That Pungent Musk of Success + A Return to Faust
“Who do you think *owns* the press? Hello…”-Elon Musk
In 1996, on Larry King Live, Marlon Brando declared that the Jews control the media. This is something I’ve known since middle school, but the difference is that back then I just thought, So what? Like black guys dominate the NBA and Asians are wildly overrepresented in tech. Big deal. But it is a big deal because the lion’s share of these Jews have an agenda that is diametrically opposed to that of European and European-originated civilization. From the gross distortions of the Holocaust to the ceaseless propaganda demonizing white men and practically pleading for their destruction, it is clear that the possession of key institutions from academia to the media allows for a hostile minority to use its megaphone to profoundly destructive effect. Director Oliver Stone said that the Jewish media control is preventing an open, honest discussion of what really happened in the Holocaust—and I can tell you it’s not just the media apparatus that’s preventing this open discussion (or any open discussion at all frankly), but it is the smokescreen behind which the machinations occur, and it forms just one prong of the attack on all things Western and, by extension, white.
This includes social media. For hacks like Ryan Lizza and Emily Burack, Twitter’s “laissez-faire attitude toward hate speech” is highly problematic. According to the Anti-Defamation League, the 2016 US presidential election served as a well-spring of anti-Semitism:
While anti-Semitic tweets tended to spike in the wake of election-related news coverage, the language used in the anti-Semitic tweets was not solely election-related. Many tweets referenced classic anti-Semitic tropes (Jews control the media, Jews control global finance, Jews perpetrated 9/11, etc.). This suggests that while the initial provocation for anti-Semitic tweets may have been at least nominally election-related, the Twitter users generating targeted anti-Semitism may have used news events as an excuse to unleash anti-Semitic memes, harassment, etc.
Despite the fact that the anti-Semitism canard is absurdly, hysterically trumpeted with even the most mild criticism of Jews, in an Anti-Defamation League poll, 41% of global respondents said that they believed Jews were more loyal to Israel than to their home country, including 27% of Swedes, 33% of the Dutch (of whom 20% said they think the Jews talk about the Holocaust too much), 27% of the British (of whom 19% said that Jews exert too much influence over the US government), 31% of Americans, and 39% of Danes. Eastern Europe is certainly the most “woke to the JQ”: 48% of Bulgarians, 50% of Croatians, 50% of Latvians, 51% of Estonians, 62% of Romanians, 59% of Moldovans, 66% of Belarussians, 57% of Hungarians, 57% of Poles, 51% of Slovenians, 60% of Serbians, and 74% of Lithuanians polled say they believe the Jews are more loyal to Israel than they are to their home country. 68% of Armenians and 55% of Georgians felt the same. Globally, 32% of Tanzanians, 49% of Senegalese, 65% of Turks, 61% of Iranians, 32% of Poles, 58% of Greeks, 30% of Kenyans, 40% of Armenians, 54% of Malaysians, 32% of Chileans, 73% of Lebanese, 30% of Bangladeshis, 31% of Spanish, 33% of Cameroonians, 36% of Azerbaijanis, 69% of Egyptians and 77% of Iraqis stated that the Jews have too much control over the international media. To disprove the falsehood that Jews exert inordinate control over the international media, Argentine model and TV presenter Ursula Vargues was fired from her job for posting “anti-Semitic tweets.” What did she say? That Jews control the media.
In the epigraph at the top of this article by Elon Musk, without even “naming the Jew,” the Jews on social media went into an absolute conniption over Musk’s tweets, which, other than calling out the media for being liars and thinking the American people are stupid, did not go anywhere near the subject of Jewish media control, and yet a nerve was struck. Certainly it couldn’t have anything to do with the fact that the Jews actually do control the media (and social media, and the entertainment industry…). Disney chairman and CEO Michael Eisner is of course Jewish, as is Comcast chairman and CEO Brian L. Roberts; National Amusements, which owns 80% of the voting shares in Viacom and CBS (whose chairman and CEO Leslie Moonves is Jewish), is run by Sumner Redstone (né Murray Rothstein) and his daughter, both Jews. Those are four of the six largest media corporations in the United States (five if you consider it was the Jewish Gerald Levin who oversaw the AOL-Time Warner merger), and this is without considering the major role in information dissemination, networking, and hosting of content of companies like Facebook (CEO and founder Mark Zuckerberg is Jewish), Google (founder and CEO Larry Page is Jewish, as is co-founder Sergi Brin), Twitter (one of the founders, Noah Glass, is Jewish), and YouTube (CEO Susan Wojcicki is ethnically Jewish). Jews are overrepresented at places like CNN by a factor of twenty-five. Jews are over-represented among senior executive positions at the major television broadcast networks, cable networks, and movie production companies by a factor of 44.5! Just six media conglomerates control approximately 90% of American media—Time Warner, Viacom, Disney, CBS, News Corporation/21st Century Fox, and Comcast. As evidenced above, Disney, Viacom, Comcast, and CBS are under Jewish ownership and management; even PBS, “the nation’s largest non-commercial media organization with nearly 350 member stations throughout the country,” is under Jewish management in the form of president and CEO Paula Kerger.
And it’s not just the American media: the Rothschilds have their tentacles in all sorts of British media from the BBC to The Guardian; six of Sweden’s seven major newspapers are Jewish-owned; the Bronfman family’s Seagram Company has an outsized footprint in Canadian media; the three most-watched non-state-owned television stations in Finland are under the control of Sanoma WSOY and Alma Media, which are Jewish-owned, and the two companies own a majority stake in the nation’s premier news agency; the most widely-circulated newspapers in Latvia are Jewish-owned; LNK TV in Lithuania is Jewish-owned; several premier business papers, such as Finance in Slovenia, Äripäev in Estonia, and Puls Biznesu in Poland are Jewish-owned; a substantial swathe of the Danish media and finance commentariat is Jewish; and the list goes on.
Wealth is also disproportionately concentrated in the hands of global Jewry. Depending on the year in question, the percentage of the Forbes 400 for the four hundred wealthiest Americans is usually around one-third or more despite comprising just 1.5% of the US’s population. In both 2009 and 2013, for example, Jews represented 35% of the list. Five of the top seven wealthiest Aussies are Jewish, despite accounting for less than 0.5% of the nation’s population. 11.6% of the world’s billionaires are Jewish, despite Jews accounting for 0.2% of the world’s population. IQ differential alone is not enough to explain this disparity; the overrepresentation is too dramatic. There are also the anecdotal cases such as the Jewish Roman Abramovich fleeing to Israel after fucking over the Russian people which can only confirm the “anti-Semitic” stereotypes. It’s not just private citizens, either, but perhaps most insidious of all, the global finance sector and its “money men.” As just one example, recall Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the Jewish former head of the International Monetary Fund—the same one that liberals used to protest for pillaging the Third World; Strauss-Kahn headed the IMF while Greece was forced into taking its first bailout, which has effectively reduced the nation to economic serfdom.
Elon Musk is of course also fabulously wealthy. He is the nation’s most successful African-American. Elon Musk embodies many of the positive aspects of Oswald Spengler’s description of the Faustian spirit of Western Man; unconstrained by limitations, literally aiming to conquer the heavens, Musk is a pioneer in several industries and a stout intellect. That plus his reach makes his possible allusion to the concentration of Jewish control a serious threat to the status quo of the various tentacles of globalism and anti-white policies and rhetoric. This Faustian spirit so eloquently described by Spengler cuts both ways, however; it has made us the most dynamic and vibrant civilization the world has ever known, but it has left us vulnerable to various pathologies and an “Icarus Syndrome.” It is worth considering—and I will in a number of future pieces—whether the trustworthiness and cooperation that in part characterize Western Man is so deeply ingrained as to be inextricable from his DNA. I believe it so. The question is, is this altruistic nature fatal? One interpretation is thus:
Spengler’s use of the word ‘Faustian’ when describing the Western culture Spengler explained by pointing out a parallel between the tragic figure of Faust and the Western world. Just as Faust sold his soul to the devil to gain greater power, the Western man sold his soul to technics…The difference between Goethe’s Faust and the Faustian man is thus only one, Spengler said, for the destiny for the latter offers no way to ‘redemption.’ Spengler gives just as Julius Evola after him a parallel to a Roman centurion – the Faustian man can face the coming twilight with courage and determination and make his end spectacular, but these are all options left. The optimism must be condemned as weakness to face the inevitable.
In this fatalistic outlook, the civilization that almost had it all squandered it and, left prostrate and mortally wounded, was overrun by the global Third World hordes. As the Acacia Strain song goes: “You dug your own grave, I just helped you fill it in.” That would be not just the opportunistic Third Worlders coming for their share of the Western carcass, but the internationalist Jews who were readily able to exploit the weak spots in the Western psyche. As Alex Kurtagic wrote in “The Great Erasure,” following World War II:
The moral capital amassed and exploited to Jews—and especially radical Marxist Jews—as a result of well-publicized National Socialist persecution, permitted the development of Jewish intellectual movements that subjected traditional European identity and institutions to radical critiques. Their effect was the gradual deprecation of European tradition and racial identity and the development of universalism to its logical extreme. Interacting with guilt as the primary method of social control in the West, this made it possible even for genetically distant immigrants eventually to become legislators because it had become impossible for the indigenous to argue against exclusion based on race.
“Inclusivity” has become an endless erasure of borders, barriers, and distinctions—many of them natural, healthy, and perfectly rational (for C.S. Lewis, “The invisible line would have no meaning unless most people were on the wrong side of it. Exclusion is no accident: it is the essence.”), and in the new secular religion so sanctified by the Left and its Jewish intellectual drivers, there is no higher crime in contemporary Western society than “racism.” Jeffrey Dahmer readily admitted to cannibalism and necrophilia, but took great pains to disavow racism. The Holocaust is but one highly effective bludgeon with which to hammer and/or disarm whites. As Richard E. Harwood wrote:
Unless something is done in Britain to halt the immigration and assimilation of Africans and Asians into our country, we are faced in the near future, quite apart from the bloodshed of racial conflict, with the biological alteration and destruction of the British people as they have existed here since the coming of the Saxons. In short, we are threatened with the irrecoverable loss of our European culture and racial heritage. But what happens if a man dares to speak of the race problem, of its biological and political implications? He is branded as that most heinous of creatures, a “racialist.” And what is racialism, of course, but the very hallmark of the Nazi! They (so everyone is told, anyway) murdered Six Million Jews because of racialism, so it must be a very evil thing indeed. When Enoch Powell drew attention to the dangers posed by coloured immigration into Britain in one of his early speeches, a certain prominent Socialist raised the spectre of Dachau and Auschwitz to silence his presumption…Thus the accusation of the Six Million is not only used to undermine the principle of nationhood and national pride, but it threatens the survival of the Race itself. It is wielded over the heads of the populace, rather as the threat of hell fire and damnation was in the Middle Ages. Many countries of the Anglo-Saxon world, notably Britain and America, are today facing the gravest danger in their history, the danger posed by the alien races in their midst.
Obviously racial identity is not the be-all end-all, but race is inextricable from the civilization (or lack thereof) of a population. In homogeneous societies, identity politics is not only unnecessary, but excluding race, which in this context is irrelevant, its other iterations are extremely counter-productive. Now that we’re nothing but a fractured mess, however, identity politics having been used as a weapon, we now find that they are vital to our survival as a people. “Radical individualism” of the “Intellectual Darkweb” variety cannot exist outside a largely homogeneous population, and would in the present context and in the broader picture mean an end to that very sort of individualism, it being entirely a product of the West and its people.
People are inherently tribal. Look at the fanatical devotion to college and professional sports teams to see what displaced nationalism looks like. These feelings of needing to belong to a team, to a tribe if you will, are natural and, if it may be said, nearly universal among human beings. Yet it is only the progeny of Europe who are told that under no circumstances may they assert their identities or have their own tribe(s)—racial, ethnic, national, or some combination thereof. It should, for any thinking person, lead to some pointed questions, and many people are waking up to this blatant hypocrisy. The question is, will it be too little too late?
When one contracts an illness, the symptoms are not immediately apparent. Sometime before World War I this sickness infected at least the European psyche, and led to the attempted suicide in the form of the Great War. The strong tendency to isolationism in the US almost held the day before President Wilson’s desire to insert America into global geopolitics finally won out, though his Fourteen Points and the League of Nations (which Congress outright rejected) reflected a sort of proto-neo-conservatism, and were an outgrowth of Wilson’s academic beliefs in universal egalitarianism. These principles and ideals have never been shared by the Historic American Nation at large; they are very much boutique ideals foisted on the general populace by both a bourgeois elite that had turned itself into a new aristocracy and an alien Jewish population, both of whom came to regard nations as just patches of land not homelands (except in the case of Canaan/Palestine/Israel); these patches of land became principally viewed as potential markets. The era of mercantilism drew to a close with the double-blows to traditional empires in the form of the World Wars. K.R. Bolton has a great piece entitled “The Geopolitics of White Dispossession” about the corporate-driven betrayal of the colonial populations in Africa by the United States in order to access and exploit the rich reserves of that continent. This is clearly not the primary cause for Africa’s dysfunction—that would largely fall at the feet of evolved biological differences—but it violates the principles of self-determination that I believe all nations have as their fundamental rights. It doesn’t matter if it’s Syria or Angola—or the debt-to-GDP ratio in part fueling the “migrant crisis” in Europe—violating a nation’s sovereignty is a violation of its people’s fundamental rights to freedom and self-determination. In this way “ethno-nationalism” is redundant.
The US military has been bandied about the globe over the last century-plus to scratch various ideological itches, itches that the American public do not, and until the elites get their way and elect a new people, will not support. We have always been expansionist—Spengler’s Faustian spirit is here reflected in the notion of Manifest Destiny and Thomas Jefferson’s view that our race should people the entirety of the hemisphere—but this expansionism was for the most part confined to the hemisphere (the Pacific and the Philippines ventures notwithstanding), but it has also always existed in tension with a strong sense of isolationism. The United States is an exceptional nation, and is an historical aberration in many ways. Its seeming destiny as an empire has always contrasted sharply with its ideology of self-governance and the Founding Fathers’ intent to have the United States remain a mostly agrarian, de-centralized society. It is vital to remember that the United States is only contemporaneously framed as a “proposition nation” (an idea first posited by Jewish intellectual Ben Wattenberg) and that in the Preamble to the Constitution, it is made explicit that this nation is for whites and their progeny; the Naturalization Act of 1790 enshrined this notion in official policy, as did the Johnson-Reed Act of 1924. The “whiteness” of America that is now implicit (and fading fast) was for most of its history explicit. It is only post-1965 that the demographics began to shift, and this was done consciously as a consequence of the growing influence of “critical theory,” Boas, the Frankfurt School, and a slew of other predominantly Jewish intellectuals wearing down the ideas of Grant, Stoddard, and others that served as the primary drivers behind demographic protections and immigration restriction.
Mass immigration before the 1924 restrictions served a need: laborers for the rapidly-industrializing nation and settlers for the vast frontier (and if one is so inclined to believe, soldiers for the Union Army in the Civil War). Following the closing of the frontier and the previously-insatiable need for factory labor finally sated, it no longer behooved the nation to continue importing huge numbers of people. Additionally, and we should not forget this, virtually all of the immigrants entering the US were fellow Europeans. Indeed, Israel Zangwill’s “melting pot” was uni-continental: “America is God’s Crucible, the great Melting-Pot where all the races of Europe are melting and reforming.” That said, culturally, genetically, philosophically, and legally, the United States remains first and foremost a product of the Anglo-Saxon tradition, and indubitably the reflection of Europe, just like its neighbor to the north in Canada. As in both nations, and other products of European exploration, expansion, and settlement such as Australia, New Zealand, and what remains of South Africa, their very existence is a testament to Anglo-Saxon ideals and European dynamism. Returning to the notion of Western Man’s Faustian spirit, for Ricardo Duchesne:
Oswald Spengler used [Faustian] to designate the “soul” of the West. He believed that Western civilization was driven by an unusually dynamic and expansive psyche. The “prime-symbol” of this Faustian soul was “pure and limitless space.” This soul had a “tendency towards the infinite,” a tendency most acutely expressed in modern mathematics. The “infinite continuum,” the exponential logarithm and “its dissociation from all connexion with magnitude” and transference to a “transcendent relational world” were some of the words Spengler used to describe Western mathematics. But he also wrote of the “bodiless music” of the Western composer, “in which harmony and polyphony bring him to images of utter ‘beyondness’ that transcend all possibilities of visual definition,” and, before the modern era, of the Gothic “form-feeling” of “pure, imperceptible, unlimited space” (Decline of the West, Vol.1, Form and Actuality [Alfred Knopf, 1923] 1988, pp. 53-90).
The ability of Europeans to create something from nothing is astounding, be it global superpowers hacked out of the wilderness or notions of self-governance and right-to-rule. The progeny of Europe have been very concerned with various iterations and degrees of self-governance and right-to-rule from the Germanic tribes of antiquity to Athens to Rome to Iceland to England to America. It is in the DNA it would seem—just as the overwhelming majority of inventions that define human progress come from the European people so, too, do their concepts and ideas, both as definitively catalogued by Charles Murray in Human Accomplishment, Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 BC to 1950. Europeans’ restless, conquering spirit remains tethered to, and in many ways is born from, notions of fairness and trust, and the willingness to organize beyond kinship ties, but the collaborative and extra-kinship/contractual network of relationships that undergird and make possible Western advancements and achievements as mentioned above can be a double-edged sword. It makes us uniquely primed to appreciate “out-group” members, but it also diminishes our sense of the “in-group.” Coupled with an innate sense of “fair play,” the rules of engagement, and integrity, we become overly-trusting, and, by assuming everyone is playing the same “game” as us, allows us to be deceived as by the Jews and Moslems. We also have a strong tendency to universalism, and when you combine these factors, the present state of affairs begins to take on a far greater degree of clarity. Per Alex Kurtagic:
Third World settler colonization of the West is possible only as a result of a uniquely Western ideology (egalitarianism) and an autochthonous political system (democracy), both of which morally and ideologically disarm the indigenous against settler ascendancy and predation…In the West [sovereignty] transfers occur at the legal, policy, and moral-philosophical levels; they involve, for example, changes in legislation that privilege settlers over the indigenous, abdication of indigenous racial consciousness as a morally legitimate cognitive structure, or discrimination policies against the indigenous designed disproportionately to enhance settlers’ access to higher education and the job market…This process [of settler colonialism] enjoys the ongoing complicity of the indigenous’ ruling elites, who, wittingly or unwittingly, instigated it in the first place out of a perceived economic need, and have since institutionalized it out of political opportunism, greed, a sense of historical guilt, or befuddlement with an ideology of human universalism. The opening of land to colonists by leaders is not unique: African kings in southern Africa either sold or gave away land to European settlers in exchange for military service during the 19th century. What is unique is the institutionalization of a policy of welcoming settler colonization, supported by a universalist ideology that makes the voluntary transfer of land and sovereignty morally virtuous.
Despite the confluence of aforementioned factors, however, a majority of Westerners remain at least subconsciously unconvinced, and this is where the sledgehammer of guilt is employed. Beyond those deracinated universalists and Steve Sailer’s “Social Justice Jihadis,” for those that resist the notion that welcoming the world’s “wretched refuse” is essential, per Mark Bauerlein, “[Guilt] is the Left’s great hammer of progress…Guilt runs through the teaching of US history from 5th grade through college…Without it, in fact, the Left fails.”
The thing is, we do also seem to be uniquely predisposed to “guilt trips” as a race. I don’t see Japan throwing away its civilization because of the Rape of Nanking. This is the dividing line, I believe, where we as a people will rise or fall. We need to come to terms with who and what we are, for good and ill, and as Jean Raspail stated we must embrace our prosperity as a by-product of who we are and what we have built, or we are finished. We are presently in the grips of what Colin Liddell calls the “Anti-civilization,” a civilization that is defined not by what it is, but by what it is not; his “revised [Samuel] Huntingtonian list of characteristics to define the West as we now know it” are:
1. Cultural Marxism and political correctness
2. Minor identitarian role for Christianity (optional—my note: though if you are an Evangelical, you must place Israel on a pedestal equal to, or above, America)
3. Tower of Babel
4. White Guilt
5. Social pluralism (diverse racial and sexual identity groups)
6. Pooled electorate and detached professional political class
The morality of the West becomes the enforcement of the anti-morality: gay rights, the mass murder of fetuses, a culture of divorce and one-parent families, the privileges of the immigrant over the rights of the indigenous, the enforced equivalence of all forms of dysfunction with normalcy; while its identitarianism becomes a negative one of not belonging to the despised groups, the “racists,” “neo-Nazis,” and “haters,” who crave a positive civilizational identity.
The Leftist-enforced equivalences, being wholly unnatural, can only exist in a totalitarian state. The indigenous are subjected to ruthless, USSR-esque conditions while the immigrants run roughshod over them. The productive finance the un-working and where relevant, illegal or cheap labor (or migrant labor in the form of various visas) supplant or squeeze out domestic labor. While anarcho-tyranny rules the day, Westerners are being crushed between the seemingly-paradoxical vice of capitalism and communism. Whites and non-ideologically-compliant minorities get a steady diet of Marxism while “free trade” continues to erode their sovereignty. It is the worst of both worlds, an unholy alliance of over-weaning bureaucracy, soulless corporatism, consumerism-masquerading-as-individualism, and ultimately genocidal demographic replacement, all with a bright plastic smile.
As K.R. Bolton points out, many of the inherent tensions of globalism baked into the egalitarian-corporatist structure can be resolved simply by following the money—think of Jewish Wall Street money men Schiff, Kuhn, Loeb & Co., and Warburg, chief financiers of Lenin and the Bolshevik Revolution. In the age-old strategy of divide-and-conquer courtesy now of mass immigration’s demographic splintering of Western nations, if all that’s left is a fractured mess of warring client-states (think: Africa or the Middle East), the multi-nationals will still win big. The “antiquated” sentiment and some would say ideal of nation-states have no place in the new paradigms of globalism, whether it be those mega-multi- and trans-nationals or gigantic super-states, such as the European Union, which is, it should be noted, itself nothing but a colossal testament to the prevailing notion that nations are nothing but markets; in light of the recent populist revolution in Italy, EU Budget Commissioner Gunther Oettinger announced his displeasure at the rise of Italian populist parties and the mainstreaming of an Italy First mindset in the nation’s politics when he re-tweeted, “The markets will teach Italy to vote for the right thing.” Evidence of yet more EU tyranny as the bureaucratic Leviathan totally in thrall to various economic interests has no regard for individual national sovereignty. For Ricardo Duchesne:
Organized calls for mass immigration from the Third World were coming primarily from business lobbies looking for cheap labour and mass consumers…Soon enough, in the early 2000s, studies started coming out assessing the consequences of diversification. From the beginning, however, these studies tended to be guided by the idea that diversity was a positive goal. No academic was questioning the program itself. Such opposition was deemed to be “bigoted” and “ignorant,” not for the educated, beyond the orbit of research proposals. Empirical studies were framed in such a way that negative findings about immigration were categorized as “challenges” to be overcome with further “integration” proposals and calls for policy initiatives to increase opportunities for immigrants. Negative reactions by White members of the host nation were not allowed to enter into the “empirical data” but were summarily disqualified as indications that the community was “xenophobic.” Only the criticisms of minorities, or conformists on the left, about “lack of affirmative action,” or “lack of integration efforts,” was counted as evidence, not against the program, but as further confirmation of the need to expand the program.
As both Joe Sobran and Peter Brimelow have noted, there is little conception of or true linguistic equivalent to white racism or “xenophobia”—the immigration and diversity conversation is only ever allowed to exist in one particular context, one where Duchesne says, “negative effects on whites count as evidence that whites are not accepting diversity and that they need more education on the merits of diversity and the perils of racism.” This kind of dis-arming propaganda has deep roots, and it has been devastatingly effective.
The mass immigration project has transcended the bounds of policy quibbling and become a civilization-imperiling enterprise that threatens to dispossess the indigenous peoples of Europe and the European Diaspora. In the past I’ve been willing to entertain the possibility of non-Westerners who share our values finding a home in Europe in small numbers, but I no longer accept this possible option; as the continent of our genesis as a unique people stretching back at least 37,000 years, European integrity must be preserved, and as such, immigration to Europe must be completely closed to non-genetic Europeans. In the other areas of the globe for various historical and ideological reasons, particularly in the case of the United States, I am willing to consider small numbers of “Hamaduras,” but I believe that there must be a racial “floor” below which the percentage of whites, as both progenitors and inheritors of Western civilization, may not fall below. Something to the order of 75-85% seems right to me for America, and 90% for the other former British colonies of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Latin America is probably a lost cause, as is Africa, but the “cone countries” of South America can still preserve their demographics in a similar fashion.
There is much less flexibility, as there should be, in the European context than in, say, the American context, which, though it must also maintain a white super-majority to retain its essence as the nation we know and love, does have more ideological flexibility in its Constitution. What we’re witnessing in Europe is countries that are still around 85% white already beginning to break down in much the same way the US is but at just 62% white. America is not a purely “proposition nation” by any means, but it does have a unique system of governance and a particular history as a tri-racial society (though one that historically always hovered around 90% white). My proposal considers all of these factors, including the fact that this nation was designed for posterity to always reflect first and foremost its Anglo-Saxon character, and then its European roots more generally, but retains the latitude, if we can eventually stabilize the population, of like-minded non-whites having a place.
Regarding mass immigration, it comes down to a simple question of survival; we have a tendency to view humanity as exempt from natural law, but we are not. As E. Raymond Hall, professor of biology at the University of Kansas informs:
It is biological law that two subspecies of the same species do not occur in the same geographic area...To imagine one subspecies of man living together on equal terms for long with another subspecies is but wishful thinking and leads only to disaster and oblivion for one or the other.
It’s time we start viewing mass immigration as the invasion that it is. Immigration is not a mere policy decision, it is one with potentially significant demographic consequences. It is also in its present iteration a moral imperative where status is conferred on those most active in facilitating their own dispossession. The cruel irony is the most vociferous proponents of “diversity,” immigration, and multi-culturalism are those most removed from it, both geographically (or at least behind walls and armed security) and economically. They do not, as Victor Davis Hanson notes, live the consequences of their own ideology. Instead, it’s the tormented citizens of Lewiston, Maine; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Fremont, Nebraska; Boston, Massachusetts; Atlanta, Georgia; Garden City, Kansas; Shelbyville, Tennessee; Storm Lake, Iowa; Austin, Minnesota; Schuyler, Nebraska; Dearborn and Hamtramck, Michigan; and basically the entire state of California who foot the bill in the form of wage depression, loss of social capital, declining standards of living, elevated crime, higher taxes, economic displacement, and, finally, demographic displacement. This state of affairs is by no means confined to the United States, either, with “international cities” such as Frankfurt, London, Vancouver, Toronto, and Paris providing just a few examples of the damage done by multi-culturalism and neo-liberalism. Colin Liddell writes:
The vast majority of civilizations…attempt to prevent the demographic displacement of their peoples. The West, by contrast, is supposed to be the mightiest civilization, yet it freely allows and even assists widespread intrusion and colonization of its territories by outsiders…[It] offers its invaders free medical care, housing, welfare, and a host of other benefits, including a half share in the Presidency of the United States. Also, the more different the invaders are, the more it seems to welcome and assist them. While eastern Europeans are expected to work as the price of admission into western Europe, Somalians, Afghans, and Congolese merely have to show up. This effectively gives a green light for various forms of race replacement and the radical alteration of the demographic character of the civilization.
Civilization is inextricable from its people. Maybe a minority adapt and even come to cherish a civilization that is not “theirs” as such, but a majority never have and never will accept what is fundamentally alien to them. And why would they? They are not “of” the people that built it—and this is perhaps no more apparent than our “fellow whites,” the Jews. From Babylon to Egypt to Rome to Spain to America, a certain sub-set, quite possibly a majority, have been all too eager to parasitize their host for their benefit. To quote Revilo P. Oliver:
The racial mentality of the Jews is so different from our own that we can only draw inferences from observation of their conduct and such of their statements as appear more or less candid and worthy of belief (e.g., Maurice Samuel’s excellent You Gentiles J New York, 1924), but we must remember that all forms of life instinctively and necessarily make the preservation and increase of their species their highest purpose, and if vampire bats were capable of reason, they would undoubtedly describe their furtive blood-sucking as a righteous exercise and identify as diabolically evil the various animals (including men) who in one way or another interfere with their noble exercise of their god-given right. No species could think of itself as evil. As an ex-Communist once reminded me, “You must remember that when Communists betray a nation or murder innocent people by the thousands, they think of themselves as highly moral individuals who righteously obey a higher purpose.” We may be absolutely certain that whatever the Jews do as a race, no matter how vile and dastardly it may seem to us who suffer its effects, seems to them just and righteous — as indeed it is, if we consider it objectively in terms of the biological law that makes survival and increase the highest law of every species. The Aryans are an apparent exception, since everywhere, and most conspicuously in the United States, Britain, and now South Africa, they are evidently driven by a subconscious death-wish. The species may be biologically degenerate or, as the Jews believe, inferior and innately stupid, easily herded by its credulity and cupidity. Some optimists believe that the species could recover its will-to-live and become viable again, if it were somehow to escape the control of its Jewish herdsmen.
It would seem that Western Man’s demise is inevitable. I don’t necessarily believe that, but there is nevertheless a very good chance we are doomed. That said, the United States, for all of its faults, is a good country, and I mean this not just in terms of “a nice place to live,” but that its soul is inherently good. Its people are the most generous on earth—clearly to a fault. Even foreign interventionism always has to be couched in terms of uplift, aid, and freedom from oppression, even if we are being duped and we are the ones doing the oppressing. This notion of America’s inherent “goodness” might seem somewhat infantile, and maybe I’m just sentimental, but it always seems to come down to articles of faith—if we don’t believe there is something intrinsically good about the United States—and Western civilization more broadly—then what in the hell are we fighting for?
One could of course recount the litany of abuses from colonialism to regime change, as the Left is wont to do (unless it’s one of their protected individuals or classes doing the colonizing or regime change), but this is ultimately less a critique of America than it is bemoaning human nature and lamenting the often harsh realities of survival. Would a Moslem super-power behave with similar restraint? We know that not to be the case with the Ottoman Empire and the disappearance of human rights wherever Islam raises its hideous head. An empire centered on that most lethal of “egalitarian” principles—communism? One hundred million corpses in the last century would beg to differ. Both pan-national ideologies, similar to the global finance strain of internationalism, have no respect for the nation-state, for the right of individual nations and peoples to determine their own destiny. I view the end of the era of traditional empires to be a good thing, because I believe in self-determination for all peoples. But don’t be fooled into thinking that just because traditionally territorially acquisitive empires powered by armed conquest are generally a thing of the past means that empires are, or even that territorial acquisition is. Indeed, the ambitions of today’s globalists are right there in the name. The supra-national European Union is not far from becoming itself a bloated, totalitarian continental empire, one which views its people as nothing but numbers and individual nations as naught but markets. The cosmopolitan/internationalist strain of Judaism, just like its Bolsheviki cousin, operates in the same space. As I wrote for Republic Standard:
Wilhelm Marr, in 1879, understood that there is a certain strain in Judaism that he calls “rootless,” and that this particular, Bolshevik-inflected sub-set of Judaism wants nothing more than to obliterate the defining characteristics of its host in the express purpose of creating a plurality to navigate among with as little friction as possible. They are in the business of pushing the delusion that all people and all races are created equally and thus, wholly interchangeable.
Another arm of the Jewish erasure of nation, identity, and peoplehood for thee is the Six Million fiction. For Richard E. Harwood:
In terms of political blackmail…the allegation that Six Million Jews died during the Second World War has much more far-reaching implications for the people of Britain and Europe than simply the advantages it has gained for the Jewish nation. And here one comes to the crux of the question: Why the Big Lie? What is its purpose? In the first place, it has been used quite unscrupulously to discourage any form of nationalism. Should the people of Britain or any other European country attempt to assert their patriotism and preserve their national
integrity in an age when the very existence of nation-states is threatened, they are immediately branded as “neo-Nazis.” Because, of course, Nazism was nationalism, and we all know what happened then—Six Million Jews were exterminated! So long as the myth is perpetuated, peoples everywhere will remain in bondage to it; the need for international tolerance and understanding will be hammered home by the United Nations until nationhood itself, the very guarantee of freedom, is abolished.
Thus, no nation save Israel may be allowed to protect its territorial or societal integrity. The Israelis have every right to defend their border, especially against the hostile Palestinians, but there is a reason you don’t go screwing around in other nations’ domestic affairs. Even the big-brained Jews have been done in by their double-dealing. Hamas was created by Israel to combat the secular ruling government of Palestine, and look how that turned out. The US did something similar with the Taliban in Afghanistan, and once again, that has proven to be a disaster. Did we learn? Of course not. After the removal of Saddam Hussein gave ISIS the opening it needed to become a real factor in the region, Barack Hussein enabled the organization through arms and taxpayer dollars to fight against Assad’s largely secular regime in Syria. US meddling in Iran mid-century eventually gave rise to the militant theocratic regime in place today. When you screw around in international affairs of which you understand little, there are going to be unintended consequences.
Our interventions in the Middle East have done nothing but enable the Islamic hard-liners. I know why we’re doing it—that sweet, sweet black gold, the financial windfall reaped by defense contractors and the military-industrial complex, and last but certainly not least, to advance Israel’s Yinon Plan of Balkanizing the region. If Israel were “just” an ally of ours in the region to serve as a check against Islamic expansionism, that would be one thing. But to be used by a nation the size of New Jersey to do its bidding? I can’t see how that helps us. Both Obama and the neocon Dubya were obsessed with regime change, removing strong, central leaders with no viable alternative; the resultant instability didn’t cause the so-called Migrant Crisis in Europe, but it certainly exacerbated and accelerated it, plus it opened the Libyan “refugee” route into Europe. Turkey has been actively facilitating Moslem “refugees” into Europe while ramping up hostilities toward Greece and engaging in the ethnic cleansing of Greek Cypriots while the Western world sits on its hands. Erdogan consolidates power and turns Turkey from a largely secular state similar to what Egypt and Iran used to be, and the West is again silent, but they are content to stage false flag chemical attacks in Syria to further the Israeli agenda. The whole thing reeks of hypocrisy, but once you understand the dynamics at play, you realize the true depths of depravity even within our own governments.
This is truly a war on all fronts.