Esau’s Tears: Excerpts of chapter 13

Albert Lindemann is perhaps the only Jewish scholar who, unlike most Jewish pundits, acknowledges the reasons why they’ve been so disliked. No ellipsis added between unquoted paragraphs:

Esau’s Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews (Cambridge University Press, 2009)



Chapter 13: Jews and Revolution (1917-1934)

The horrors of the revolution from 1917 to 1921 were in some areas even more devastating than those of the war; the connections of Jews and socialist revolutionaries were more visible than ever before and the anti-Semitic potential greater. The perception that revolutionaries were predominantly Jewish and that Jews were particularly vicious as revolutionaries spread now from minds like those of Nicholas II—limited, paranoiac, almost pitiful—to those of a different cut, such as Woodrow Wilson and Winston Churchill. It was no longer only scandal sheets like La Libre Parole or the Bessarebetz that identified radical revolution with Jews; now that identification was made by newspapers like the London Times, the Chicago Tribune, or the Christian Science Monitor, all of which enjoyed a reputation for sobriety on Jewish issues and at least relative fairness.

Many of those who had been inclined to a hesitant or inconsistent anti-Semitism before the war, such as Wilhelm II, now embraced more extreme opinions. Wilhelm’s attitude to “the threat of international Jewry” was influenced by reports like those of Walther von Kaiserlingk, the German admiralty’s chief of operations, who had visited Petrograd in the winter of 1917-18: He described the new government as run by Jews in the interest of Jews; it was “insanity in power,” and it presented a moral threat not only to Germany but to the civilized world. Wilhelm agreed that the Russian people had been “turned over to the vengeance of the Jews, who are connected with all the Jews of the world.”

We have seen how, in western countries where Jews experienced less oppression, an active and highly visible minority of them, especially young, secularized Jewish intellectuals in the generation before the war, were powerfully attracted to socialist ideas. Jews such as Hess, Marx, Lassalle, Bernstein, Otto Bauer, Luxemburg, Martov, Trotsky, and León Blum played a major role in formulating, refining, and propagating those ideas. Non-Jews (Engels, Kautsky, Bebel, Plekhanov, Lenin, Guesde, Jaurès) were also important, in many regards more important than Jews, but considering that the Jewish population of Europe was approximately 2 percent of the total, the Jewish participation in socialism, revolutionary and democratic, was remarkably large.

Both Jewish and non-Jewish socialists in the late nineteenth century saw great merit in the idealism and radicalism of a moral elite of Jews. Just as the non-Jew, Friedrich Engels, had praised Jews for their contribution to the socialist movement, so V.I. Lenin, in a speech in Zurich in 1905, observed that “the Jews furnished a particularly high percentage of leaders of the revolutionary movement. It should be noted to the credit of the Jews, they furnish a relatively high percentage of internationalists.” On another occasion Lenin, in lamenting the low moral and intellectual level of his compatriots, remarked to Maxim Gorky that “an intelligent Russia is almost always a Jew or somewhere with Jewish blood in his veins.” León Blum, who after his participation of the Dreyfus Affair went on to become a prominent figure in the French socialist movement, “glorified in the messianic role of the Jews as social revolutionaries.” Although he was one of the most perceptive critics of Bolshevik theory in the debates within his own party in 1919 and 1920 concerning whether it should join the new Communist International, he had earlier written that “the collective impulse” of the Jews “leads them toward revolution; their critical powers… drive them to destroy every idea, every traditional form which does not agree with the facts or cannot be justified by reason.” Revolutionary socialism, he asserted, was a modern form of “the ancient spirit of the Jewish race.”

Most Russian Jews were pulled unwillingly, even uncomprehendingly into the vortex of revolution and ensuing civil war from 1917 to 1921, observers rather than actors. But others, especially many who had felt blocked in their dreams of a career or who had suffered daily under the irrationality and inefficiency of the tsarist regime, were only too understandably moved by a desire for violent revenge. Some of those revolutionaries, especially when driven into the moral anarchy of civil war, proved themselves capable of breath-taking ruthlessness.

Recognizing that there were fewer Jews in the Bolshevik faction than in the Menshevik, or even that Bolshevism was not a typically Jewish ideology, does not mean that the issue of the role of Jews in Bolshevism is settled, for there were still many Jewish Bolsheviks, especially at the very top of the party. And there were even more in the dreaded Cheka, or secret police, where the Jewish revolutionary became visible in a terrifying form.

Any effort to compose a list of the most important Bolsheviks must be unavoidable subjective, but it seems beyond serious debate that in the first twenty years of the Bolshevik Party the top ten to twenty leaders included close to a majority of Jews.

At a notch down in visibility was Yakov Mikhailovich Sverdlov. Described as “very Jewish looking,” he became secretary and main organizer of the Bolshevik Party in 1917. There was at any rate no little symbolism in the fact that a Jew was both the head of the state and the secretary of the ruling party. Percentages of Jews in state positions or in the party do not capture that adequately.

In approximately the same second-level category was Moisei Solomonovich Uritsky, notorious as the chief of the Cheka in Petrograd where Red Terror raged with special brutality. For anti-Semites he became the personification of “Jewish terror against the Russian people.” He was certainly less fanatical than Zinoviev [another Jew], whose pervasive cruelty and vindictiveness toward alleged counterrevolutionaries prompted Uritsky at one point to lodge an official complaint.

A list of prominent non-Jews in the party would begin with Lenin, whose name outweighs the others, although in the first year or so of the revolution, Trotsky’s name rivaled his. Yet his status as a non-Jew and “real Russian” is not as clear as subsequent Soviet propaganda tried to make it. His grandfather on his mother side was Jewish, though a convert to Christianity and married to a woman of German origin. On Lenin’s father side were Kalmyk and Swedish forebears. Lenin the non-Jew, in other words, was Jewish enough to have fallen under the shadow of doubt in Nazi Germany or to have been accepted in the state of Israel.

Lenin was of course considered jewified, if not exactly Jewish, by anti-Semites. As noted, he openly and repeatedly praised the role of the Jews in the revolutionary movement; he was one of the most adamant and consistent in the party in his denunciation of pogroms and anti-Semitism more generally. After the revolution, he backed away from his earlier resistance to Jewish nationalism, accepting that under Soviet rule Jewish nationality might be legitimate. On his death bed, Lenin spoke fondly of the Jewish Menshevik Julius Martov, for whom he had always retained a special personal affection in spite of their fierce ideological differences.

An even more remarkable case was Felix Dzerzhinsky, the head of the Cheka, a “non-Jewish Jew” in a different sense. (The destruction of his statue in front of the KBG building in Moscow in August 1991, after the ill-fated putsch by party conservatives, was widely seen as symbolic of the destruction of a hated past of secret police domination.) In origin a member of the Polish gentry, he had learned Yiddish as a young man in Vienna and had established close friendships with many Jews in the revolutionary circles of the town. He had several romances with Jews and finally married one.

The backgrounds and personal contacts of non-Jews such as Lenin, Kalinin, and Dzerzhinsky help explain how it was that so many observers believed the Bolsheviks were mostly Jews or were in some way under Jewish tutelage. The various refinements of Jewishness—traditional Jew, reform Jew, cultural Jew, half-Jew, non-Jewish Jew, self-hating Jew, Karaite, jewified Gentile—did not have much meaning to most of those who were in a life-and-death struggle with the Bolsheviks and who of course were not used to seeing Jews in any position of authority in Russia; to see them in such numbers spoke for some radical undermining of a previously accepted order. The leaders of the anti-Bolshevik White armies were convinced that they were fighting Jews and other foreigners (Georgians, Armenians, Lithuanians, Poles)—but most importantly Jews—who had somehow seized control of Mother Russia. To most of the Whites the differences between the various revolutionary factions were of little importance; they all appeared alien, foreign in inspiration, jewified, and destructive. Indeed, for many on the right even the liberal Kadets were viewed as westernized and jewified.

Such exaggeration was hardly limited to the White armies. One book published in the West, The Causes of World Unrest, presented a list of fifty members of the Bolshevik government and declared that 95 percent of them were Jews, a common conclusion, as was the notion that the Bolsheviks were murderously destructive.

Destruction of the Jews by the Nazis was from this perspective to be considered a preventive measure, ultimately one of self-defense. As early as 1917, Belloc’s friend and intellectual colleague, C.K. Chesterton, had sternly warned the Jews in Great Britain who were sympathetic to the revolution that “if they continue to incite people against the soldiers and their wives and widows, they will learn for the first time what anti-Semitism really means.”

Anti-Semitism, well entrenched on the right, revived in the rest of the political spectrum, undermining what had been achieved through the patriotic unity of August 1914. The older charges that Jews were unpatriotic or part of the capitalist conspiracy now refocused on the Jew as a social subversive, “taking orders from Moscow.”

A revolutionary unrest spread to central Europe in late 1918 and 1919. The party’s first two leaders, Rosa Luxemburg and, after her murder in January 1919 at the hands of a right-wing paramilitary organization, Paul Levi, were of Jewish origin. Even in France and Italy, with their small and overwhelmingly bourgeois populations, the emerging Communist parties counted a number of Jews in hardship positions. “Foreign Jews, taking orders from Moscow” became an issue.

A Communist coup was attempted in Berlin in January 1919 (the Spartacus Uprising, when Rosa Luxemburg was killed), and in the course of that tumultuous year in Germany pro-Bolshevik revolutionaries took over, however briefly and confusedly, in Munich. In France a general strike was launched in the spring of 1920, and in the autumn of that year there were massive factory occupations in the industrial north of Italy. Perhaps most worrisome to the western powers, the Red Army, headed by Trotsky, launched an offensive against Poland in the summer of 1920 that was touted as the beginning of a triumphant advance of the Red Army into western Europe.

Russian Jews in Revolution: From March to November

One of the first measures taken by the Provisional Government was a decree conferring complete civil equality upon Russia’s Jews. That action was hailed as long overdue by the Russian press; even Novoe Vremia, which, as a semiofficial organ before 1917, had often published anti-Semitic material, applauded the move.

Many of Russia’s Jews were jubilant at the news. In some Jewish homes, Passover was celebrated that year with the reading of the decree instead of the traditional Haggada. Plans were quickly made by Jewish activists for an all-Russian Jewish congress. The excited appeal that went out for it proclaimed that whereas elsewhere Jews had received civil equality, only now in revolutionary Russia were they also going to receive recognition of their separate nationality within another nation. Nothing finally came of this congress, since the Bolshevik Revolution, and then civil war, got in the way.

In Russia, perhaps even more than elsewhere, civil equality for Jews, to say nothing of an official recognition of Jewish nationality, opened up Pandora’s box.

Jews who had faced pervasive discrimination and persecution suddenly found government positions opened to them while closed to the older privileged classes, who were overwhelmingly of Great Russian background.

Still, after 1917, especially after November 1917, there was in Europe a most remarkable change in the status quo: Large numbers of individual Jews assumed, for the first time in modern history, a major role in the government of non-Jewish peoples. Such was the case not only in Russia but in other areas, most notably Hungary and Germany.

The Red Terror—a Jewish terror?

In some areas, for example, the Ukraine, the Cheka leadership was overwhelmingly Jewish. By early 1919 Cheka organizations in Kiev were 75 percent Jewish, in a city where less than a decade earlier Jews had been officially forbidden to reside, except under special dispensation, and constituted about 1 percent of the total population.

The pattern of employing non-Slavic ethnic minorities in the Cheka was duplicated in many other areas of Russia. George Leggett, the most recent and authoritative historian of the Russian secret police, speculates that the use of outsiders may have been a conscious policy, since such “detached elements could be better trusted not to sympathize with the repressed local population.”

It is instructive that the high percentage of Jews in the secret police continued well in the 1930s, when the population of Jews gradually diminished in most other areas of the Soviet and party cadres. The extent to which both Cheka and Gestapo leaders prided themselves in being an elite corps, characterized by unyielding toughness—unmoved by sympathy for their often innocent victims and willing to carry out the most stomach-turning atrocities in the name of an ideal—is striking.

The number of Jews involved in the terror and counterterror of this period is striking. These many Jewish terrorists helped to nurture, even when they killed Jewish Chekists, the belief that Jews, especially once they had broken from the confines of their traditional faith, turned naturally to fanaticism and anarchistic destructiveness.

An even more important institution than the Cheka in defending the revolution was the Red Army, and, again, Jews played a key role in its leadership.

Trotsky fascinated a broad public inside and outside Russia. In Hungary, a Jewish observer who was in fact hostile to the Bolsheviks nonetheless wrote: “The evolutionary flame which has burned beneath the surface of world history is now blazing up for the first time in a Jewish genius: Leo Trotsky!” According to Paul Johnson,

It was Trotsky who personally organized and led the armed uprising which actually overthrew the Provisional Government and placed the Bolsheviks in power. It was Trotsky who created the Red Army, and who ensured the physical survival of the new Communist regime during the Civil War.

Trotsky’s paramount role in the revolution cannot be denied; Johnson’s views even if exaggerated, underline how powerful and durable has been the mystique around Trotsky’s name. He was second to Lenin, but a strong second. There was no Jew in modern times, at least until the creation of the state of Israel, to rival him.

* * *
It has been claimed that the actual proportion of Jews in top party and state positions in the 1930s did not notably drop from the 1920s. However, “visible” Jewish leaders, comparable to Trotsky, Zinoviev, or Uritsky, diminished in numbers and would continue to do so in subsequent years, so that by the mid-twentieth century there were almost no Jews among the highest officials in the Soviet Union.

To state the obvious, Jews were never purged explicitly as Jews in the Soviet Union, and millions survived the worst years of Stalin’s terror.

_______________

Excerpted from a longer entry that eventually will contain most of the book’s chapters.

Homicide or Suicide?

Hunter Wallace, formerly known as “Prozium,” blogs at Occidental Dissent. Before he picked fights with nationalist intellectuals he had written a series of fairly good articles, which I’ll be republishing in this blog. I read the following article, “Homicide or Suicide?,” at The Occidental Quarterly.



In the Occidental Observer, Kevin MacDonald engages Eric P. Kaufmann’s The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America, which is easily the second most important book (aside from The Culture of Critique) about White racial decline in the United States. A shorter review has been posted in VDARE. It doesn’t do justice to the breadth of the subject matter and isn’t worth bothering with.

The thrust of MacDonald’s review is that Kaufmann omits certain facts about the Jewish role in Anglo-American racial decline and glosses over others. Aside from that, MacDonald and Kaufmann are in broad agreement on most points of interest. Kaufmann doesn’t shy away from the fact that Jewish influence was a major cause in the reinterpretation of Americanism along cosmopolitan lines. The major difference from MacDonald’s viewpoint is that Kaufmann (correctly) pays more attention to the indigenous “liberal, cosmopolitan Anglo-Saxon tradition” as a cause of subversion from within.

Having read both books, I came away with the impression that they complemented each other. Each provides certain windows into White racial decline that the other lacks. For example, Kaufmann’s book draws attention to Felix Adler and the Ethical Culture movement, an angle on the Jewish Question and the rise of secular humanism which I don’t recall MacDonald addressing before. Similarly, MacDonald’s account contains a much more in depth treatment of Boasian anthropology and the New York Intellectuals.

It is a sad testament to the decrepit state of American intellectual life that all of two books have been written about the most important subject in American history: the decline of its indigenous White majority. Even taken together, MacDonald and Kaufmann have barely scratched the surface of the subject. In contrast, hundreds (if not thousands) of articles and volumes have been written about the Holocaust and can be easily accessed in any decent college library, an event which didn’t even take place on American soil. This fact alone speaks volumes about ethnic constitution of America’s ruling class and their priorities.

A future scholar will one day have to write a separate book entitled The Fall of the Jim Crow South. There wasn’t a singular Anglo-America or White America that declined on account of Boasian anthropology, Freudian psychoanalysis, the New York Intellectuals, and the Frankfurt School. Until the 1970s, Dixie was another country in its racial policies and cultural attitudes. Neither Kaufmann or MacDonald has adequately addressed this.

The cause of the South’s racial decline is plain enough to discern: the federal government forced the national racial consensus on the region through Smith v. Allwright, Morgan v. Commonwealth of Virginia, Shelly v. Kramer, Sweatt, McLaurin, Gayle, Brown v. Board of Education, the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960, and 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Immigration Act of 1965, Loving v. Virginia, the Civil Rights Act of 1968, and direct military intervention in Arkansas, Mississippi, and Alabama. There was little popular support for integration in the region. In the South, traditional racial attitudes remained strong from the elites to the common man, and were stoked to new heights during the Civil Rights Movement, whereas they collapsed elsewhere. Integration sparked the massive resistance movement, the citizen’s councils, and a revival of the Klan — why not in Chicago, Boston, and New York City?

In the Senate, Southerners led by Richard Russell filibustered and bitterly resisted the new federal civil rights laws, but were frustrated and defeated time and again by a lopsided coalition of Northern Democrats and Republicans. They deserted Lyndon Johnson at the polls for Barry Goldwater and George Wallace. Beyond the 1960s, Southerners defeated the Equal Rights Amendment and voted against Ronald Reagan’s IRCA amnesty of illegal aliens, the Immigration Act of 1990, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991. They also led the opposition to the MLK holiday in Congress and the George W. Bush amnesties.

If the Confederacy had won its independence, there is little reason to believe that cosmopolitanism and anti-racism would have emerged victorious in the American South in the twentieth century. These were not indigenous social movements. Indeed, the only reason that White America held out as long as it did is because the South transformed itself into a one-party state under Jim Crow to defeat integration in Congress. Northern Republicans didn’t stop pushing for civil rights legislation until a Depression overwhelmed the Harrison administration in the 1890’s.

As I have stressed elsewhere, the Cultural Revolution of the 1960’s wasn’t the first time America had flirted with racial egalitarianism. The same laws were proposed and ratified during Reconstruction. They were supported in the North; opposed in the South. The bloodiest war in American history was fought to liberate the negro and impose racial equality on the country. An insurrection was carried on for three decades in the South to reverse the verdict of the Civil War. In the North, it was never reversed, and de jure integration became the order of the day from the 1880’s forward.

If the South was assassinated, the North committed suicide.

From the earliest days of the Revolution, racialism established only a tenuous hold in North. Pennsylvania was saturated in Quaker egalitarianism and repealed its anti-miscegenation law before the Constitution was signed. In the North, Thomas Jefferson’s racial theories were met with fierce opposition by the first abolitionist movement; denial of racial differences were commonplace in anti-slavery circles. Benjamin Franklin thought that negroes were “not deficient in natural understanding.” Alexander Hamilton remarked that “their natural faculties are perhaps probably as good as ours.” Samuel Stanhope Smith, the president of Princeton University, wrote several influential environmentalist tracts; anti-racism only went into eclipse after 1805.

Several Northern states never adopted Southern-style anti-miscegenation laws (Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey) or Jim Crow-style segregation. In New York, an anti-miscegenation law was rejected by the state senate on libertarian grounds. In Massachusetts, the capital of “natural rights” rhetoric, the state anti-miscegenation law was repealed in the 1830’s for similar reasons. National Expansion and Indian Removal were never popular causes in New England and the Jackson administration was widely criticized for both. James Fenimore Cooper lionized the Noble Savage in The Last of the Mohicans (1826). The annexation of Texas was delayed for years by Northern Whig opposition. The Mexican War was deeply unpopular in New England.

In the North, the Amistad case was a cause célèbre, and starred former president John Quincy Adams who was an inveterate foe of the so-called “Slave Power.” In the 1830s, the second abolitionist movement was born and was even more committed to anti-racism and human rights than the first. William Lloyd Garrison and his followers denounced the Constitution as a pact with the Devil and burned it in the streets. Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin went on to become the all time bestseller of the nineteenth century. John Brown was lauded as a martyr after his murderous invasion of Virginia. Frederick Douglass was a respected intellectual. The Northern states passed personal liberty laws that violated the Constitution in order to harbor runaway negro slaves. The Dred Scott decision, which affirmed that only Whites could be U.S. citizens, was widely denounced in the North.

The trajectory of the North could not have been more different from the South. In the Antebellum era, a new generation of Southerners came of age and explicitly rejected the egalitarian heritage of the American Revolution. George Fitzhugh attacked capitalism, democracy, and the pernicious egalitarianism of Thomas Jefferson. Josiah Nott and Louis Agassiz pioneered new theories of racial differences. Sir Walter Scott novels were all the rage; the Middle Ages and aristocratic ideals came roaring back in style. In his famous cornerstone speech, Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens stated that the Confederacy was the first nation in the world to be founded on the principle of racial inequality. The Civil War was fought over these ideals: aristocratic republicanism or egalitarian democracy, slave-based feudalism or free market capitalism, federalism or national consolidation, racialism or anti-racism. The victory of the North in that conflict determined the future disastrous course of America.

During Reconstruction, fanatics like Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner wrote anti-racism into the Constitution in the form of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. Over the next fifty years, as the South retreated into Jim Crow, the North would steadily move towards full blown integration. Fatally, the churning of the Northern capitalist economy would bring wave after wave of European immigrants into the the Midwest and New England, eventually swamping the indigenous Yankee population in most Northern states. After thirty years of struggle, the damage was finally mitigated by the Immigration Act of 1924, but not before millions of indigestible German and Eastern European Jews had settled in the United States.

These Jews quickly established ethnic defense organizations, penetrated Ivy League universities, founded the motion picture industry, bought up newspapers, inserted themselves into the national political debate, and amassed huge fortunes by beating the indigenous Yankees at their own capitalist game. Their “freedom” and “equality” gave them every right to do so. As Kaufmann persuasively argues, Jews found receptive allies in the treacherous Northern Anglo-Protestant cosmopolitan milieu, which was the lineal descendant of the pre-Civil War abolitionist Left. If the Jewish nationwreckers succeeded at propagating Boasian anthropology, Freudianism, multiculturalism, and modernist cosmopolitanism, it was only because they found in the American North a region which by history, tradition, and inclination was already ripe for a fall and receptive to idealistic social engineering crusades. They travelled down the same road to fame and fortune that Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, and Carnegie had blazed before them.

By the 1930s, white racial attitudes in the American North were so fragile that they were shaken to pieces by the wartime propaganda against the Third Reich. In stark contrast, Southerners emerged from the Second World War even more committed to segregation and white supremacy than they had been before. Northern WASPs were so crippled by their own effete liberalism that they allowed Jews to take over institution after institution rather than be impolite and “make a fuss” about their own precipitous dispossession. A revolution was effected without so much as a shot being fired.

In the end, Northern WASPs didn’t put up a fight. Unlike Germans under the Third Reich, they rolled over and died. It wasn’t exactly suicide, but it might as well have been. Like generations of Yankees before them, they were so used to worshiping money and conforming to public opinion that they allowed their culture to be stolen right out from under them once a new elite was thrown up by capitalism. Their tragic unraveling is an understudied subject. It is full of lessons for those of us who don’t want to see history repeat itself.

Hervé Ryssen’s The Jewish Mafia

Excerpted
from a longer article
from Counter-Currents Publishing:

Réfléchir et Agir: You have published a fourth book on Judaism, a volume of 400 pages. Why another? Haven’t you said all there is to say?

Hervé Ryssen: I thought so too! But Judaism is a very closed world, very secret, thus after all these years of study, one still learns new things. This time, I explored the criminal world operating within the international Jewish community, and what one discovers there is, strictly speaking, incredible. The fact is that the Jewish Mafia is the main Mafia that exists today on this planet: racketeering, prostitution, drug trafficking, arms trading, contraband diamond smuggling, traffic in works of art, murder for hire, organized swindles, armed robberies, etc. Pornography, casinos, and discotheques are also largely held by Jewish gangsters.

R&A: You claim that international drug trafficking is mainly in the hands of the Jewish Mafia. Are you quite certain you are not overstating your case?

H. R.: I do not claim that the Jewish mafia controls most of the international illegal drug trade, since there are no statistics on the subject, but it does not appear incredible to me, judging by all information I could gather. The fact is that from the Chinese opium traffic of the nineteenth century to the present day, this mafia has been quite active in this field.

In the traffic of ecstasy, one can say for certain that the Jewish mafia holds a monopoly. Today, ecstasy is the drug that is most harmful to European young people. A pill of ecstasy gives a feeling of strength and well-being for a few hours, but it is above all a veritable chemical garbage bin. Its long-term effects are alarming because irreversible: memory loss; behavioral, sleep, and concentration problems; brain lesions in the children of druggie mother. The premier producer is Holland, but the big traffickers who were arrested ten years ago in France, Belgium, the United States, or Australia, all have Israeli passports. The business of ecstasy is 100% in the hands of Jewish gangsters, not all of whom come from Russia, since there are Sephardic traffickers as well. If you buy a pill of ecstasy, in every instance, you can be certain you are financing the Jewish mafia. Certain big ecstasy traffickers are also deeply involved in the heroin and cocaine trade.

R&A: You go back to the “American” gangsters of the Thirties...

H. R.: Yes, I was also interested in these mythical gangsters who had worked with the Sicilian mafia. The Jewish gangsters were particularly involved in “Murder Incorporated,” a kind of mutual insurance company of assassination thanks to which a local leader could profit from the services of killers coming from another locality and thus avoid blame. Murder Incorporated was a gang made up of mainly Jewish gangsters, who took care of the crime syndicate’s dirty work. It is estimated that from 1933 to 1940 the organization was responsible of more than 700 assassinations, but some speak of 2000. Because firearms are too easily traceable, they preferred to kill their victims with drowning, knives, bats, piano wire, and especially ice picks. All this is also part of the history of the Jewish people.

R&A: Why don’t people talk about this?

H. R.: It is always the famous reflex of “projection” about which I spoke in my two preceding books. Jewish intellectuals always project on others that about which they feel guilty. They say they were victims of Communism, for example, when in fact they were the main instigators. In the same way, Freud projected a problem specific to the Jewish people—rampant incest—on a universal level, and everyone fell into the trap.

In the 1990s, the media spoke about the terrible “Russian Mafia.” But truth to tell, all the “Russian” gangsters who were arrested had Israeli passports. The biggest one, Semion Mogilevitch, a major trafficker of weapons who also prostituted hundreds of Russian and Ukrainian girls in Prague and Budapest, was stopped in Moscow in January 2008. In France, the Courrierinternational was the only newspaper that reported it, but obviously his Jewishness was not mentioned: he was “Russian”!

Likewise, in Hollywood cinema, the drug traffickers, gangsters, “bad guys,” if they are not Sicilian, are very often Nordic white men: never Jews! The cosmopolitan directors undoubtedly have something to do with this sleight of hand.

Toward the White Republic, essay 2

I dedicated the last decades of my life to what may be called intuitive psychology. It’s only since the last year when I became concerned about the possibility of racial extinction. The insights I developed as an intuitive psychologist tell me that Michael O’Meara’s essays are among the profoundest I have encountered in white nationalist literature. The following article, “The Myth of our Rebirth,” is the second essay in his book Toward the White Republic (Counter-Currents Publ., 2010, available here):


My talk this evening is about what might be called “the power of myth.”

I refer here not to the Bill Moyers’ program of the same name, but rather to the politics of white racial preservation and specifically to what preservation entails at the deepest level of the human psyche, at that level of primordial symbolical activity, which is the realm of myth and epic poetry.

In approaching this subject, let me start with a few words about The Occidental Quarterly, for that’s where the subject begins.

The Quarterly’s project is not about myth per se, but about “metapolitics,” which, though it has a mythic dimension, deals mainly with rationally-examined ideas and values.

What is “metapolitics”?

This is a term you won’t find in the dictionary, and when it enters political discourse its meaning is often unclear.

I understand the term “metapolitics” mainly by analogy. Metapolitics is to politics as metaphysics is to physics.

What, then, is the relationship of metaphysics to physics?

According to my dictionary, physics is “the science of matter and energy and of the interaction between the two.”

“Metaphysics,” by contrast, is about that which is beyond physics—that is, it’s about the ultimate reality (assuming there is one) upon which the world of energy and matter rests.

Metaphysics, then, studies that which is the basis for the study of physics (whatever that may be).

Now if metapolitics is to politics as metaphysics is to physics, then metapolitics might be defined as that which addresses all those things that make politics possible.

Like the broad sense of metaphysics, metapolitics refers to a number of possible subjects. For example: It can refer to ideology, to culture, to the prevailing conceptual paradigms, to the social hegemonies shaping the political field and framing the way we approach them. It can even refer to the irrational and subliminal forces affecting public behavior.

I can’t give you a precise definition of “metapolitics” (I think none exists), but I can explain something of what metapolitics means to The Occidental Quarterly.

The Quarterly’s subtitle is: “Western Perspectives on Man, Culture, and Politics.”

“Western Perspectives” here means “white” or “European-American” perspectives on man, culture, and politics.

Accordingly, the Quarterly’s metapolitical project examines and entertains ideas of man, culture, and politics from the perspective of what they mean for white men—and by implication what they mean in terms of their fitness, suitability, and adaptability to the politics of white racial preservation.

This metapolitical project is important not simply because ideas, as our conservatives tell us, “have consequences.” But also because we live in an age of inversion, where all the traditional ideas, along with all the traditional values and beliefs, have been subverted and turned against whites.

The Quarterly’s metapolitical project, it follows, is about intellectually arming whites so that, at one level, horizontally, they can collectively resist the inverted forces threatening them as a people—and that, vertically, they can affirm and assert those ideas and values which are distinct to the European-American spirit.

Yet, despite all this and despite the fact that its metapolitical project addresses the most elemental aspects of our existence, the Quarterly’s focus on ideas, and sometimes high ideas, is of interest, alas, to but a few.

The “people” as a mass lack any interest in what they see as the unreal, impractical, and often inaccessible realm of ideas.

Whenever they enter the historical arena under the banner of the great social and nationalist movements, they are, for this reason, moved not by ideas, not even by self-interest, but by something else entirely—which has to do with (let’s call it) the mythic core of metapolitics.

Before getting to this, let me just quickly finish what I started to say about The Occidental Quarterly. The writers, activists, and sponsors who support its metapolitical project are not merely interested in understanding and interpreting the inverted world that seeks the destruction of their kind. They want also to change this world.

The Quarterly’s metapolitical project aims, thus, at putting in motion a movement—in thought, to start—that will lead to the eventual founding of a white ethnostate and, with it, a restoration of the white man’s rightful place in the world—and I don’t mean this in any Hollywood Nazi sense, but rather in terms of a people’s national right to retain the ownership and control of their own lands

If history is any guide, the great transformative movements of the past depended on a variety of subjective and objective factors. Objectively, some sort of crisis of regime has usually been a precondition for setting an oppositional movement in motion; this could entail a crisis of legitimacy or a social or economic breakdown.

Such a crisis will not, however, culminate in a revolutionary transformation unless certain subjective forces—in the form of a revolutionary movement—are prepared to exploit the crisis for the movement’s sake. Generally, this entails that a movement possesses both a cadre (capable of leading the movement) and a mass following (that gives the movement’s leadership the social leverage to carry out a revolutionary transformation of the existing system).

The cadre are the active minorities, the militants and intellectuals, who possess the communication and bargaining skills to articulate and define the movement’s cause, who establish the organizations that represent their cause in the real world, and who lay the groundwork that—ideally—will eventually intersect the mobilized masses, whose leadership they aspire to win.

These active minorities are the movement’s brains and hands, for their cultural and organizational activities prepare the way for the movement’s history-changing role.

The Quarterly’s metapolitical project falls within the domain of such activity, which is why it has an important role to play in this period.

But if every great movement is articulated and organized by its active minorities, who constitute, in effect, a potential counter-elite, challenging the ruling elites, its success in the end depends less on the quality of their ideas or even the viability of their organization than on the masses who identify with their struggle and willingly make the sacrifices necessary to realize its goals.

Indeed, without significant mass support, no revolutionary movement has ever reached its end.

As one German nationalist put it: “The history of the world is made by [active] minorities only if they embody the will and aspirations of the majority.”

Given that the heroism and self-sacrifice of the masses have been pivotal to virtually every revolutionary transformation of the modern era—and that these same masses are moved not by ideas or self-interest—how, then, are they to be rallied to the cause of white racial preservation?

One of the great revolutionaries who started us thinking about this question is Georges Sorel, who, not coincidentally, had a major influence on the revolutionary anti-liberal wing of the labor movement, as well as on the revolutionary anti-liberal wing of the nationalist movement (and it’s worth mentioning that the historical synthesis of these two movements—of the revolutionary labor and nationalist movements—in the interwar period [1918–1939] led directly to the emergence of Fascism, National Socialism, and other anti-liberal Third Way tendencies representing the historical high-water mark of revolutionary nationalism).

The motive force behind mass movements, Sorel saw, cannot be explained, as liberals and Marxists do, in terms of rationalist, pragmatic, materialist, or self-interested factors—for the masses making up a social movement do not behave like liberalism’s Economic Man. Sorel, in fact, saw excessive rationalism as both a source and a symptom of contemporary decadence.

The bonds that tie men to reality and compel them to act are rarely based on cold reason or calculation. The human intellect, especially its rationalist mode, is simply part of a larger human consciousness—a consciousness synonymous not just with man’s reasoning mind, but more fundamentally with his life as a social, moral being rooted in families and the tribal affiliations that make his communities resilient. At this level, the consciousness motivating the collective behavior of mass movements is “irrational,” for it is dictated not by self-interest and calculation, but by more elemental passions.

Reason, self-interest, and other such factors may, of course, bring about reform and self-improvement and every modern social system depends on them, but these factors never propel men into battle at the risk of life and limb. They never cause a people to go beyond the bounds of reasonable considerations, to shun their narrow egoism, and take risks that challenge the prevailing state of things.

Something more primordial is always at work whenever the masses enter the historical arena.

For Sorel, a people assumes a historical role only when they are seized by an enthralling myth, whose symbols embody both their conscious and unconscious worldview and accord with their moral and ethical judgments about what’s fair or just. Myth, as such, forms communities of like-minded people and thus a sense of solidarity, just as the heroic sensibility it fosters makes possible the social and moral renewal that’s part of every revolutionary transformation.

“As long as there are no myths accepted by the masses,” Sorel writes, “one may go on talking of revolt indefinitely, without provoking any revolutionary movement.”

In Sorel’s view, myth is that “body of images which, by intuition alone,” is “capable of evoking... the sentiments which correspond to the different manifestations” of a people’s distinct spirit, as this people struggles to assert itself as a specific life form. Myth thus translates a people’s hopes and needs into their own idiom and feeds these hopes and needs back to them in ways that render them plausible and attractive.

Myth, in this Sorelian sense, grows out of not just the struggle itself, but the unmediated life of those who come to believe it.

Born, thus, from a people’s sense of itself, myth creates not just a sense of mission, but the courage to act—as a self-conscious, self-asserting force of life.

In this way, it serves as an assertion of a people’s will, the projection or the imagining of an alternative life that appeals to what is best in the spirit of their kind.

The myth can be about the Second Coming of Christ or about the General Strike of the syndicalists. What’s important is that the myth condenses and amalgamates the beliefs of its believers into a single compelling image to overwhelm every category opposing it.

As an unconscious but compelling force, myth as such justifies a people, it explains why they differ from other people, it affirms them in their right to assert themselves as who they are, it defines them and their friends, just as it distinguishes them from their enemies. One might even follow Schelling in believing that myth is what founds a people as a community of consciousness.

Because it arises from a people’s conviction and experience (some of which go back to Homer), it has nothing to do with Utopian or ideological plans for what should be or can be.

Myth is indeed not a description of things or a rational alternative to the present, but an expression of a determination to act.

To use a religious term (though it is not necessarily about religion), myth has an eschatological role to play, for it refers to the Final Days, to “ultimate and last things,” to that coming catastrophic collision between the forces of good and evil. This makes it a matter of faith—the faith of those who believe that no matter how grim or disappointing the present may be, their cause and their kind are bound to triumph once the moment of decision strikes—because their cause and their kind await a higher destiny than the negative one their enemies would have them follow.

This faith is what imbues the myth’s believers with the willingness to make great sacrifices, even to die, for their beliefs—these same people who would normally never go out of their way for an idea, a political project, or a theory.

Those in the grip of a great myth—Irish nationalists in communion with Pearse’s Blood Sacrifice, 16th-century Calvinists convinced of their Predestination—such peoples, through the force that myth exerts on their character, acquire the power to make history.

But lacking such a captivating myth, there can be no history-changing movement.

In this context, The Occidental Quarterly may play a role in educating active minorities in the tradition they inherit, which is crucial to any future organization or tendency representing the white nationalist movement, but without a myth that grips the white masses and instills in them a sense of historical meaning, there will be no National Revolution.

At this point, the question inevitably arises: What myth could possibly capture the imagination of the white masses and instill in them the enthusiasm for a white homeland?

Unfortunately, there’s no way to know. A myth cannot be rationally constructed and imposed on a people.

It cannot even become self-conscious, for once it is seen as a myth it ceases to work.

By nature, a myth grows out of a people’s life, speaks to the sense they have of themselves, and becomes their movement’s rationale.

But after saying this, I nevertheless think it’s safe to claim that the white nationalist myth will have little to do with IQ scores, black crime rates, Jewish malfeasance, or the superiority of European culture (though it will likely have much to do with the anti-white practices that have come with the colored invasion of the white homelands). To the degree any of these issues have the capacity to move the white masses, I suspect it will be in conjunction with whatever myth ends up capturing their imagination. For however important, these things in themselves are not the stuff of myth.

No one can predict, then, what the founding myth of a white nationalist movement will be.

But speaking personally, I know that I myself am already in the grips of a powerful myth—the myth of what I call the White Republic.

Other possible myths probably exist or will come to exist.

But for me it’s the White Republic that evokes the total captivating image of what we are about as a movement.

I recently wrote: “The prospect of an independent white homeland in North America, free of the Jew-ridden US government, with its colored multitudes and parasitic institutions: This one image says everything, explains everything, promises everything.”

Why? Because the myth of a White Republic means secession from the United States. As such, it implies an all-white national community, which, in turn, would mean a total rejection of the existing blood-sucking system of cultural-racial chaos that shames us and causes us to hate the world in which we have to live.

At the same time, the myth of a White Republic implies an end to miscegenation, to affirmative action, to the rising tide of color. But above all, the image of the White Republic implies a regeneration of our people, reborn from principles of self-assertion, self-interest, self-determination, and sovereignty.

I believe all these implications, which the image of a White Republic awakens in us, are the stuff of myth, for, in my mind at least, its image says everything, explains everything, promises everything.

The Occidental Quarterly will, of course, continue to validate the demonstrated truths that inspire the white nationalist project, the truths whose criterion is life, not bloodless reason. But what we white nationalists await most impatiently is the moment when our people begin to take inspiration from their own myths.

For if the white man should ever believe in his myths, in his self, again, then, at that point, all the diseased and contemptible human offshoots of late 20th-century American degradation, whose culminating abomination is the existing System, will at last be forced, as the wheel of history turns, to flee the wrath of the reborn people.

It’s images of this sort, I believe, that will shape the white nationalist myth.

____________________

The text of a talk delivered on June 19, 2009 at a TOQ Editor’s Dinner in San Francisco.

TOQ Online, June 20, 2009
Counter-Currents Publ., September 21, 2010

Exactly one year ago…

…I revaluated my values on the Jewish Question (also known as the Jewish Problem). Previously I was kept in the dark not only by the mainstream media, but by the academia, the regular bookstores and even in casual conversations with friends and acquaintances. In the totalitarian world in which we inhabit very few, if any, seemed to have the slightest clue about the Jewish Problem.

Tanstaafl, who blogs at Age of Treason, is one of the bloggers who helped me to make the scales fall from my eyes. A few days ago he wrote about my February 2010 transformation:

The letter writer, using the pen name Takuan Seiyo, admits that Jews played a prominent role not only in our disastrous immigration policy but also in our disastrous civil rights legislation and “the dysfunctional minoritarian tyranny that has resulted from it.” Funny then that he would attack Kevin MacDonald as an anti-Semite when they’re making similar arguments.

“Takuan Seiyo” is the misleading pen-name of a pro-Western poseur who claims to be half-Slav and half-jew. When push comes to shove Seiyo cares more for jews than he does for Whites.

If you’re curious why Seiyo attacked MacDonald, consult the exchange at Chechar’s A lightning in the middle of the night! The exchange continued with Chechar’s Tanstaafl on Auster and culminated with Tanstaafl et al on Takuan Seiyo.

At the time of his Lightning post Chechar was just becoming conscious of jewish influence. He had previously developed a rapport with Takuan and others at Gates of Vienna, a “counter-jihad” blog whose comentariat is dominated by jews, crypto-jews, and deracinated, jew-blind, pro-Israel “whites”. Takuan and others didn’t like Chechar’s change, and in the process of making their disapproval clear they laid bare the jew-first premises behind most if not all of the “counter-jihad” movement.

Pro-Western jews like Seiyo, or like pro-”white” Eugene Girin (whom Seiyo links in the quoted comment to Sailer), or like pro-Western/pro-“white” Lawrence Auster, are dissembling and dissimulating. They want Whites to stand up strong, but only in order to better defend jews. They detest Whites like MacDonald for educating and motivating us to stand up strong in opposition to jewish aggression against us.

(Links in the original post.)

Feminized western males

Earlier this day I wrote in a previous post: “I confess I’ve just re-watched Pride and Prejudice for the Nth time. There’s no question about it. Mores must be forcefully reverted back to the Austen world, where women were kept in their place. Only the feminized western males cannot get it. Women belong to us; not to themselves. They’re Nature’s most precious gift.”

This is a brief exchange between a typical liberal, the atheist Richard Dawkins (doctored photo, above) and a religious conservative, a smart Palestinian Muslim:

Muslim: Fix your women.

Dawkins. Fix your women! That’s not my business; that’s my women’s business.

Muslim: No, no! It is your business. When you take your women and dress them like whores in…

Dawkins: I don’t dress women! They dress themselves!

Muslim: I know but you allow it as a norm to let women on the street dressed like this. What’s wrong on with your society? What’s wrong with the…?

Dawkins could not tolerate more cognitive dissonance and in his video he simply faded out the audio of what the Muslim was trying to tell him.

Fortunately, in an Islamized Europe the Muslims will teach the feminized male how to grow their gonads again…

Hate movement or survival movement?

The axial year of the 20th century was not 1989. In fact, there were two axial years: 1919 and 1945.

After 1919 most European nationalisms were discredited. And after 1945 all ethnic self-esteem among the white people has been considered anathema in the West.

Occidentals tried thus to revaluate all traditional European values after the First and Second World Wars. White Nationalism can be understood as a reaction against a suicidal reaction. The “white” element in WN is a reaction against the westerners’ reaction to do everything in reverse from Hitler’s Germany (even if with that reversal the train headed by Europeans speeds up right into the precipice). And the “nationalist” element in WN is a reaction against the westerners’ reaction to do everything in reverse from the European nationalisms (even if with such reversal we are welcoming, into our lands, those Muslims who this very day are enmeshed in civil wars at the Middle East).

Just how far have the forces that reacted against the World Wars gone? In the blogosphere I found an hilarious thought-experiment by Sam Dickson:

Our race is longing, our American people is longing, for a home of their own. Is it extreme for us to ask for a homeland for our own people? Is this a hateful proposal, as those who desire our genocide tell us? We need to understand that as far as the establishment that misrules our people all over the world is concerned, the only acceptable position on the future of the white people is genocide.

To those who think this is a nutty comment, I would suggest that you attend the next town hall meeting of your local Congressman or Senator. He need not be a liberal, not some crazed Methodist on Marx or a Marxist on meth, like Hillary Clinton. He could be a white Christian Southern conservative Republican Congressman. During the question and answer period, go to the microphone and say: “Congressman, I am concerned about the tide of non-white immigration, and the low white birthrate in this country and around the world. I’m concerned that our race will become extinct.”

And just see the reaction of that Christian, Southern, conservative member of the establishment. See how you will be shouted down by his followers. See how the guard will be instructed to come and take you out of the room, because you have committed an act of hate by suggesting that your race should be anything other than exterminated.

It is considered per se immoral to advocate the survival of our race. We need to think about that when weighing the claims of our enemies to be the voices of love and tolerance.

That the enemies of our people have managed to sell white nationalism as a “hate movement” speaks volumes about the inversion of reality the westerners suffer in modern day.

Why I write

I am not an intellectual. I am a warrior. If I am typing these words instead of firing a gun it’s because today there is not a single sane state left in the Western world. Nobel laureate Octavio Paz, the poet who lived in my neighborhood when he died, once stated that he preferred to be Homer than Alexander. I was fascinated by his words since it’s all too obvious for me that the sword is more powerful than the pen.

Revolution is a state of mind. So I’ll talk as if other people are tuned with my need for immediate action.

There’s a new literary genre that William Pierce started. Harold Covington has published a saga in four novels that tell the story of the creation of an ethno-state. In this futuristic state there’s something that I have previously fantasized in the solitude of my room. They managed to turn the clock back to Victorian fashions (as we have seen in the fashions of, say, Harry Potter’s godfather, Sirius Black, in the films). But what I really love about Covington is that he abhors exactly what I abhor: that there’s almost no face-to-face community in the white nationalist movement. “No revolution will be made by people who are not within driving distance of one another.” Simply joining an organization by mailing a check or merely working in the cyber world, instead of getting one’s hands dirty, won’t do it.

What is exasperating for me is that, while the political dissident of the former Soviet bloc could only escape from his nation to enter the free world, today there’s no place to go. That’s why we write. Blogging is the industry for all those who want serious action in a soft-totalitarian system that wouldn’t allow even a lone voice to express himself in the mainstream media.

Really, I don’t have the temper for much more blogging even though I’ll likely remain stuck in the trenches for a decade or two before civil wars start in the West as they already started in the Middle East.

* * *
The following is an exchange at The Occidental Observer earlier today. The first one is my reply to a commenter who, like me, uses a penname in the blogosphere:

Anglo Saxon:

I agree with much of what you say about Amurrica. Have you read O’Meara’s Toward the White Republic? On page 94 he says: “Our people will survive only if white men learn again, in struggle, to stand […] free from everything associated with the monstrous Leviathan that the United States has become.”

I confess I’ve just re-watched Pride and Prejudice for the Nth time. There’s no question about it. Mores must be forcefully reverted back to the Austen world, where women were kept in their place. As I said above, only the feminized western “males” cannot get it. Women belong to us; not to themselves. They’re Nature’s most precious gift.

And yes: like you I would prefer Europe to lead the West. But first Britain must be punished for Winston Churchill’s astronomical blunder. Perhaps only after she becomes visually like the deracinated UK in the film Children of Men will Britons revive?

As to secession at the other side of the Atlantic, again you are absolutely right. I favor the Northwest idea. But some intuition I’ve never fully understood tells me that revolution in Europe won’t be as nasty as it will be in the Amurrican Leviathan ruled by die Juden. This continent will turn hellish after showtime starts.

I wish I could join the battle on European soil. Unfortunately, with the exception of Covington (in America) I don’t see any other lone voice seriously calling for arms in the Western world. Feel free to contact me thru my blog’s email if you know otherwise.


* * *
Dear Chechar:


I and others like me want Churchill’s statue in Parliament Square, one that I have myself stood before, long before I knew of his true history... taken down and smashed. I want all Churchillian symbolism destroyed and a national apology issued to the German People.

Everytime I meet or communicate with a German national I feel an urge to issue a pathetic apology for belonging to such a foolish and easily deceived people. I think, when I die I shall request to have my ashes spread somewhere in Germany. Sounds dramatic, but I am seriously thinking about it. The only issue is overcoming the practicalities of how it could be done.

Meanwhile, thank you for your kind invite to contact you, Chechar. Right now, I am busy working on a manuscript. Sometimes I get annoyed with myself for spending so much time commenting online. I hope and expect to have more free time to exchange on a personal level, later in this year. Stay well. May the air you breath fill you with strength and vitality!

“Modern day Left and Right are the exact same”

Excerpted from a longer, 14-17 February exchange from The Political Cesspool (TPC), “Jamie Kelso gets run out of CPAC”. James Edwards, who hosts the TPC, wrote:

You’re in favor of two men being allowed to get married? CPAC thinks you’re just swell, and will even let you be an official sponsor of the event. But don’t you dare suggest that it’s best if white people marry other whites, or that white people have interests just like blacks and Hispanics do, or you’ll be treated like a pariah.

Notice the Ron Paul supporters who grow increasingly hostile because Jamie is wearing a Campaign for Liberty button. At the end several of them physically confront him and make it clear that if he doesn’t remove the button, they will. At which point Jamie decided it would be best to leave.

Jamie gets an A for effort, but this video makes it clear that the “let’s just infiltrate the GOP and conservative organizations” approach isn’t viable. These days, “conservatives” are even more anti-White than liberals are. And more and more of them actually believe the nonsense they spout about Equality and there’s only one race, the human race, blah blah blah. So I don’t think we’ll be “taking over” the Republican party in this lifetime.

Still don’t think the CPAC attendees embarrassed themselves enough? Read the stories below.



Selected responses to “Jamie Kelso gets run out of CPAC”:

JB says: Look at all the young whites here who are completely eaten up with guilt and self-hate. How embarrassing! God help us if these dweebs represent the modern-day “conservative” movement. They’re about as conservative as Tim Wise.

Jim says: LOL. That valley girl accent is hilarious! You can tell that chick spends a great deal of time wrapped up in serious thought.

Kievsky says: JB, My thoughts exactly. What’s the difference between them and Tim Wise? None. These are establishment types who plan to make comfy careers out of politics. They don’t represent the conservatism of the man on the street.

Had enough yet? says: White people don’t need enemies when our own people have learned through self-hate, white guilt and false history being taught to them by the media establishment blessed by the “Gods” in Government. The enemy is within. And until that is corrected we are all doomed to a slow painful extinction and not just within America either.

Jerry says: These are privileged whites who have never lived in mixed communities opining about how great diversity is. I once had a conversation with a fellow who claimed that he “loved” diversity. When I pointed out to him that he lived in a town that was 98% white and upper-middle class, he claimed that he and his wife had “always wanted” to move to a more diverse area, but the “schools” prevented this. Yeah, right.

Vic says: Just reconfirms my opinion that it’s too late in the game for this. It’s like trying to patchwork a ship with its bow completely submerged and stern straight up towards the sky. Do whatever you can to save yourselves and stay out of the way of these fools and their folly. They won’t learn until it’s too late… just like the Rhodesians and South Africans.

Joe says: Watching this video is the equivalent of having your teeth pulled out. Unfortunately, it’s not these kids who get bussed to gang-ridden schools. It’s not these kids who have to watch their once thriving neighborhoods self-destruct right in front of them. And it’s not these kids who will be future polar-bear victims. Hey CPAC, for your next convention, why don’t you hold it in downtown Detroit? Or even better, why not make it an international affair and host it in South Africa? Seeing these little punks get a taste of their own medicine would be sweet poetic justice.

Jerry says: Couple more points: The facial expressions of the airhead blonde to the left are priceless. It simply drips of self-hatred and self-righteousness. Also, the tall, thin, effeminate fellow is your standard, run-of-the-mill president of his college’s Young Republican Club. These people wouldn’t be caught dead on “Martin Luther King Blvd” at night, and when they get married and live in D.C., they will send their kids to private, mostly white/yellow schools. They are zombies, the walking dead. Thankfully, they will probably have only 0-1 kids. If we can’t convert them, we need to outbreed them.

Shocked says: The Frankfurt School has certainly worked on the young White mind in this country.

Ken says: Wow, that was painful to watch! That should be preserved for future generations because that is a prime example of how completely and totally brainwashed and defeated many whites have become. Just the slightest hint that whites might have something worth preserving and it’s time to burn the heretic at the stake! Unbelievable!

Clint says: Jamie did a great job debating with that hostile crowd. It just shows how dear the sheeple hold onto the “diversity” mantra. I highly doubt they would be so animated on any other topic of conversation. I agree with the other fellow that Jamie’s message would have been better heard had he a few more supporters chiming in. However, he has a very non-threatening style and did great in my opinion; anyone else would have been thrown out much earlier. Could you see the smoke coming out of the pretty brunette’s head, forced to think for a few nano-seconds?
The side-burned guy was playing tough in front of the cameras, dropping r-bombs on everyone. How lame.

Junghans says: These young White “conservative” wimps are pathetic victims of their inculcated intellectual illusions. A Negro racial reality check may eventually make them a little more explicitly aware, we hope. Talk about being their own worst enemies, these White bunnies certainly are…

Greg says: OMG, these people are supposed to be “conservatives”? Yikes, they sound more like liberals, and in fact I can respect the liberals more so because at least they don’t take one thing and call it another.

Louise says: This completely turned my stomach. For we older folks, this is the generation that is going to be taking care of us. That is downright scary.

Jeff says: Ever notice how effeminate young white men are these days? If they are not gay, they are metro-sexual. Or maybe masculine white men are too preoccupied with sports and don’t attend these types of conferences. Let me know what you all think.

Randall says: It’s really hard to believe that our young Americans are that stupid.

johnson says: We are witnessing the largest genocide in the history of the world, the genocide of white people through control of the financial systems, the media, and learning institutions. Time to turn the tide.

Political Optimist says: Okay, after watching that video, I’ve now reconsidered my previous comment [not included in this collection—Chechar]. I still believe we must work within the mainstream. But man, are you sure he wasn’t at a Daily Kos gathering?

Von Riemann says: This is why the right-wing are losers, and always have-been and will be and fail…

I have always been against that Jewish Freemason, Ron Paul, and exposed him from day one since Stormfront was promoting this bastard, and predicted what Ron Paul is doing today against Whites who supported him—was going to happening, and it is. This is only further proof, how Ron Paul acted against Jamie Kelso, why he is our worst enemy.

icr says: The masses follow elites—that’s always been the case and always will be the case. Read Sam Francis and James Burnham. Trying to destroy the hegemony of Cultural Marxism by recruiting typical white American conformists at bars and football games (or even Ron Paul rallies) is strictly the stuff of satire. Before you can get anywhere you need roughly a hundred or so guys like Jared Taylor and James Edwards. Try to remember that 99+% of media, academia, business and government (including the military) is either hostile or cowed into silence.

Jeff says: I actually commend those kids for listening and engaging with Kelso. It was the Campaign for Liberty guys who kept pestering him about being a racist. I thought those people were for freedom.

Yankee born Southerner says: Here’s a perfect example of public education at its finest. We have guilt because of slavery. Let’s review: nobody alive today was a slave. Likewise, nobody alive today was a slave owner. We fought an unjust war supposedly to end slavery. Which is a blatant lie. But the truth wasn’t taught when I attended high school and that’s over 40 years ago. So, it doesn’t matter as much if you’re Republican or Democrat. What matters is you know your own history. And don’t be afraid to take a little heat when somebody tells you to take your button off. Mr. Kelso, thank you for your example!

icr says: “I still believe we must work within the mainstream” [wrote above another commenter]. The USG is currently fanatically devoted to a world-view that can best be described in shorthand as a mix between the Wall St Journal pro-global business and open borders stance, and the ideology one would find in the Office for Multi-Cultural Affairs at a major liberal arts university. This view has hardened into an ideology and has intertwined itself so thoroughly in the popular mind with what it means to be “American” that nothing short of an intense crisis or a complete breakdown will bring about any change. Certainly, electing this or that Republican makes no difference.

Duane says: Is this country completely finished? Did you notice how wimpy and faggy these white males were? Do you really feel bad when reading in the newspaper when this type meets a brutal bloody end at the hands of the savages they are insanely defending? Would any normal White male with any normal attitudes feel any normal protective instincts toward these female psychos? The USA and the West are completely finished…

Von Riemann says: I knew it was just a matter of time before the Republicans exposed themselves, not just against the whites who put them into power from day 1, but against our very unalienable rights/constitution that they toted as their foundation—and show their true Orwellian tyrannical faces. In these peoples minds, the only ones who are Americans and can have a voice are the (PC).

It’s time to build our race into a political machine, and not an economic one like the two Kosher parties. The mainstream parties are not about our preservation, but our genocide and money/getting-rich—which is why they are selling us out bit-by-bit to the one-world-order.

Jamie Kelso, in my opinion wasn’t defeated and ran-off like these Capital-Marxist right-wing thugs claim with glee happened. Rather Jamie Kelso brought forth invaluable information to our struggle and proved the points visually of what we are trying to make to our people about the system.

Edgardus de la Vega says: Yes indeed folks: undoing their deracinated mindsets will be quite a challenge for us. Nevertheless, our communication on the issue of white preservation will make gains as our race continues to shrink. The apparent evidence of our gradual demise will itself do much of the talking.

Adam FreeMan says: These sheltered brain-washed children need our patience and understanding even though we all want to take them to the woodshed and beat the crap out of them. They have been taught that if they want to succeed and get ahead, they must walk the multicultural line. Many of them have eaten the poisoned apple and really believe what they are saying. We must be ready when reality opens their eyes (muggings, rapes, no jobs for whites) to get them to see that we are their friends. So teach them what they are ready to learn when they are ready to learn it and don’t get personal.

Dedalus says: Great comments. In fact, they are the perfect tonic to this depressing video. At the very beginning, when that blonde guy sitting down asked “What if she wanted to reproduce with a Black guy…”

Blockheads with just enough brains to know how to make money and that’s enough for them.

Von Riemann says: Anyone who continues with the failed right-wing supports these people and what they stand-for against us and our country, and supports/agrees-with our white-genocide and as corrupt as they are... You are not going to infiltrate the Republican party—Jamie Kelso just tried respectfully and legally and look what they did to him the first minute he didn’t tote the party lines and defended his people and told the truth about what is going on.

John St.C. says: First off, we need to recognize the exact nature of that whole CPAC/Human Events/neocon/YAF/Buckleyite crowd. As was pointed out, these are nothing but yuppies whose “conservatism” centers solely around their worries over daddy’s money. Secondly, their embarrassing ignorance concerning all matters racial defines their overall mentality. After all, if you don’t care about the survival of your own race, who gives the tiniest particle of a damn about tax programs?

2ndAmdMan says: This just goes to prove how hard (if not impossible) it is to have a conversation with liberal minded people. Those rich snobby (never worked a day in their lives) “conservative brats” really seem to just be “liberals” at heart. If they have any muscle—they bought it at a gym. If they have any brains—they got it from their ancestors who they are now “throwing under the bus”. They more afraid of being called a “racist” than they are of the “boogie man”.

Denise says: Jamie did a really good job—but he did not answer the most glaring error: the Ottoman Empire [actually] created nothing.

wn girl says: Good job, Jamie! It is sad to see young whites who are so ignorant about their issues and history, but Jamie did a great job with the conversation.

JB says: Did y’all notice the older guy who made the silly “Harry Truman was a Klansman” comment?

Bruce in Vancouver says: That was very bad. Some of the comments from these people are incredible. Did you hear that guy saying that the blacks arrived here the same time Whites did and then they went about building the country with their bare hands? LOL. What an idiot. Where do they get this from? I already knew we’re in trouble, but that was just depressing to hear.

Larry says: Trying to “infiltrate” the GOP in hopes of using it to advance the causes of white people is ridiculous [Larry responds to an Occidental Dissent fan]. It’s time to abandon all notions of conventional “right” and “left.” They are essentially the same ideology wrapped in a different package. Both want universal democracy, both support multiculturalism, both believe it is wrong for the government to step in and promote traditional values, both are completely worthless. The interests of our people rise above all else. Everything else pales in comparison.

The way I see it, we are so far gone as a nation that only outright white nationalism/traditionalism can save us. Therefore, any attempt at infiltrating a decaying political party in order to get it to be slightly less degenerate is insufficient and a waste of time.

Go ahead and keep reading the nonsense at Occidental Dissent and donating your hard-earned money to libertarian organizations and GOP candidates, you might as well be pissing it down a toilet. Here is my New Year’s resolution in regards to politics: If a group or cause or candidate is not 100% pro-white, I will not donate my time or money to it. A candidate who agrees with us on most issues but who states publicly that he abhors “racism” does more harm to our cause than good.

Vick says: Kelso did an excellent job, and even though those kids all appeared to reject his message, they were listening, and they were probably hearing what he had to say for the first time. As they get older they will remember their encounter with him and start to see the truth of what he’s saying. I do have to criticize Kelso for not having a good answer to the tall kid who kept saying that “America was also built by blacks and hispanics” and so on. (And by the way, it’s far too easy to criticize someone for how they do in live, personal debates like this—doing well in these situations is a talent, really.)

My response to the tall kid would have been to point out that up until recently (1964), this country was over 80% white. Yes, blacks and hispanics etc. can lay a certain claim to having built America, but the truth is that this country historically was predominantly a white country, and the white majority, such as it still exists, still has the right to democratically determine its future in a racially conscious way, if they so desire.

Tom says: Ron Paul owes Kelso an apology. It was Paul’s man who had Kelso thrown out.

Horace Blossom says: If there is anyone so deluded as to think that the Republican types have a genuine interest in defending and advancing Western Civilization and the racial group responsible for it, this video should disabuse him of that piece of brain-sick lunacy. Perhaps most alarmingly revealed in this video is that these “right-thinking” young people have only thread-bare, outworn arguments to support their lunatic, self-annihilating vagaries. It apparently has never occurred to them that their empty slogans and vapid catch-phrases need examining. Usually, I find myself lamenting that my life has extended into its seventh decade, but this exhibition at least enables me to feel some gratitude that I made it without having been infected with such lunacy as theirs.

Larry says: [Responding to an Occidental Observer fan whose post I omitted in this collection]: Modern day “left” and “right” are the exact same. They have the same end goal in mind. Both envision an America with universal democracy, “equality,” no racial identity, etc. They only disagree on how to get there and whether that America will be ruled by bureaucrats or corporations. A new law that will serve as a minor headache to illegals here and a symbolic ban against Affirmative Action there are not anywhere close to what it will take to restore this nation.

If all immigration—legal and illegal—were to end tomorrow, this would only delay America’s descent into a third-world, majority non-white nation. You will never, not in a million years, see the GOP advocate what is needed to turn back the tide. If you want to pursue conventional party politics, go for it. I admire your efforts. I just think it is a hopeless waste of time and think our efforts are best directed at building up explicitly white nationalist organizations.

The real path to power is to put together networks that can step in to fill the void that will be left when the current system inevitably collapses.

By the way, defeating amnesty is another non-issue. Amnesty will have virtually no long-term demographic impact. The children of illegals are already citizens regardless of their parents’ immigration status. If anything, amnesty will be a good thing because it will instantly flood the voting booths with millions of Hispanics rather than spreading out the inevitable over the next several decades. It might be the shock that mainstream conservatives need to wake them to the reality that they cannot maintain their way of life if they become a demographic minority.

Charles says: I have enormous respect for Jamie Kelso for going down to CPAC to advance a racial awareness. This is probably the very first time these people have been exposed to ideas like the ones Jamie is espousing.

At best all they have read or heard are vulgar caricatures about Klansmen and neo-Nazis trying to exterminate other races. The fact that these people listened to Jamie so long is the only encouraging thing in this video. Let’s hope as they grow older and these people will grow wiser they will learn to seek political opinions that didn’t come to them from talk radio, their television set, NPR, or any other MSM outlet.

Until the internet came along there were no real dissenting opinions available to most people. That’s changing thanks to blogs and radio shows like this one and the one Jamie Kelso has.

Matt says: Oh my God! These young people! Take a look at them—they all look like punch drunk boxers as they reel off their PC mantras! How tragic! How terribly tragic! Perhaps T. S. Eliot was quite right after all: “This is the way the world ends. This is the way the world ends. This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang but a whimper.”

Eurobeing says: I will admit that he didn’t exactly have them out of his hand. However, if you look at them closing in you will notice that they were actually listening to Jamie. The young fellow who listened to Michael Savage said that he is aware of white fear and suppression.

When the big goon jumped in and took Jamie’s badges he was doing what he was told. Which tells me that someone is paying a lot of money to keep a lid on all of the truth tellers.

I bet a lot of these people went home and really thought about what Kelso said. My guess his comments have their own half life and will exist in the minds of these young dweebs for quite some time.

Also Kelso was just beginning to address the issue of white guilt for slavery when he was so rudely interrupted. If he would have had a few more minutes I think he would have made some real progress. He may have already.

more of same says: I sent money a few times to C4L. I’m glad I stopped. The mailers I get from them will go right into the recycling bin after this. I’ll send my money to TPC instead.

Joanne Dee says: The first message is: Jamie is a brave and honorable man. The second message is: liberty, with this crowd, is as much about free speech as Stalin’s Russia. The third message is: trying to persuade this group that white self-interests should be paramount is an unwinnable battle. They truly never experienced the real White America and they believe everything they’ve been told. My final thought is: wow, these kids are brainwashed! The only thing positive I found is: they will realize, one day too late, what Jamie was saying. As for the comment about Michael Savage, he sure is right. White men (especially the younger ones) are totally emasculated.

Steve Elkin says: These kids need to spend some time in the “Homeboys turf”, at night and see how they feel then!

mike says: O my gosh, James, these brainwashed youths make conservatives look bad, i.e. “we all came from Africa”. These are your typical republican brats, they truly don’t respect the paleo-cons. Like Buchanan, Edwards, Duke, and the rest.

Joanne Dee says: The more I watch this clip, the more entertaining it becomes. I went from nausea to hysterics in the blink of an eye. My favorite line by Jamie responding to one of these idiots: “We went from free speech to free land.” Priceless. They don’t have a clue about primal “blood and soil.” Not one iota. They truly are clueless. Attention Wal-Mart shoppers: this man does not represent the Campaign for Liberty.

Good. And the Campaign for Liberty does not represent me nor liberty! Fake conservatives and fake libertarians.

Anonymous says: Did you catch what the brunette said in response to Jamie discussing how whites are indifferent toward protecting their homelands in comparison to other races? She stated, “That’s why we’re superior to the rest of them.” She is a genuine white supremacist. Why does she want to import people into the country who she believes are “inferior” to her? The answer, of course, is because she is one of those whites who loves to use nonwhites as pawns in a pathetic contest to prove who is the ultimate “antiracist” person alive. This is truly a mental pathology that must be cured. I hope that she and rest of the group will soon come around.

Bryan says: Are we surprised? Considering the twisted history that has been taught to people in the last forty years, really, are we surprised? I felt this way as a twelve year-old child but when I was about fourteen I started getting information from a lot of different sources to correct the history. Today, I don’t believe the nonsense and clearly recognize the threat against White America.

One big difference for me is that I have not watched a lot of TV nor have I done so since I was about thirteen (almost twenty-three years ago, so I miss out on the media indoctrination through music, TV and movies: and that makes a big difference let me assure you). The more your news and ideas about the world are derived from TV and movies the more you seem to fall for this nonsense.

I work in an office in a liberal city for a fortune 500 corporation. All around me daily I hear how important it is for us to celebrate diversity. I know people in the U.S. seem to think that everyone with our “Neanderthal” views are uneducated poor white trash who live in Southern neighborhoods or in Nazi Idaho. However, this is clearly not the case.

That's Not My Name says: Note how these privileged youngsters lack the mental acuity to identify the logical fallacies inherent in their “politically correct” positions. For example, one expresses the view that it does not matter if a person race-mixes.

In reality, a white reproducing with a black will yield, with overwhelming likelihood, offspring with lower IQs than those of children conceived by two whites. Clearly, the future state of humanity does matter, and human success is strongly linked to IQ. Thus, race-mixing and the associated likelihood of a lower IQ citizenry is to be avoided.

anon says: Of course they were outraged, they’ve been lied to their whole lives. These young people are probably either college students or recent grads. Every day of their lives they’ve been subjected to the most sadistic “scientific” brainwashing devised. Of course they’re not going to calmly sit there and nod in passive agreement when a prophet of truth, Jamie Kelso, unexpectedly stands before them and challenges their sacred cows. This video of Kelso just strengthens my admiration of him.

Wild Bill says: Perhaps Mr. Kelso could have opened the conversation like this: How do you people feel about the genocide of the white people in South Africa and the former Rhodesia? Does CPAC have a position on this?

Big Ugly, Wyoming says: We are truly lost—the government indoctrination in schools has had more effect than I had ever imagined.

Joanne Dee says: Courtney, We vote to make a difference. We all value our votes (at least the intelligent ones). But if the vote will never—ever—get the intended consequences, whether it is third party or main party, the vote is wasted. However, if we continue to eat away at the corrupt parties by deflecting our votes to Third Party candidates whom we agree with (are there any)? The main thing which is so elusive to us patriots, yet seldom mentioned, is that we basically have crap to vote for. We need a new government, not just another political party. We’re in a horrible dilemma with no clear way out.

Paul Hausser says: Notice how they never let Jamie finish. As soon he was ready to make the point about stuffing the USA with 1.5 billion Chinese and 300 million Mexicans they all jumped in. These kids sense that what they say is not really true but they can’t allow it to be said to their faces in such a straightforward logical way.

Reality says: Political Optimist writes: “I still believe we must work within the mainstream.” That’s like saying Christians need become porn stars to reach out to the porn industry. You’re just going to make a fool out of yourself.

_______________

My comment:

Wasn’t Srđa Trifković right in the video I embedded last week, that he was “less free in the US than in Tito’s Yugoslavia”?