a rationale for liberalism, supplying proof for the Left of why it is and should remain the only game in town. Liberals love conservatives.

Conservatism and Tradition

Conservatism does not have to be liberalism’s best ally: conservatism can be the best ally of any anti-establishment movement, since it always comes to represent the boring alternative. Conservatives defend the familiar, but familiarity breeds contempt, so over time people lose respect for what is and grow willing to experience some turbulence—results may be unpredictable and may indeed turn out to be negative, but at least the turbulence makes people feel alive, like there is something they can be actively involved in. In the age of liberalism, conservatism is fundamentally liberal: it does not defend tradition, since liberalism has caused it to be forgotten for the most part, but an earlier version of liberalism. In an age of tradition, conservatism could well be the best ally of a rival tradition, since conservatism always stagnates what is, thus increasing receptivity over time to any kind of change. Thus conservatism sets the conditions for destructive forms of change.

By contrast, tradition is evolution, and so long as it avoids the trap of conservatism (stagnation), those within the tradition remain engaged with it. This is not to say that traditions are immune from self-destructive events and should never be abandoned: hypertely, maladaption, or pathological evolution, for example, can destroy a tradition from within. However, that is outside our scope here.

Confusion of Tradition and Conservation

In the age of liberalism, because it has forgotten tradition, tradition is confused with conservation. Thus some conservatives describe themselves as traditionalists, even though they are just archaic liberals. Some self-described traditionalists may erroneously adopt conservative traits, perhaps out of a confused desire to reject liberalism’s notions of progress. Tradition and conservation are distinct and separate processes. Liberalism may contain its own traditions. Liberalism may also become conservative in its rejection of tradition. Likewise for conservatism, except that it rejects liberalism and does so only ostensibly, not in practice.

End of Liberalism

Ending liberalism requires an end to conservatism. We should never call ourselves conservatives. The distinction between tradition and conservation must always be made, for transcending the present ‘Left’-‘Right’ paradigm of modern democratic politics in the West demands a great sorting of what is traditional from what is conservative, so that the former can be rediscovered, and the latter discarded as part of the liberal apparatus.

In doing so we must be alert to the trap of reaction. Reactionaries are defined by their enemies, and thus become trapped in their enemies’ constructions, false dichotomies, and unspoken assumptions. Rather than rejection, the key word is transcendence. The end of liberalism is achieved through its transcendence, its relegation into irrelevance.

Given the confusion of our times, it must be stressed that tradition is not about returning to an imagined past, or about reviving a practice that was forgotten so that it may be continued exactly as it was when it was abandoned. There may have been a valid reason for abandoning a particular practice, and the institution of a new practice may have been required in order for the tradition successfully to continue. A tradition, once rediscovered, must be carried forward. Continuation is not endless replication.

After Liberalism

The measure of our success in this enterprise will be seen in the language.

We know liberalism has been successful because many of us ended up defining ourselves as a negation of everything that defined liberalism. Many of the words used to describe our political positions are prefixed with ‘anti-‘. This represented an adoption by ‘anti-liberals’ of negative identities manufactured by liberals for purposes of affirming themselves in ways that suited their convenience and flattered their vanity.

Ending liberalism implies, therefore, the development of a terminology that transcends liberalism’s constructions. Only when they begin describing themselves as a negation of what we are will we know we have been successful, for their lack of an affirmative, positive vocabulary will be indicative that their identity has been fully deconstructed and is then socially, morally, and philosophically beyond the pale.

Developing such a vocabulary, however, is a function of our determining once again who we are and what we are about. Without a metaphysics to define the tradition and drive it forward, any attempt at a cultural revolution will fail. A people need a metaphysics if they are to tell their story. If the story of who we are and where we are going cannot be told for lack of a defining metaphysic, any attempt at a cultural revolution will need to rely on former stories, will therefore lapse into conservatism, and thus into tedium and irrelevance.

After Conservatism

One cannot be for Western culture if one is not for the things that define Western culture. A metaphysics, and therefore ‘our story’, is defined through art. Art, in the broadest possible sense, gives expression to values, ideals, and sentiments that a people share and feel in the core of their beings, but which often cannot be articulated in words. Therefore, the battle for Western identity is waged at this level, not in the political field, even if identity is a political matter. Similarly, any attempt to use art for political purposes fails, because politics, being merely the art of the possible, is defined by culture, not the other way around.

In the search for ‘our story’, we must not confuse art with craft. Craftmanship may be defined by tradition, and a tradition may find expression in crafts, making them ‘traditional’, but the two are not synonymous. Similarly, craftsmanship may improve art, but craft is not art anymore than art is craft. Art explores and defines. Craft reproduces and perpetuates. Thus, art is to tradition what craft is to conservatism. This is why contemporary art, being an extreme expression of liberal ideals, is without craftsmanship, and why art with craftsmanship is considered conservative, illustration, or ‘outsider’.

Those concerned with the continuity of the West often treat reading strictly non-fiction and classics as proof of their seriousness and dedication, but ironically it will be when they start reading fiction and making new fiction that they will be at their most serious and dedicated. If tradition implies continuity and not simple replication, then it also implies ongoing creation and not simple preservation.

After Tradition

No tradition has eternal life. Ours will some day end. Liberalism sees its fulfilment as the end of history, but that is their cosmology, not ours. Therefore, liberalism does not—and should never—indicate to us that we have reached the end of the line. The degeneration of the West is tied to the degeneration of liberalism. The West will be renewed when the liberals come crashing down. They will be reduced to an obsolete and irrelevant subculture living off memories and preoccupied with conserving whatever they have left. Once regenerated, the West will continue until its tradition self-destructs or is replaced by another. Whatever tradition replaces ours may be autochthonous, but it could well be the tradition of another race. If that proves so, that will be the end of our race. Thus, so long as our race remains vibrant, able to give birth to new metaphysics when old ones die, we may live on, and be masters of our destiny.

Directly links the decline in America’s power, the dire state of her economy and near collapse of social cohesion on multiculturalism, mass non-European immigration and shrinking of the white majority

Pat Buchanan in Exile

By Richard Spencer

I’ve read rumors of it for a couple of days; it now appears to be quasi-official—Patrick Buchanan is out at MSNBC . . . or at least his future is decidedly “murky” at the network.

Sarah, Maid of Albion, writes:

It appears that the new policy of US Cable News channel MSNBC is to punish, and where possible suppress, free speech.1 Regular conservative contributor, ex adviser to three American presidents and two time presidential election candidate, Pat Buchanan has been permanently suspended and may not be allowed back on air.  MSNBC have taken this action because they do not like what he said in his new book “The Suicide of a Superpower” which analyses and explains the reasons behind the decline of the once great nation of America.

MSNBC President Phil Griffin is quoted as saying : “I don’t think the ideas that Buchanan put forth are appropriate for national dialogue on MSNBC. He won’t be coming back during the book tour.” Asked if Buchanan would be be back at all, Griffin replied “I have not made my decision.”

The Liberal elite in America is outraged that Buchanan’s brilliantly researched book directly links the decline in America’s power, the dire state of her economy and near collapse of social cohesion on multiculturalism, mass non-European immigration and shrinking of the white majority. These are views which are an anathema to those who currently have their jackboots on the throats of the Western media, and views which they will go to any length to prevent being expressed, especially by individuals with the profile of Pat Buchanan.

To paraphrase George Orwell, we have reached a point within our society where to speak the truth is an act of revolution, it is an act which puts you and your livelihood at significant risk, because, if you speak the truth the liars and the tyrants will try to crush you. It is no longer just the little man, or woman, who speaks out of turn on a tram or a football terrace who they seek to destroy, they are now going after the titans.

However, we have seen it all before, in the last century and further east, in cultures which were our current leaders spiritual homes, where the truth became a crime, as it is now becoming throughout the west.

It seems easy and trite to say that the Soviet Union did not die, it just moved west, but in fact, in many of the ways that matter, that is the truth.  It is the same beast, it wears a different mask, but the same snarling jaws lurk behind it.

But before we relegate Pat to the history books, it’s worth remembering that he’s weathered countless attempts to to derail his career for the past 20 years—all of which have failed. These include a press-release-per-month issued from the ADL, as well as William F. Buckley’s more equivocal purge (if that’s the right word) in his “search” for anti-Semitism in the early ’90s.2 Buckley, in one of his many efforts to ingratiate neocons and placate organizations like the ADL, ended up declaring that Pat was not quite an anti-Semite, simply “iconoclastic” . . .  Even this description reveals much about the Conservative Movement’s twin shibboleths of Majority advocacy and Israel, as well as Buckley’s own jealousy. Whatever the case, at the end of the day, Pat was simply too much of a good guy, to much of a friend to Washington insiders, and too much of a serious writer to be purged. So, I wouldn’t bet against Pat overcoming this latest turn of events.

If the Beltway and New York media do succeed in collectively shunning Pat, however, we will have entered a new phase of PC (and Majority dispossession.)

From a cynical standpoint, one might say that Pat wasn’t just tolerated by the mainline media for his experience and political acumen; he was kept on board as one of the last avatars of a traditional, Christian, and European America—if only to capture a particular viewing demographic and give Rachel Maddow something to express righteous liberal outrage over.

The absence of Pat would mean that the mainline media no longer tolerate a single voice that projects traditionalism and Majority nationalism. Not a hint. Nothing. Nada. (In such a case, we’re lucky that Pat’s book and writings remain.)

Thinking about Pat’s significance in the mainstream, I’m left with this thought. In 2001, Pat warned White Americans about demographic displacement and a general cultural decline. In 2011, Pat sounded the same themes; in many ways, Suicide of a Superpower was a sequel or reworking of the earlier volume.

In the decade that separates the two books, NOTHING WAS DONE.

The self-styled “Conservative Movement,” with which Pat identified throughout his early years, engaged in Middle East war-mongering for democracy and other pointless pursuits. No serious pro-White movement arose in response to Buchanan’s dire warnings—or at least none was successful.

A third “Death/Suicide” volume in 2021 probably would be greeted with less outrage than confused contempt. The Brazil-America of the foreseeable future—one with a large-and-growing African and Hispanic underclasses, an egalitarian civic creed, and an increasingly totalitarian state—will, no doubt, exist under dramatically reduced economic circumstances. But there’s no reason to believe that it would be any less self-confident and nationalistic than the country is today. Such a nation would view Pat’s defense of a paleo-America not as “conservative” and “right-wing”—but as heretical and absurd. At some point, Barack Obama and Rihanna will replace Davy Crocket and Vince Lombardi as representatives of the real America.

______

1 — I don’t want to quibble with dear Sarah, but it’s not really an issue of “free speech.” MSNBC is a private entity that can air what it pleases. Certainly, if we were in charge of major media outlets, we’d be “suppressing free speech” left and right—and featuring programming like Jonathan Bowden on Everything, The James Edwards Channel, and our daily soap opera, As the World Eternally Recurs. The issue is political correctness.

2 — Clearly, Buckley wanted to re-orient National Review towards the neocons and their patrons. The magazine did, however, endorse Pat in ’92, no doubt, at the behest of then-editor John O’Sullivan.

Beta Male of the World

America: Beta Male of the World

Know Who You Are Fighting.

America does nice things all the time all around the world, and we are rewarded with contempt, hatred, and hostility.  We are like the “Nice Guy” who gets to be alternately a sucker and an emotional punching bag, while the “Bad Boys” get to do what (and whom) they want.

Today, an Albanian Muslim terrorist was arrested in my neck of the woods. He’s from Kosovo, a criminal neighborhood that the Serbs were cleaning up until NATO decided to align with the Albanian terrorists in 1999 and bombed the hell out of the Serbs.  The false pretenses of the war were soon exposed; indeed, they were many times flimsier than the WMD claims in Iraq.  But it’s all down the memory hole now.
Thanks to American airpower, these Albanian clients run prostitution and drugs through the Balkans with little interference.  Even their criminal leader Hacim Thaci  is in on the act.  Sometimes we get to harvest the fruits of their civilization, as in today’s terrorist bomb scare in Tampa.  One of the worst consequence of Humanitarian Wars is that we often get a flood of refugees, even though these wars themselves are supposed to render fleeing from atrocities obsolete.  We have Somalis, Haitians, Palestinians, Egyptians, Kurds, Iraqis, and every other people from the planet Earth living here on various asylum and refugee visas, often engaged in menial work at best and criminal terorrism at worst. We stupidly think the Muslim newcomers will be greatful for us “helping them” or for being exposed to our wonderful way of life, but let’s look at the record.  We’ve helped them in Afghanistan it the 80s, in the entire Israeli-Palestinian peace process, today in Egypt and Afghanistan, yesterday in Somalia and Kuwait and Kosovo, and it makes no difference.  We are hated.  And sometimes we are killed.  Let’s not forget Mohammad Atta and Khalid Sheikh Mohammad both spent a lot of time in the West.  They hated the place too.  Sami Osmakac’s ingratitude and hostility is not new.

Of course, not all Muslims are terrorists.  Indeed, the vast majority are not.  But Muslims are probably 100X more likely to be terrorists. When they’re not terrorists, they often obfuscate and make excuses for terrorism.  They often are hostile to our country, even if they are nonviolent and do not formally endorse terrorism.  Their marginal contributions to our collective life make their presence in our country a luxury (and more like a liability) that we simply cannot afford.  Indeed, when the US acted tougher–as in bombing Libya to smithereens in 1986–its tough and unapologetic actions have paid much better dividends than our Nice Guy routine today in Iraq and Afghanistan.  And when we acted tougher at home, such as in our rough treatment of Japanese and German agents and supporters in World War II, we found relatively little sabotage and domestic terrorism.

To deal with militant Islam we don’t necessarily need to do any favors for Muslims in Muslim lands.  But whether we shoudl be activist or isolationist, we certainly don’t need to add to the Muslim threat at home by inviting “refugees” and others from the most alien and hostile civilization on earth.  We must live in reality to remain an independent nation, just as we must learn about and master reality to live as self-respecting individual men.