The Definitive Source For News On Jews

An OD correspondent in South Africa has been sending me regular bulletins from Nelson Mandela’s “Rainbow Nation.” White Nationalists in North America have always followed the news out of South Africa, but I am getting the impression that we have underestimated how awful life is there for the average White person. The typical White American hasn’t heard anything about South Africa since Mandela was inaugurated as president. He assumes everything must be hunky dory over there.

Here is a brief snapshot of life is really like in the world’s first “post-racial society.” The material compiled here are all stories that have come out of South Africa over the past two weeks. Most of them are taken from the local press. This is the indispensable background to the Eugene Terre’blanche farm murder and the “racial tension” the MSM is wailing about.

1.) Potholes and Healthcare – A traveling salesman is driving through the North West where he dodges a metre-wide pothole, overturns his car, and gets flung out of the window. George Struwig lands on the tar road where he suffers a shoulder injury.

Struwig gets shuffled around to three hospitals before appropriately landing in the Steve Biko Academic Hospital (named after a famous terrorist), a state hospital, near Pretoria. After three days without medical assistance, Struwig’s wound begins to putrify. His brother transfers him to a private hospital where surgery saves his limb from amputation.

While at the private hospital, Struwig notices there are patients there who have gone weeks without treatment. A guy in his ward couldn’t feed himself and the medical personnel would leave the food by his bed and where he can starve as he watches it.

Under black rule, the incompetent South African government has proven unable to maintain the transportation infrastructure and the White healthcare system they inherited.

2.) Terror in Mozambique – A South African tourist and his girlfriend visit Maputo, the capital of nearby Mozambique, to set up a procurement business. The beautiful countryside of Mozambique, which the tourist describes as “nearly untouched by man,” exists in stark contrast to Maputo which has been destroyed by feral negroes. Under black rule, Mozambique (formerly a prosperous Portuguese colony) is ranked among the lowest nations on the U.N. Human Development Index.

Upon arrival at a border post, the tourists are accosted by locals. They are harassed by the local police who carry AK-47s. The black soldiers intimidate the tourists into giving them R500. After checking into their hotel, the tourists are again intimidated by black soldiers with AK-47s who rob them of all their money. Somehow the tourists procure more funds and visit the most reputable restaurant in Mozambique where the staff runs their credit cards twice.

The South African couple returns home determined never to visit Mozambique again. This is what life is like for Whites marooned in Sub-Saharan Africa in the aftermath of triumphant anti-racism.

3.) More Terror in Mozambique – In Mozambique, sixteen South African tourists are robbed and a White woman is raped by blacks. The blacks attempted to rape another Afrikaner woman unsuccessfully. They left the gas on in the room (attempted mass murder) where the men were gagged and bound. Mozambique officials will be “discussing” the safety of tourists.

4.) The World’s Most Expensive Banana – A negro shoots a black teenager in the head on the suspicion that he was eating a stolen banana.

5.) Abortion South African Style – A couple wraps their newborn baby in a plastic bag and throw it out the window of their accelerating vehicle. Try guessing the race of the suspects.

6.) A Casual Stroll – Three negroes assault a pedestrian and fight for “their turns” to rape her. The woman was forced to perform fellatio on one suspect while the other raped her. The trio are in court facing 14 counts of rape. During the violent attack, one of the suspects casually alluded to another gang rape they had performed previously. Justice works in mysterious ways in the “Rainbow Nation.”

7.) Your Life Savings – Four armed negroes break into the home of a black man and rob him of his life savings. They shoot him in the stomach. The robbers invade the home of the neighbors and threaten to shoot a 10-year-old boy.

8.) Free Enterprise in “Azania” – A White butcher is murdered by two negroes on his way to work.

9.) Thriving Small Business Sector – In the middle of the night, back thieves attempt to liberate the safes of two businesses with explosives. Two more black thieves rob a business in a shopping center.

10.) Women in the Workplace – A White woman is attacked by a vicious negro slasher at the gate of her workplace who repeatedly stabs her in the head, arm, and neck. Her boss finds her covered in blood.

11.) Don’t Trust the Police – In Durban, four black police officers abduct a White female attorney. They rough her up, slap her across the face, and call her a “racist bitch.” She felt “defenceless.” In Johannesburg, three senior black police officers engage in drug smuggling, theft, and fraud. A black female police officer sells pot to keep her children in school.

12.) Government Corruption – An ex-ANC Youth League official is arrested for stealing credentials.

13.) Measles Returns – 3.1 million babies in South Africa are being immunized to stop outbreaks of measles from ravaging the country. Under White rule, measles, polio, and malaria were all but eradicated, but have returned under black rule.

14.) Babies Aren’t Safe – A negro is lynched by a mob after he is caught raping a 3 month old baby.

15.) Children Aren’t Safe – A negro is arrested for raping a five-year-old. Negroes murder a White 15-year-old boy, break his neck, beat him until he is unrecognizable, and get off scot free.

16.) Adults Aren’t Safe – A homeowner is stabbed to death by negroes who insist on passing through his yard. Negroes hijack several buildings and force property owners to pay them rent.

17.) So Much For School – Public schools are being closed down in Johannesburg left and right as they are abandoned by negro students.

18.) Don’t Use The ATM – It cost this White man his life.

19.) Vigilante Justice – A mob of negroes lynch a negro for killing an elderly man. Give credit where it is due: this rapist got what he deserved.

20.) Congo Craziness – Meanwhile, up north in the DRC, Congolese rebels kidnapped a Spanish doctor and shaved off all his body hair in the hope that it would give them magical powers in battle.

21.) Nationalization – South Africa takes the first steps toward the nationalization of its mining industry. Julius Malema is determined to follow Zambia off the cliff.

22.) The Elderly Aren’t Safe – An elderly White man with Alzheimers is beaten to death by a mob of negroes for stealing a candy bar. A security camera video shows he did not resist arrest. He later died in police custody.

23.) So Much for Democracy – Malema’s supporters scrap the secret ballot and use a show of hands to steal elections.

24.) Public Utilities Falling Apart – The ANC is doubling its stake in the drive to build new power stations as blackouts continue to plague South Africa. Blacks are literally tearing down the power lines to sell copper on the black market.

25.) Viva Malema! – A White farm family is attacked by feral negroes shouting “Viva Malema”; Nelson Mandela’s former White bodyguard goes missing; a 19 year old White girl is sadistically tortured and burned with cigarettes by black home invaders.

26.) Animals Aren’t Safe – Pets haven’t fared any better in Nelson Mandela’s new and improved South Africa.

27.) Family Friends Aren’t Safe – A domestic servant of Terre’blanche was herself murdered after discovering the murder plot. Some “wage dispute.”

28.) Prisoners Aren’t Safe – You don’t want to end up in a South African prison.

Now back to Eugene Terre’blanche. As previously noted, the above is the context in which all of this is happening.

A vicious and baseless rumor has circulated in recent days that Eugene Terre’blanche was murdered after sodomizing his farm workers. A tabloid reported over the weekend that police had found a condom at the crime scene. Jeffrey Imm of R.E.A.L. delightfully ran the story. The South African police have denied recovering any evidence of sexual impropriety. The lawyer of the accused has dropped the sodomy charge after saying his own client’s story made no sense.

Last week, Terre’blanche was peacefully laid to rest by friends and family. As Kievsky pointed out, 1 in every 1,000 South African Whites attended the funeral, an extraordinary turnout for “washed up has been” and “relic of Apartheid.” AWB members wore uniforms and sieg heiled as their leader was lowered into the ground. White children waved the AWB’s three pronged swastika flag. Other supporters waved the flags of the former independent Boer republics. In his gruesome death, Eugene Terre’blanche did more to advance the cause of Afrikaner secession than he ever did in life.

The South African Institute of Race Relations is concerned about the escalating racial tension in the country. It notes that White farmers are being viciously murdered and the ANC has used affirmative action and “black empowerment programs” to create a corrupt patronage network. The so-called “progress” in race relations of the past fifteen years is being undone. The ANC has enriched itself and failed to alleviate the plight of the impoverished negro underclass. They have responded by stirring up race hatred against Whites.

Interestingly, the South African Institute of Race Relations notes that the ANC is entirely dependent on White farmers to feed the country. The flight of Whites abroad will drain South Africa of its tax base and technical expertise. Whites are crudely seen as a sort of cattle that produce the milk which keeps the whole rotten system float. If they bail, secede, or lose faith in the doubleplusgood experiment in “multiracial democracy,” the result would be disastrous for blacks, who are the only people “human rights organizations” are concerned with. The government must “live up” to this challenge.

That seems increasingly unlikely.

Julius Malema recently kicked a BBC reporter out a news conference and announced “this is the building of a revolutionary party and you know nothing about the revolution.” ”Don’t come here with that white tendency, go out bastard, bloody agent.” He gleefully noted that the reporter was “a small man” who was in no position to put up a fight. In recent days, Malema has bucked the leadership of his own party.

The ANC has cynically told the foreign press that it aims to reduce racial tension. Meanwhile, it is fighting the ban on the “Kill the Boer” song and is even paying for the legal defense of Eugene Terre’blanche’s murderers. Julius Malema has described Zimbabwe’s land reform measures as “courageous and militant.” “Land reform in Zimbabwe has been very successful,” Malema said, adding that Mugabe’s programme was a “very correct method”.

As hard as it is to believe, Julius Malema is a “moderate” compared to some factions in South Africa.  The Pan African Congress is encouraging its supporters to sing the “Kill the Boer” song in open defiance of the South African Supreme Court. “We call on our people to sing the songs Shoot the boer and Zuma’s Umshini wam (Bring me my machine-gun). This is part of their struggle,” PAC general secretary Mfanelo Skwatsha said on Tuesday to mark April 6 as the date on which the PAC was launched. The PAC wants South Africa to be renamed Azania after the complete Africanization of the country.

I haven’t seen the Western media decrying all these extremists. Black supremacists have the wrong skin color. They don’t fit into the standard PC narrative of evil Whites and noble blacks. Azania is treated as a legitimate aspiration of oppressed “people of color.” A White ethnostate in South Africa is demonized as the second coming of the Third Reich. What loathsome hypocrisy.

The Whites of South Africa face a stark choice: submission or secession. The first option has resulted in the ethnic cleansing of Whites in every other African country. 1/4th of South African Whites have already fled the country. More will flee when Julius Malema becomes president and implements Zimbabwe-style land reforms. The epidemic of violent crime in South Africa is already arguably a stealth genocide.

The second option is to fight back and secede from a failed state whose corrupt government no self respecting White man would ever swear fealty to. The list of causes that American colonials felt justified their secession from the British Empire – taxes on tea and stamps – are trivial compared to the horrors endured on a daily basis by Whites in South Africa.

Negro savages have raped your wives, daughters, mothers, and sisters. They have slashed the throats of your aunts, uncles, grandparents, and kin folk. They openly sing about your extermination as a race. They gleefully brag on the internet about reducing your women to chattel sex slaves. This inept government has stolen your wealth, demonized your history, disrespected your most cherished cultural symbols, instituted racial discrimination against your posterity, violated your property rights, allowed the most basic of public services – justice, security, health, education, infrastructure – to fall into disrepair. It is your natural right to abolish this Third World monstrosity.

Occidental Dissent, April 14, 2010

Bob McDonnell, Governor of Virginia, has stirred up a national controversy by having the audacity to declare the month of April “Confederate History Month” in the Old Dominion. Jews, White liberals, parasites, and negroes across America quickly began to shriek in horror about the Confederacy’s horrible legacy of racism and slavery. As everyone knows by now, McDonnell folded under pressure and issued a wimpy apology in which he decried slavery as the cause of the War Between the States.

White Virginians know the history of their state better than anyone. In 1860, Virginia was carried by John Bell, the Constitutional Union candidate. Virginia rejected secession after the Cotton States left the Union. The majority of Virginians didn’t believe Lincoln’s election warranted secession and favored a compromise solution like those of the past. The only reason Virginia seceded from the United States is because Lincoln decided to resort to force to coerce the Confederacy.

Virginians refused to take up arms for a Northern despot to spill the blood of their co-ethnics. That was the real issue. Lincoln’s own policy was that slavery could flourish in the states where it already existed. He didn’t foresee the final extinction of slavery happening until the twentieth century. Most Virginians thought South Carolinians and Alabamians were misguided to leave the Union, but acknowledged their right to do so. The states had created the federal government, not the other way around.

Lincoln’s attack on the Confederacy was seen as the destruction of republican government in America. Virginians clung to the old notion that the legitimacy of any government rested on the consent of the governed; coercing the Southern states back into the Union at bayonet point made a farce out of America’s own vaunted principles. It was a states’ rights issue, plain and simple. A tyrannical precedent was being set.

This is how the conflict was seen around the world at the time. Europeans wondered why the 13 American colonies had the right to unlawfully rebel against the British Empire, but the 13 Confederate states didn’t have the right to withdraw from the Union. It didn’t make any sense. Wasn’t George Washington a rebel? Weren’t the Founding Fathers of America openly committing treason by throwing down the gauntlet of the Declaration of Independence before the world? The Confederates were only taking America’s republican principles to their logical conclusion.

But this is a digression into history. The present and future is what should concern us. Bob McDonnell naming April as “Confederate History Month” is only a small victory for us. February, for example, is “Black History Month.” The month of April already honors financial literacy, crime victims, organ donors, and child abuse prevention. May is simultaneously “Jewish American Heritage Month” and “Asian American Pacific Islander Heritage Month.” Mid-September to Mid-October is “Hispanic Heritage Month.” The descendants of Confederate veterans, the majority of White Virginians, are only asking to be honored alongside all the other groups in the multicultural pantheon.

Yet this is controverial. ”Confederate History Month” was even rescinded when Mark Warner and Tim Kaine were Governor of Virginia. America’s ruling class (and its underclass of racial grievance groups) look down on White Southerners. In their eyes, White Southerners are synonymous with white trash, racists, white supremacists, nativists, rednecks, bigots, hicks, hillbillies, etc. They do not believe in lowering themselves from their lofty perches of moral superiority to acknowledge that White Southerners are their equals. At the New York Times, we are openly described as an “anachronism” destined to fade into history. Unlike every other group, White Southerners are not allowed to celebrate our culture and heritage, or have a positive sense of ethnic identity and self worth.

In my mind, this raises a fundamental question: as a White Southerner, one of the millions of American natives loathed by our hostile elites in Washington and New York City, why should I desire to be a part of the same Union as these people? We literally have nothing in common: racially, ethnically, culturally, or politically. These people salivate over their dream of the future in which my descendants will become a degraded, oppressed minority in the land of their ancestors. I have come to dream about the glorious day when White Southerners wake up and sever our ties with these loathsome hypocrites forever.

Just think about it: in a society where children are aborted by the millions, where the institution of marriage is redefined, where young women aspire to careers as porn stars, where young men look up to Lil’ Wayne instead of Robert E. Lee,  why should the Union of all things be sacred? Individual couples get divorced all the time. The Left considers this an inviolable right. The people of the United States now have less in common than some of the most bitterly separated partners. It would be better for all parties involved to go our separate ways.

Frankly, I realized long ago that America is lost. The Confederacy had the right idea in striking out on its own. Too bad we lost. I passionately despise our national government for similar reasons. My loyalty has devolved back to my local community, state, and co-ethnics in the American South. It certainly doesn’t belong to the alien regime in Washington, DC with its genocidal policy of White dispossession.

Occidental Dissent, April 9, 2010

In Hatewatch, Larry Keller speculates about the future of the biannual Amren conferences. The question he tackles is whether or not local clubs are the answer to anti-fascist harassment. I think there is a lot of merit in this idea.

As I have said repeatedly, the main reason people go to these conferences is for the networking, camaraderie, friendships, and behind the scenes action. I’m told some attendees have found mates there. The real conference takes place in the casual conversation that goes on in the breaks between speakers, at lunch, at the bar, at dinner, and after hours in the hotel rooms. The scheduled lineup of speakers is really just an excuse for geographically dispersed racialists to gather in a central location. It is a shame that Amren only puts on this show every two years.

We all know by now that public conferences have serious drawbacks. They attract anti-fascist scum who poison the environment and pressure hotels to cancel our reservations. Anyone can attend a public conference. This includes people who many of us would prefer to exclude. Antifa spies can attend, snap damaging photos, and use ritual shaming and guilt by association to damage the careers of high profile attendees. Lots of people don’t attend the public conferences for this reason. All of these factors combine to depress turnout.

A private conference has none of these disadvantages. The private model also retains the advantages that make a conference worth the expense of attending. If I were organizing a national conference, I wouldn’t even consider the public model. I would only invite people I know and trust and “known entities” who comrades can vouch for. The 2010 Amren conference was forced to adopt this model at the last minute. It is a superior model anyway, and I hope future conferences will be organized along these lines. Next time around this should be done well in advance.

The catch of the private model is getting new people involved in Amren and the broader White Advocacy movement. Lots of good people show up at the biannual public conferences who don’t have a record of previous involvement in the pro-White scene. They don’t know anyone. Quite often their racial views are still evolving. I have two friends who attended previous Amren conferences at this stage of their development. We need a new mechanism for getting newbies to the national conference while filtering out potential spies and saboteurs.

Local clubs are the solution to this problem. Ideally, we could create Amren clubs in every state of the union and the major metropolitan areas. These private clubs could host monthly events at local restaurants, state parks, or historical sites. There is an endless number of potential meeting places for this type of social networking. It is my understanding that the Chicago group has been doing this for years. New recruits could meet established racialists in their local area. These established racialists could then decide whether to recommend inviting them to the private national conference.

The networking, camaraderie, friendships, and behind the scenes action that go on at the biannual conference, which only lasts a few days a year, could potentially go on around the clock all year long. The only thing better than the biannual gathering is having racialist friends in your local area, on your college campus, or within driving distance. OD is taking its first steps in this direction with the Virginia Network. We already have a few local people who are interested in organizing a regional book club and touring the local historical sites. In particular, I can’t wait to get the time to hike the Blue Ridge Mountains and go kayaking in the spring.

I’m learning how to do online social networking with Pip Pockets. We’re gradually learning the basics of Twitter, Facebook, Digg, and YouTube. We plan to fully exploit all of these mediums to amplify our message and increase the size of the OD audience. We’re also going to take a hard look at podcasts. I’ve joked around several times now about adding a “Radio Free Virginia” section to OD after the site redesign. Jim Giles is correct when he says that radio and video are more powerful than the written word. Most Americans don’t have the patience to read more than a few lines of text. This limitation alone severely restricts the size of our potential audience.

Amren could profit by moving in this direction as well. They should have a daily updated WordPress blog and Facebook page. Twitter is still a mystery to me, but Stuff Black People Don’t Like is building a huge following there. I’m told that every journalist in America is on Twitter now. Young people love YouTube. There are all sorts of missed opportunities to exploit with video. All of these social networking mediums could be exploited to organize racialists into a web of real world state and regional groups. Personal interaction in the real world will drain a lot of the poisonous acrimony, conspiracy mongering, character assassination, fantasism, and backbiting that prevails in racialist circles on the internet.

Just some food for thought. If Jared Taylor plays his cards right, I think Amren could emerge from all this stronger and more influential than ever before.

Occidental Dissent, February 28, 2010

As everyone knows by now, Jeffrey Imm of R.E.A.L. got the 2010 Amren Conference shut down. He immediately came over here to crow about his victory. I think Occidental Dissent was the first racialist site to pick up the story. I’ve been told that Stomfront is running a parallel thread that cited us.

What does this say about Jeffrey Imm? Several things: he is a busybody who sticks his nose in the business of others, he hates the spirit of freedom, he wants to take away your constitutional rights, he is un-American, he is a fanatic who denies the humanity of people he disagrees with, and he is a self anointed commissar who wants to impose a political orthodoxy on freethinking Americans. Such an individual won’t stop with racialists. This can be established in a quick glance at his website. Red Jeffrey poses a threat to the free speech and freedom of association of the broader American Right.

Look at it this way: if the Constitutional Convention of 1787 could reassemble in Washington, DC, Jeffrey Imm would try to shut them down too. Every delegate to the Constitutional Convention was a White male with politically incorrect, racially insensitive views. Thomas Jefferson spent his entire life advocating the deportation of blacks to Africa. James Madison actually served as the President of the American Colonization Society. The freedom of White men to assemble and petition their government, which thousands fought and died for in the American Revolution, has never been challenged in the United States . . . until now.

Jeffrey Imm and his associates aren’t content to replace free speech with political orthodoxy. Although Imm denounces violence, the hotel that was hosting the AR Conference received violent threats, probably from the usual anarchist nutjobs. R.E.A.L. claims to stand for a free society, but there are people who share their political views who are willing to use force, communist ritual shaming, and old fashioned lynch mobs to attack and cower their opponents. I believe it was Huey Long who famously said that when fascism comes to America, it will come in the guise of anti-fascism.

Jeffrey Imm and his Gestapo must be stopped. We can contribute to that project by raising our voices even louder here. We need more media. If any of you have something to say about Jeffrey Imm and his thought police, write an article for OD and send it to me at prozium1984@gmail.com.

Occidental Dissent, February 16, 2010

A response to Jeffrey Imm and R.E.A.L.

Growing up in the 1990s, I found myself pondering all sorts of mysteries as a teenager: why did my black classmates consistently receive lower test scores; why were black students always in the lower track courses; why did people on television claim that blacks were as smart as Whites; why did blacks act in such a peculiar way; why were the smart White kids herded into the same schools with black thugs and drug dealers. I didn’t get it. Something didn’t feel right.

The inclusion of blacks at my school always bothered me. It struck me as an obstacle to my education. Blacks often assaulted the White kids in the school cafeteria. They sold drugs in school. They disrupted the classroom. They didn’t show any interest in their studies. Their sordid underclass culture rubbed off on the poorer Whites. My teachers were constantly forced to waste their time catering to the lowest common denominator. It was one long farce from kindergarten to graduation.

When I arrived at college, I was catapulted into a whole different world. Suddenly, there were lots of bright people around me with similar interests. A magic filter whisked away all the troublesome blacks who took up space in high school. In their place, I had an enormous college library to mine with thousands of books that interested me. I had a slew of courses that I could take to satisfy my intellectual curiosity. There was no comparison between my new segregated environment and my old integrated one.

I plunged in head first. When I emerged five years later, I was a different person. I had come to realize that my generation was the subject of a cruel liberal experiment in social engineering. In the name of “equality,” a small group of federal judges and ideologues had overthrown Alabama’s segregated school system and forced raw negroes into the White schools. This was done solely to uplift the negro, not to improve the White schools. Integration was based on the flawed premise that segregated schools were the cause of black academic underperformance.

Fifty years later, the segregationists have yet to be vindicated. The racial gap in average test scores failed to disappear in the integrated schools. It has stubbornly persisted into the Obama presidency. The traditional social problems of the black underclass (illegitimacy, vulgarity, drug abuse, violence, indolence, teen pregnancy) were imported into the White schools where they became a common problem. America’s public schools once inspired envy throughout the Western world. Thanks to our growing black and mestizo population, they now rank near the bottom.

The segregationists were right about other things. Theodore Bilbo had predicted that the end of segregation would unleash a tidal wave of black-on-white violent crime. Even Bilbo though couldn’t imagine that the day would come when negroes would rape over 35,000 white women per year in the United States. This was unknown in the Jim Crow South. Interracial crime is a one way street. Whites are overwhelmingly the victims of murders, thefts, rapes, and assaults by negroes, not the other way around. Even when blacks murder, rape, and steal from other blacks, White taxpayers incur the costs of their incarceration. This is another unsavory aspect of Martin Luther King’s so-called “dream” that is deliberately ignored in the mainstream.

Why do Whites accept inferior schools? Why do they endure unbearable levels of interracial violent crime? Why do they put up with racial discrimination in the form of affirmative action? Why do Whites accept an immigration policy which displaces them from their neighborhoods and reduces their political power? Why do Whites accept the redistribution of their wealth to non-Whites?

Let’s travel further in this vein: Why do Whites accept the degeneration of their culture? Why do Whites accept the spread of poverty, disease, filth, and ignorance in their midst? Why do Whites accept economic underdevelopment? Why do Whites accept the surrender of their culture and identity to placate hostile minorities? Why do Whites think their displacement in their native lands is a good thing? Why do Whites confuse decline with progress?

From a perspective of self interest, White racial suicide doesn’t make any sense. It becomes explicable though in the light of ideology and altruism. Our enemies have twisted Christianity and republicanism to justify our demise as a people. The intellectual fraud they have perpetrated doesn’t stand up to close historical scrutiny. The real impulse to annihilate Whites comes from outside both of these traditions.

Two centuries ago, Whites didn’t have these debates. Republicanism and Christianity flourished alongside a vigorous racial nationalism. Slavery was a contentious issue, but Whiteness itself wasn’t attacked by even the most radical egalitarians. No one believed that “liberty” and “equality” mandated or required the demographic submersion of America’s White majority. If a Christian minister or priest had invoked “love” to justify the racial displacement of his flock, they would have laughed him out of church. They probably would have tarred and feathered him to boot.

The attack on Whiteness began in the twentieth century. It came from three primary sources: Jewish academics, black intellectuals, and Marxists. More often that not, blacks and Jews mingled in the same radical fringe. It was an extremely secular milieu. Collectively, they dreamed of overthrowing the bourgeoisie republican order and replacing it with a classless Marxist utopia in which all racial and social distinctions would be abolished.

The Soviet Union was the first European nation to permanently incorporate this revolutionary ideal into law. In the 1920s, the USSR became a mecca for radical black intellectuals alienated from America. In the United States, the Communist Party USA was the only political party that fully championed the colorblind ideal that gradually triumphed after the Second World War. It was instructed to unfurl the banner of racial equality by the Comintern. Within the CPUSA, the Moscow party line was controversial, as it tended to alienate White working class voters.

This is a rich story that no one has completely told. The term “racism” made its debut on the Marxist fringe in the 1920s, entered American public discourse in the 1930s, and penetrated the mainstream in the 1940s. The Civil Rights Movement had close ties to communism in its earliest years. The U.S. dismantled Jim Crow largely because of the appeal of communism in the Third World. The ruling class neutralized the racial threat of Soviet communism (the possibility of a black fifth column) by mainstreaming the Soviet racial ideal here in America.

The spearhead of anti-racism hasn’t changed in our own times. It is still composed of Jewish academics, black intellectuals, and Marxists. The common thread uniting them is communism, atheism, and hatred of Whites. They have since moved on to creating a new radical discourse about “white privilege” and new forms of subversion like “critical race theory.” These ideals are then smuggled into the mainstream through left-wing front groups as the newest form of Christianity and republicanism.

This is where Comrade Jeffrey enters the picture. His apparent role is to put words into the mouth of Jesus Christ or Thomas Jefferson that were never spoken. The true progenitors of his ideal can trace their footsteps back to Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin. He doesn’t want you to find that out though.

Occidental Dissent, February 3, 2010

Guy White has a new post about White Nationalism and anti-Semitism that mentions me and brings up several topics of relevance to this website. As usual, what Guy says contains a grain of truth, but he likes to paint in broad strokes. He also tends to come at White Nationalism from a Jewish perspective.

Here’s my own two cents:

1. There are White Nationalists who can be clinically diagnosed as psychopaths. They openly proclaim their intention to exterminate the Jews. Unlike Guy White, I am not convinced a majority of White Nationalists (or even a significant minority) share this point of view. In 9 out of 10 cases, it is mere saber rattling and more-radical-than-thou rhetorical posturing. If these people were truly genocidal, they would have the courage to carry out their convictions.

2. It is equally true that a significant number of Jews are batshit crazy. They are unreachable. These people are driven by an animus against Whites and intend to do us harm. Unlike the WNs, these people often have the wealth, power, or influence to act on their resentments. The death of Howard Zinn a few days ago was a small reminder that such malicious Jews (individual fire starters) are out there.

3. Yes, it is true that anti-Semites often say stupid things on the internet. I cited that in my first post as one of the reasons why I started this website. There is a world of difference though between powerless commentators on obscure blogs and the harm done to Whites by Jewish organizations like the ADL, AJC, or HIAS who have the ear of Congress and the President of the United States.

4. There is no valid comparison between radical anti-Semites on fringe right-wing websites and the Jewish political pundits and commentators that dominate mainstream American public discourse. You can’t compare a David Brooks, Paul Krugman, or Jeffrey Goldberg to a WhitePrideWorldWide or HeilHitler 14/88 on VNN Forum.

5. I’m a reasonable man. If Jews changed their behavior, I wouldn’t have a problem with them. I don’t write about Eskimos because they mind their own business and have never attempted to “transform” the culture and racial attitudes of White Americans. We don’t write about the Amish, Navajo, Shakers, Sioux or countless other American minority groups for the same reason.

6. Jews are resented because of their actions. Over the past two months, I have monitored them on this website. We’ve seen Jews try to manhandle the Pope, censor racialists at C-SPAN, push Obamacare through Congress, poison German youth with hip hop music, align with Hispanics to push “comprehensive immigration reform,” peddle anti-racist intrepretations of American history, demonize Whites on MLK day, demonize Sarah Palin, censor comments at The Huff Post, open our borders to a tidal wave of Haitian immigrants, etc.

7. I totally reject the victimization theory. Jews have never been victimized in the United States. I can’t think of a single anti-Jewish federal, state, or local law ever passed in America since the ratification of the Constitution. In theory, we shouldn’t have a Jewish problem. Jews were welcomed to America with open arms and have been wildly successful here. They have absolutely no valid reason to hate this country or wish to displace its people. Yet we still have Jews like Howard Zinn.

8. White Nationalism emerged in the mid-1970s in reaction to the demise of the Jim Crow South. Historically speaking, American racialism hasn’t been anti-Semitic. That changed in the wake of the Civil Rights Movement when the extent of Jewish involvement in pushing anti-racism and integration became unmistakably clear.

9. White Americans are the victims, not Jews. Thousands of Americans lost their lives in the Second World War fighting Hitler’s armies. White Americans liberated the Jews from the Third Reich.

How did they repay us? By marching across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma with MLK, redefining America as a “nation of immigrants,” fomenting Communism, destroying racial theory, opening our borders to a tidal wave of Third World immigration, demonizing White racial consciousness, and so on. We’ve given Israel literally billions of dollars in tribute.

In return for what? Nothing but hatred and contempt for “White racism.” Ever more obscene and radical demands to purge our heritage of anything that smacks of whiteness. American Jews are the most ungrateful people who have ever lived. They have made themselves at home in our house, a nation created by Whites for Whites, and libel us as moral lepers!

10. Why on Earth should White Nationalists like the Jews? No people in the world have done us more harm or loathe us with more malice. This was the case even before White Nationalism existed. Irrational WNs blame the Jews for everything that is wrong with America because of the Jewish omnipresence in almost every degenerate cultural trend.

The worst Jews can say about White Nationalists is that they have been the victims of some unkind comments by anonymous posters on the internet. That is nothing compared to the real harm that Jews inflict upon Whites on a daily basis which we are chronicling here.

Antisemitica, February 2, 2010

January was National Bath Safety Month. In observance thereof, I gave my dog his monthly bath on Dec. 31 and then again on Feb. 1.

I usually observe MLK Day by taking the trash to the curb just like any other Monday.

But how should White Nationalists observe Black History Month?

Hunter Wallace of Occidental Dissent has an excellent suggestion:

I’m going to use this month to deepen my knowledge of the White Republic. Some of you might want to consider purchasing a book or two about European history. I enjoyed Christopher Tyerman’s God’s War: A New History of the Crusades. The hardcover edition is 922 pages long and should last you through February.

Other excellent books can be found in the TOQ Online bookshop. I recommend in particular Wilmot Robertson’s The Dispossessed Majority; Sam Francis, ed., Race and the American Prospect; and Kevin MacDonald’s Cultural Insurrections: Essays on Western Civilization, Jewish Influence, and Anti-Semitism.

Please share your thoughts and suggestions for observing Black History Month below.

The Road to Disunion:
Volume II: Secessionists Triumphant, 1854-1861
William W. Freehling
New York: Oxford University Press

In his second volume of The Road to Disunion, William W. Freehling explores the climax of the secessionist movement in the American South. Secessionists Triumphant, 1854-1861 takes the reader from the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which reignited anti-slavery controversy in the territories, to the opening shots of the War Between the States at Fort Sumter. Long a thwarted minority, secessionists emerged from the political wilderness in these years and fatefully tore the White Republic asunder.

White Nationalists will be surprised to learn that Freehling’s revisionist interpretation of secession challenges the conventional wisdom on the topic. Every American teenager is taught in high school that Southerners stormed out of the Union over their failure to expand slavery in the territories. The Republican Party would have carved out new free states in the West. Eventually, free soilers would have achieved the necessary 3/4th majority to abolish slavery in the South. Thus, Southerners had no choice but to secede and form their own independent nation, as slavery was doomed within the Union.

Freehling uses multiple lines of evidence to undermine this argument. He points out that the most important secessionists, the South Carolina hotspurs, were the least enthusiastic about national expansion. Their champion John C. Calhoun had warned that the Mexican Cession would poison the Union. Likewise, the most important expansionists, the New Orleans imperialists, were among the strongest unionists. South Carolina had wanted to secede from the Union since 1850 and was deterred only because no other state would follow. The Kansas controversy that ensued in the mid-1850s didn’t precipitate the crisis. In the hearts and minds of South Carolinians, the fateful decision for disunion had been made long ago.

Far from being a beleagured minority, the Slave Power had been chalking up one victory after another, and making ever more extreme demands on their Northern colleagues. Texas was annexed to the Union in 1846. The Far Southwest was acquired in the Mexican Cession. The Wilmot Proviso was repeatedly defeated. In the Compromise of 1850, slaveholders had won a new fugitive slave law. The Whig Party was tried and convicted of treason to slavery in the Lower South. In the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the Missouri Compromise was repealed and all the territories were flung open to slavery. In the Dred Scott decision, Congress was stripped of its power to abolish slavery in the territories and free blacks lost their citizenship. Finally, Stephen Douglas defeated Abraham Lincoln in an 1858 Illinois Senate race. The Republican Party grew only because of the seemingly insatiable demands of slaveholders who had never been more powerful.

The Western territories which allegedly were the cause of disunion were largely unsuited for plantation agriculture. Slavery wasn’t about to establish itself in New Mexico, Utah, or Nebraska. This was no real loss: planters had an overabundance of land in more tropical Arkansas and Texas waiting to be exploited. Free states like California and Oregon also usually voted with the South in Congress. In Kansas, a mere 200 slaves were imported into the territory. Southerners knew the North would settle the region with their far larger population. Even if Kansas had been admitted as a slave state under the Lecompton constitution, it wouldn’t have remained one a dozen years later.

Under close examination, disunion seems even more bizarre. Southerners were outraged at Northerners who wanted to ban slavery in the territories, but in seceding from the Union they renounced their claim to all the territories. Southerners worried about the erosion of slavery in the Border South, but in seceding from the Union they abolished slavery in the region. Southerners were worried that non-slaveholders would flock to a Southern Republican Party, but secession divided Virginia and produced thousands of anti-Confederates in East Tennessee, North Alabama, and Western North Carolina. Southerners worried about servile insurrection, but nothing was more likely to produce that result than a Civil War!

The ”Black Republican” threat was vastly exaggerated. Only 2% of Northerners wanted to abolish slavery where it already existed. The Republicans only wished to ban slavery in places it could never take root. They had lost on that point in the Kansas-Nebraska Act and Dred Scott decision. In 1860/1861, the Republicans were willing to pass an irrevocable constitutional amendment that would have legalized slavery forever in the Southern states, including the Border South where it was imperiled. Abraham Lincoln even conceded that he wouldn’t use patronage to create a Southern Republican Party in the Lower South.

Lincoln’s election, the proximate cause of disunion, was desired by secessionists like William Lowndes Yancey and Robert Barnwell Rhett. Yancey deliberately used an abstract debate over a congressional slave code to divide the Democratic Party, defeat Stephen Douglas’ candidacy, and ensure a Lincoln victory. This outrage could then be exploited to drive a handful of the most radical states out the Union. The more reluctant Gulf States would then be forced to secede with their brethren. If Lincoln chose to coerce a seceded state, this would force Upper South (and hopefully the Border South) into a Southern Confederacy.

It boggles the mind: secessionists diligently went to work destroying their national political party through which they had lately controlled the Presidency, Congress, and the Supreme Court. If the Democrats had united behind Douglas, they could have defeated the Republicans in 1860. If slaveholders had conceded inhospitable and unwinnable territories within the Union, as they did by leaving the Union, the Republican Party would have faded. Slavery would have been ensconced in an impregnable constitutional fortress. There is no telling when it may have ultimately been abolished.

The revolution the secessionists incited thrust men into power who had not championed disunion. Jefferson Davis, Confederate President, had been a Washington insider and favorite of James Buchanan. He had opposed secession until 1860. Alexander Stephens, Confederate Vice President, opposed Georgia’s secession from the Union. Robert Toombs, Confederate Secretary of State, was a unionist who opposed Georgia secession in 1850. Christopher Memminger, Confederate Treasury Secretary, had been a Cooperationist. The Confederate government was stacked with other late comers. Noticeably absent were the Fire Eaters (Robert Barnwell Rhett and William Lowndes Yancey) who prodded the South to disunion.

These men exploited several issues to drive a wedge between North and South. Robert Barnwell Rhett hoped the Republicans would revisit the issue of abolishing slavery in Washington, DC. Maybe that could be used to dissolve the Union. Yancey argued for reopening the African slave trade in the hope that it would alienate Northern Democrats. Kansas and Caribbean expansion were also seen as useful devices for justifying disunion. Ultimately, the congressional slave code with the abstract “when necessary” language proved the most lethal and effective weapon.

South Carolina set the chain of dominos in motion. There haughty lowcountry aristocrats had long despised American mobocracy and yearned for deliverance. Touchy Southwesterners in Alabama and Mississippi could not tolerate the dishonor of being morally stigmatized or excluded from any territory. They could also not tolerate the decision of the Buchanan administration to coerce South Carolina by sending the Star of the West to resupply Fort Sumter. Florida and Georgia followed their neighbors. Louisiana and Texas cast their lot with their sister states.

The Upper South decisively rejected secession until Lincoln decided to coerce the Confederacy. The Whites in these states felt South Carolinians had been foolish and unwise, but did not contest their right to secede. Lincoln’s violation of states’ rights took Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee out of the Union. In the Border South, 1/3 of Whites sided with the Confederacy; 2/3 with the Union. Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland degenerated into civil war.

William W. Freehling searched in vain for a rational explanation for disunion. Wasn’t there an “irrepressible conflict” between the Free States and Slave States? His research uncovered an untidy variety of causes as divergent as the various subregions of the South. Some Southerners were swept along by the excitement and momentum of events beyond their control. Some felt they were being treated as less than equals. Some despised Yankee holier-than-thous. Some felt that slavery would be safer in a Southern Confederacy. Some believed that Northern protectionists were fleecing them with high tariffs. Some would side with their own misguided kin. Some did not believe the federal government could coerce a seceded state. Most subscribed to some combination of these grievances.

It is worth noting that the demise of the White Republic was a self inflicted blow on American civilization. Northerners and Southerners heaped up their own funeral pyre over insoluble sectional differences. Jews did not play an important role in the final unraveling. The reconstructed nation that emerged from the carnage would elevate Negroes to civil and political equality. A few years earlier, this had been an unthinkable scenario except in the minds of the wildest fanatics like John Brown. If there is any useful lesson that White Nationalists can draw from this, it is that White fratricide always works to the advantage of our racial enemies.

Occidental Dissent, January 29, 2010

After carefully reading Michael Bell’s new article at TOQ Online, I fail to see why it has provoked so much controversy [at Occidental Dissent]. It appears that some here had a knee jerk reaction to the phrase “spitting game” and associated Michael with Roissy and his followers.

The thrust of the essay is that White Nationalists should exploit common sense (look her dead in the eye, be confident, be funny, don’t be a nice guy, etc.) to secure mates and racialize young females. The long term goal advocated is reproductive success (sex tied to reproduction), not sexual intercourse for its own sake. Michael could have stated this more clearly and used less provocative language to get his point across.

But nowhere in his article does Michael idolize dissolute males. He does not say that men should psychologically manipulate females to “score” as many one night stands as possible. His object seems to be to coax the more cerebral White Nationalists (he cites me as an example) out of their misogyny and into the “sexual marketplace.” I don’t agree with this characterization, as I am neither celibate or a misogynist, but that’s not the issue here.

I’ve elaborated my view of the Roissysphere before. There is a lot of truth in what they have to say, so I won’t criticize their science of the pick up artist, but I think the degeneration of sexual mores that followed in the wake of feminism is one of the strongest arguments against modern liberal society. It is something the White Nationalist movement should aim to reverse. At the same time, I have also said that retreating into monastic celibacy like Lawrence Auster is hopelessly impractical.

For the most part, I agree with Michael Bell. White Nationalists have to navigate the choppy waters of gender relations in a degenerate liberal age. In pursuit of the reproductive goal, I see nothing morally objectionable about making intelligent use of basic insights into female psychology. There probably isn’t a man in the world who doesn’t do this on some level. The only real point of difference between us is the stress he puts upon game.

White Nationalists are still a tiny minority of White Americans. There are still plenty of decent, respectable young women out there in a shrinking pool of potential mates. In fact, we’re outnumbered by them. If you are willing to look hard enough, you can find a mate of this sort. You also have a better chance of forming a lasting relationship with such a woman than using game to convert the common run of brainwashed female to racialism.

Unlike some people here, I am not going to condemn the emerging men’s issues movement, as it is clear there is some common ground between us. If you think about it, White men are being dispossessed in several ways: as a race, as a religion, and as men. The men’s issues movement is another angle on the dispossession story. It involves many of the same actors. “Game” is one emergent response to this. White Nationalism and Christian Nationalism are two others.

I don’t think anyone has looked at all three movements with the same critical perspective. We should mine this subject further.

What Hath God Wrought:
The Transformation of America, 1815-1848
Daniel Walker Howe
New York: Oxford University Press, 2009

In the Oxford History of the United States series, Daniel Walker Howe’s What Hath God Wrought picks up where Gordon S. Wood’s Empire of Liberty left off in the War of 1812. It takes the reader from Andrew Jackson’s victory over the British at the Battle of New Orleans in 1815 to Zachary Taylor’s election as President of the United States in 1848. The period can aptly be described as America’s adolescence. It was also the Golden Age of the White Republic.

The telegraph, steamboat, and railroad appeared and revolutionized transportation and communication across the young nation. From Alexander the Great to Benjamin Franklin, previous generations had communicated only at the speed of a galloping horse. Within a single lifetime, the ancient ”tyranny of distance” was overthrown. The construction of canals and advances in printing fueled this process and led to the emergence of mass based political parties and an integrated national market economy. America would experience its first financial panic in 1819 and first depression from 1837 to 1843.

Under James Madison and James Monroe, the Democratic-Republican Party quietly absorbed the remaining Federalists in the short lived “Era of Good Feelings,” but later split apart into “Old Republicans” and “National Republicans” in the 1824 and 1828 national elections. These divisions within the Republican Party quickly solidified into the second two party system, the Democrats and Whigs, which dominated national politics until 1856.

The Democrats became the party of national expansion, white supremacy, states’ rights, defense of slavery, cultural pluralism, agrarianism, and free trade. The Whigs favored a protective tariff, internal improvements, economic diversification, a national bank, soft money, nativism, and moral reform. They opposed national expansion and the extension of slavery. Throughout this period, the Whigs consistently took the more liberal position on race. For the time being, partisanship had the salutary effect of papering over the sectional crack in the Union that emerged in the Missouri Crisis. The Senate experienced its own Golden Age with the debates of Clay, Webster, and Calhoun.

In the Great Migration, American settlers poured across the Appalachians into the Old Northwest and Old Southwest and rapidly settled the Mississippi Valley. They became known to posterity as the “pioneers.” From 1789 to 1815, American civilization was Atlanticist and looked toward Europe. From 1815 to 1848, Americans became Continentalists and turned their gaze westward across North America. They followed the Oregon Trail in Conestoga wagons into the Pacific Northwest. The Mormons left the Midwest in an exodus and settled in the Great Salt Lake Valley. Stephen Austin and other American colonists settled in the Mexican state of Texas.

The migration of the pioneers to the frontier had a parallel in the migration of European immigrants and country folk into the cities. In 1820, there were only five cities in America with a population of more than 25,000 and one over a 100,000. By 1850, there were 26 cities with a population over 25,000 and six with a population over 100,000. The urban percentage of the population increased from 7% to 18%. From 1815 to 1850, about five million European immigrants (Germans, Scot-Irish, Irish Catholics) settled in America. The median age was 16. Only 1 of 8 Americans was over the age of 43. The White birthrate was so high that the American population doubled every 20 years.

In spite of their growing diversity, Americans explicitly disavowed the notion that they lived in a multiracial or multicultural society. Free blacks in the Upper South (North Carolina, 1835), New England (Connecticut, 1818, Rhode Island, 1822), and Mid-Atlantic states (Pennsylvania, 1838) lost the voting rights they had previously enjoyed. After 1819, every new state admitted to the Union with the exception of Maine would disenfranchise black voters. Missouri, Ohio, Illinois and several other states banned free blacks altogether. Blacks developed their own separate churches. Women lost the right to vote in New Jersey which was the only state that had granted them suffrage.

In 1815, Southerners didn’t have much passion for defending slavery. They usually said it was a regrettable institution that had been foisted on the South in its infancy by the British. The Denmark Vesey and Nat Turner rebellions changed that. By 1848, John C. Calhoun and others like him had come around to defending slavery as a “positive good.” Josiah Nott, a Mobile physician who wrote about racial differences, denied that negroes and Whites belonged to the same species. In the 1850s, George Fitzhugh rejected Jeffersonianism in favor of a comprehensive political theory based on slavery and hierarchy. By that time, the Enlightenment had long since faded and died in the South.

Americans in the North and South alike had come to believe that the United States was a “white man’s country.” The logical implication was that free blacks were a blot on the American experiment. In 1817, the American Colonization Society was founded for the purpose of deporting them to Africa. 4,291 American negroes were ultimately repatriated to Liberia in West Africa. 10,000 more would emigrate there from the United States by the end of the Civil War. African colonization was endorsed by the Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, and Episcopalians as well as by the states of Virginia, Kentucky, Maryland, Tennessee, Delaware, Ohio and six other Northern states.

The Indians weren’t held in much higher esteem. After smashing the Creeks at Horseshoe Bend, Andrew Jackson forced huge territorial concessions on the Five Civilized Tribes (Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole) that led to them surrendering most of their territory in the Old Southwest. Florida was invaded and annexed to destroy a bastion of multiracial freedom that had become a haven for runaway slaves. The later Seminole Wars were fought for the same reason.

Old Hickory’s proudest accomplishment as President of the United States was the Indian Removal bill which ordered the deportation of all Indians east of the Mississippi to the Oklahoma Territory. His successor Martin Van Buren zealously carried on Indian Removal. In the Northwest, a small race war was fought against the Black Hawk Indians. The Texas Revolution evolved into a race war between Anglos and Mexicans. By 1846, Florida, Oregon, and Texas had fallen like ripe fruit into the American orbit. Everywhere White men could be found asserting their racial interests in a way that is virtually unknown today.

“Manifest Destiny” was in the air. This imperialistic sentiment culminated in the Mexican War under James K. Polk (”Young Hickory”) which resulted in the acquisition of California and the Southwest in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. After the Mexican Cession, the Far Southwest was considered the racial patrimony of White men. In some parts of Texas, Mexicans were ethnically cleansed and a new law was passed that racialized property rights. Mestizos in New Mexico didn’t acquire full rights as American citizens until statehood was finally achieved in 1912. California didn’t recognize Mexicans as citizens until 1870.

Culturally speaking, Jacksonian America was a fertile period. The most popular form of entertainment was the minstrel show. Americans jumped Jim Crow and laughed at Zip Coon, a pretentious negro who liked to dress in fancy clothes and use big words he didn’t understand, a precursor of Barack Obama in some ways. Dime novels which glorified the American Revolution and Indian Wars were popular. The roots of country music can be traced back to the Anglo-Celtic folk songs of this era. Edgar Allan Poe and the Transcendentalists laid the foundation of American poetry and literature.

The Second Great Awakening reinvigorated American religion. By 1850, twice as many Americans were affiliated with a church as had been the case in 1815. Evangelicals sought to hasten the millennium by supporting a series of reform movements: abolitionism, women’s suffrage, temperance, world peace, and opposition to Indian Removal. Cockfighting, dueling, and drinking became controversial as middle class mores spread. Utopian communes were founded in New Harmony, Indiana, Nashoba, Tennessee, and Oneida, New York. Joseph Smith founded the Church of Latter Day Saints.

A radical left hatched out of the fringes of Christianity: Unitarians, Hicksite Quakers, Evangelicals, and Protestant missionaries. Oberlin College (the first integrated co-ed university in the world) was founded in Ohio. William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglass preached against slavery in The Liberator and The North Star, but the abolitionists remained mired in the swamps of third party politics. In 1848, the women’s suffrage movement kicked off with the famous Seneca Falls convention. Henry David Thoreau wrote his famous essay “Civil Disobedience” in his disgust with the Mexican War, Indian Removal, and the expansion of slavery. Ralph Waldo Emerson found Polynesians and Africans worthy of the American melting pot. The Whig Party vigorously opposed the Mexican War and Indian Removal. Without the Jews, America produced its own leftist radicals.

These are but a few of the topics that are given treatment in What Hath God Wrought. There are also discussions of the Bank War, Monroe Doctrine, the South Carolina Nullification Crisis, the Wilmot Proviso, California Gold Rush and much else. Although it is written from a humanist perspective, I found What Hath God Wrought to be the most comprehensive introduction to Jacksonian America available. In my next review, I will explore the subject further in Waking Giant: America in the Age of Jackson.

White Nationalism is an attempt to recreate the lost world of the White Republic. It is unintelligible outside of its roots in the American Colonization Society, Indian Removal, Wilmot Proviso, and the Free Soil movement. If for no other reason, White Nationalists (and anti-racists) should read this book to understand their own complex origins.

From Occidental Dissent, January 21, 2010

Hunter Wallace, whose blog Occidental Dissent I regularly visit and comment at, recently created a new blog called Antisemitica whose byline is “Reasoned Analysis of the Jewish Question”. Visitors who sympathize with the topics and attitudes discussed at this blog can find a much greater and steadier source at either of these blogs.

At Antisemitica Hunter has been especially successful at eliciting responses from prominent opinion-shaping jews. I enjoyed the recent critique of James Howard Kunstler, who I recently wrote about in Who Thinks Thinking is Unthinkable and Why. Hunter wrote Kunstler and Whites, then he answered Kunstler’s dismissive response in Kunstler on Antisemitica. I left comments on both posts.

Beyond this, HW’s new blog regularly provides brilliant insights into exactly the kind of White/jew faultlines that have drawn my attention for the past two years. HW offers pro-White views and explanations that have been excluded from mainstream discourse even as unapologetically pro-jew views and explanations have become more common. I’ll excerpt and comment on a few points I found of particular interest.

The Jews and Obamacare:

In a racially homogeneous country, an Iceland or Finland, I think such a system could work. In America, it will become just another mechanism for wealth redistribution from Whites to non-Whites. The “47 million uninsured” are disproportionately blacks and Hispanics. I don’t want to see scarce resources drained away from the White community and wasted on people who nurse racial and ethnic grievances against us. I oppose the bill for that reason.

With that in mind, I wasn’t surprised at all to learn this morning that “Jewish groups have been at the forefront of lobbying the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives for health care reform, framing their support within the Talmudic mandate of Tikkun Olam, repairing the world.” In other words, Jews as Jews are lobbying the government for wealth redistribution from Whites to non-Whites. The Jewish community is the vanguard of the interests pushing for this destructive piece of legislation.

I haven’t heard a peep of this from conservatives, libertarians, or race realists.

The only peep I think we’re likely to hear is the unthinking accusation that the whole problem is unthinking “jew-hate”.

Why Jews Hate Palin:

Ultimately, Jews hate Sarah Palin for the same reason White conservatives adore her. They hate her for the same reason John McCain picked her as his running mate. She is the goddess of implicit Whiteness. Palin appeals to the demographic that American Jews have alway considered their traditional enemy: rural and suburban White Christians from the Southern and Western states.

She is one of them. If Palin was ever elected president, she could unite this demographic and represent their small town values at the highest level of the American government. Jews would feel threatened by “hope and change” of this sort. Dire warnings about the “new anti-Semitism” would be issued by Jewish organizations. Emigration to Israel would be contemplated. Jews would feel even more alienated from America than they already do now.

Fear and loathing of White Americans, “leukophobia” or “anti-Whitism,” is normal, acceptable, and mainstream in the Jewish community. It is a form of racial prejudice like any other. It is also a driving force behind Jewish support for Barack Obama. What better way to drive a stake through the heart of White America than to elect a mulatto as President of the United States?

I noted this jewish fear and loathing in The Election is Over, written directly in the wake of the 2008 election. Only now, more than a year later, are famously hyper-sensitive, hyper-critical, and hyper-opinionated jews frankly discussing the issue. Of course a major portion of that discussion consists of denial that the issue is real, or that it’s worth discussing.

Swastikas and Hate Crimes:

Trivial property crimes against Jews routinely get national press coverage. Violent crimes against Whites are buried in local newspapers. This is one the small daily reminders of Jewish privilege.

In the comments to If Hasan Were White I noted how while everyone in the media and government was telling everyone not to jump to conclusions about Hasan’s motives a shooting near an LA synagogue inspired an instant and publically announced assumption that the cause was “anti-semitism”. Nobody in media or government criticizes jews for words or actions that go beyond what is pathologized as “hate” or “racism” in Whites. To even call attention to these White/jew double standards is considered “anti-semitism”.

Israel and Jewish Privilege:

Jewish privilege is real. White privilege is non-existent. Just recently, Switzerland was widely condemned around the world for its ban on the construction of minarets. The rejection of this bill in Israel [that would force the Israeli Lands Administration to allocate land equally between Arabs and Jews] (and dozens like it over the years) hasn’t set off a similar backlash in the United States. It is understood that Israel has a right to remain a Jewish state whereas the right of Switzerland to remain a White Christian nation is highly controversial.

White/jew double standards are palpable. See my related posts Whose Country Is This Anyway? and Switzerland Minus Minarets.

Neocons are Anti-Semites:

This is a great example of what Kevin MacDonald calls Jewish self deception. The charge happens to be true. Jews look at Sarah Palin and they see the most white bread conservative leader since Pat Buchanan. They see the implicit whiteness in the metastasizing Tea Party crowds.

Their cultural antennae has a visceral negative emotional reaction. It goes far beyond public policy disagreements. Their gut instinct tells them crowds of angry White people are “bad for the Jews.”

When White Americans respond to negro and Hispanic chauvinists in this way, Jews decry it as “racism.” In a sense, they are right. It is racial prejudice at work; an emotional short cut that bypasses reason.

I think this view of the Tea Party phenomena is correct. There’s much, much more to be said about it. It strikes me as similar not only to the prismatic polarization Palin has provided, but Polanski as well. The pattern is this: White/jewish visceral disgust, followed by jewish/White instinctual reaction to that disgust, followed by largely jewish opinion-shaping aimed at obscuring the White/jew divide, often mixed with one-way blame on supposedly irrational “jew-hate” emanating from Whites.

I’ve read brief allusions to this supposed jewish self-deception, but I haven’t read MacDonald’s original argument. Can someone point out in which book it is made? Perhaps I misunderstand the idea.

Ironically, the idea that jews don’t know what they’re doing or why seems to me an unconscious attempt to downplay the significance of the obvious stereotypical jewish lack of scruples and utter contempt for the notion that lying or hypocrisy is something to be avoided or to be ashamed of, at least when it comes to serving their own personal or wider jewish interests. I see true self-deception in Whites, especially those who won’t judge jews, or judge them by softer standards than jews themselves see fit to judge non-jews by. We don’t have to make excuses for the harm jews cause us any more than jews feel the need to excuse what they deem to be harm caused by Whites. You never see them excusing “racists”, “haters”, “tea baggers”, “rethuglicans”, “neo-nazis” – which are all codewords for Whites – as self-deceivers. In jewish eyes any White who acts White is simply a threat. The enemy. For example, when accused of being anti-White Kunstler answered:

I’m not against white people… I’m just against white people who are against other people….

It’s one of the same responses I got from the anti-White “reality-based community”. Only those who see Whites as some kind of lesser beings have a problem with us saying “I’m not against non-White people… I’m just against non-White people who harm White people…” Jews don’t like that, and it’s not because they’re unaware or lie to themselves about their own outrageous, self-serving hypocrisy. They don’t like it because they are hyper-aware of their own group’s interests and don’t give a shit what anybody else thinks about that. It reflects a fundamental difference in mental function, not some innocent oversight.

On Antisemitica’s Kunstler thread I responded similarly to “David F” (David Frum?), who seemed eager to explain away Kunstler’s behavior as unconscious. “David F” dissembled, claiming Kunstler is “just writing about the underclass the way everyone in his social circles does”, without noting that it’s very visible, very outspoken jews like Kunstler, Frum, Horowitz, Brooks, etc. shaping and pruning and leading the way – pathologizing and excommunicating Whites who question the pro-jew/anti-White social circle norms.

Another illustration of what I’m getting at is faux-White jew Lawrence Auster, who strikes an explicitly pro-”white” pose and urges “the majority” to reassert our interests. Simultaneously he considers Whites who criticize jews to be worse than an evil enemy. To him we’re subhuman. He’s not lying to himself, he’s lying to everyone else. Auster is an extremely self- and group-aware pro-jewish chauvanist who simply lacks the honesty to plainly state his priorities, which are clear from his frequent and energetic attacks on “the anti-semites”. He absurdly maintains that the recognition of this fact itself represents irrational “jew-hate”. This has been pointed out to him and he has read the critiques, repeatedly, and he continues to maintain his position (see for example, Is Majority Rights cleaning up its act?, Anti-Semitism and the Jews–a collection, What the anti-Semites believe, An apostate anti-Semite, and The Darwinian anti-Semites’ self-contradiction). To paraphrase his co-tribalist Kunstler, Auster isn’t against “white” people… He’s just against White people who resent jewish interests being misrepresented as identical to “white” interests. Both men have stated their positions clearly and openly in response to being challenged.

Paul Gottfried on Neocons:

Gottfried bluntly says that Jews control the American Right. From their throne in Manhattan, Jewish neocons enjoy the privilege of being able to manipulate the status system (using their own ethnic interests as a litmus test) to determine who is “mainstream” and “respectable” and thus who can be granted entry into the national political conversation.

In the end, Gottfried sounds more like an apologist than a truth teller.

Gottfried is yet another faux-White, pale-conning jewish critic of “liberal” jews. In the end he blames Whites and his strongest vitriol is reserved “the anti-semites”. Neither he nor his friend Auster actually hold jews responsible for anything. In their minds the fault for all White/jew conflict lies entirely with Whites, whom they blame under cover of euphemisisms such as “the majority”, “WASPs”, “gentile whites”, etc. much like Kunstler blames “yeast people” and “cornpone nazis”. Pro-Whites can use whatever euphemisms or qualifiers we want in expressing negative opinions about jews, however precise, and for all their hair-splitting these brainy critics will unanimously identify and denounce that as “anti-semitism”. The exception is when the criticism comes from themselves, because that’s motivated by what they believe are the best interests of jews.

The Jews and NBC:

In the Jewish Journal, a recent article explicitly discusses Jewish control of NBC. White Nationalists have claimed for years that “Jews control the media” and use it to brainwash the White masses in anti-racist mores.

An excellent example of how jewish media influence allows jews to have their cake and eat it too, discussing the jewish power brokers behind the scenes at NBC amongst themselves while the mainstream discussion focuses almost exclusively on the roles and personalities of the pampered hired help who work out front. Jewish media influence is usually painted, both by jews and those currying favor with jews, as a ridiculous “canard” motivated by “jew-hate”. One typical and true canard they respond with is that “[insert non-jew here] isn’t jewish!” Another is that jews argue all the time. Of course as the Jewish Journal admits in its reportage intended for fellow jews, at NBC it’s a “whole bunch of jews” doing the arguing. And of course it’s jewish influence that keeps such frank discussions of jewish influence from being printed on the front page of the New York Times and Wall Street Journal.

Empire of Liberty
A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815
by Gordon S. Wood
New York: Oxford University Press, 2009

I have always enjoyed the escapism of reading a good book about the White Republic. It is a relief to return on occasion to an earlier chapter of American history when the racial and cultural foundations of our national identity were unquestioned. White men once enjoyed the luxury of being able to engage in real politics. Back then our nation was not yet under the control of alien parasites.

Gordon S. Wood’s Empire of Liberty is a chronicle of America’s youthful innocence. It was a very different time from our own. From 1789 to 1815, the United States was unquestionably a “white man’s country.” The first several naturalization laws restricted citizenship to “free white persons.” Neither major political party considered women fit for the political responsibilities of republican citizenship. The Indians were not thought of as “Native Americans,” but as savages and foreigners allied with America’s enemies, Britain and Spain. Blacks were considered an inferior race best enslaved, dominated, or deported.

Racial attitudes hardened in this period. After 1800, Jefferson’s hereditarian account of racial differences overwhelmed Samuel Stanhope Smith’s naive environmentalism. In the North, several states passed anti-miscegenation laws, black codes, and restricted black voting rights. Southerners passed new laws against free blacks and placed new restrictions on black voting rights and civil liberties. Antislavery sentiment in the South waned and collapsed after the Haitian Revolution and Gabriel’s Rebellion.

In spite of the American government’s professed benevolent intentions toward the Indians, White settlers poured across the Appalachians into the Northwest and Southwest, violated Indian treaties, and soaked the frontier in low level warfare. The Indians suffered several major defeats against the U.S. Army at the Battle of Fallen Timbers (1794), Battle of Tippecanoe (1811), and the Battle of Horseshoe Bend (1814). By 1815, the various Indian tribes of Transappalachia had surrendered most of their land, and philanthropists were advocating their resettlement on Western reservations.

I believe it was Leonard Zeskind who recently said that America has always had two hearts: one beating heart is White and Christian, the other heart is liberal and democratic. The two have often been at odds. Wood’s Empire of Liberty is more about the latter than the former. Although every major figure in this period was a White male, Wood doesn’t really draw attention to this. The irreducible whiteness of the Early Republic is taken for granted. It is assumed like the water in an aquarium.

The real story that Gordon Wood wants to tell is the division of Americans into Federalists and Republicans. The America of 1815 wasn’t envisioned by the Founders. They didn’t anticipate the rise of political parties or the partisan press. They created a republic, not a liberal democracy. When the Constitution was ratified, “democracy” was still held in disrepute. It was a discredited political theory. “Democrat” was a pejorative term.

In the aftermath of the American Revolution, the Federalists began to have second thoughts about the popular forces they had unleashed. Their ideal was a strong European style nation-state with a formidable military and commercial economy. They looked forward to the day when America would mature into a class based society like England. The Federalists wanted a republic presided over by the better sort of men: the wise, learned, propertied, well born, cosmopolitan. They believed hierarchy was the foundation of civilization and moral virtue the bedrock of the social order.

Some Federalists wanted America to become a monarchy. They advised George Washington to imitate the British court throughout his presidency. John Adams was obsessed with titles and the trappings of aristocracy. Alexander Hamilton called democracy a “disease.” After American independence was secured and a strong national government was created, the Federalists wanted all the revolutionary jargon to go away. They often spoke about bringing “erroneous notions of liberty and equality” to heel.

The U.S. Constitution was designed to reverse the democratic excesses of the state legislatures. The Federalists were appalled by the Jacobinism and licentiousness they saw spreading through American society. Commoners were refusing to show their customary deference. Parvenus were everywhere aspiring to gentlemen status. “Aristocrat” was becoming an abusive term. It was a charge the Federalists were often slimed with.

The Republican social revolution that followed the ratification of the Constitution was a time of ferment and chaos more profound than the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s. By the time it was over, the traditional social hierarchy of the eighteenth century was in shambles. Slavery fell in the Northern states. Patriarchy took a hit. Honor was on the way out. Divorce laws were liberalized. Primogeniture was abandoned. The prison system replaced the mutilation that prevailed in colonial times. Illegitimacy and alcoholism skyrocketed. The mainline Protestant churches were disestablished. Jews were extended rights they previously had not enjoyed.

The acid of liberty and equality systematically eroded every hierarchical institution. The Anglicans, Congregationalists, and Presbyterians lost their former dominance to Baptists and Methodists. America became the most commercialized society in the world. Wealth became the primary determinant of social status, not birth, blood, or education. After the triumph of the Democratic-Republicans, a wave of egalitarianism swept away the distinctions that had once existed between White men.

By 1815, America had evolved from an aristocratic republic to the liberal capitalist democracy that it remains to this day. Corporations were sprouting up everywhere. In the North, a middling commercialized society of religious fundamentalists had emerged. In the South, the invention of the cotton gin was creating the Cotton Kingdom of the Antebellum era. Slaveowners had lost their previous enthusiasm for revolutionary liberalism. In Congress, the familiar sort of politicians (ex. Andrew Jackson and Martin van Buren) were being elected to public office.

Much of Empire of Liberty is given over to what you would expect: the presidencies of Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Madison, the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars, the XYZ Affair, the Quasi War with France, the Crisis of 1798/1799, the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Louisiana Purchase, the Marshall Court and judicial review, the Louis and Clark expedition, the Burr conspiracy, Jefferson’s embargo on Britain, and the War of 1812. I found it to be an excellent introduction to all of these topics.

The seeds of America’s racial decline were sown in the earliest years of the White Republic. In these years, the Republicans began the practice of celebrating the Declaration of Independence. Centuries later, Americanism would be redefined by their successors as the ideological principles of liberty and equality. The degenerate society that our generation inherited evolved out of the flaws inherent in that document. Empire of Liberty is a useful resource in understanding how that ball was set into motion.

From Occidental Dissent, January 15, 2010

The creation of the American Third Position Party is creating waves across the blogosphere. We already have two posts about the matter here. Heidi Beirich has a write up over at Hatewatch. GuessedWorker is pointing fingers at the Bilderbergers of White Nationalism. David Duke’s website has picked up the story. The local press in California has three stories about the matter. See also the CoCC and TOQ Online threads.

I’m trying to catch up on all of this. I first remember hearing about the “American Third Position Party” when Kevin MacDonald mentioned it in his RFM interview. I assumed it was an already established third party based in California. I heard nothing further about it until reading the posts here. It is quickly becoming a tempest in a WN teacup.

Personally, I hope this will finally shut up the Neo-Nazi cultists who complain about “intellectual pussies” and “do nothing, contribute nothing keyboard warriors.” In addition to everything else he does, which alone is more than sufficient, Kevin MacDonald is trying to create a viable third party for White Americans. His loudmouth critics haved only talked about it. I have read several of the various criticisms and disagree with most of them.

The American Third Position Party should be given a shot. It appears to be led by decent and reasonable men. If someone else creates something better, we should support their efforts instead, but in the meantime we need a focal point around which to rally our forces.

From Occidental Dissent, January 6, 2010

In the New York Times, David Brooks (a Jewish Op-Ed columnist) observes that Americans have never been more sour about the future of their country. 61% of Americans believe their country is in decline. Only 27% of Americans believe their children will be better off than they are. Job satisfaction is at a record low. The Tea Party movement is more popular than either major political party.

Naturally, Brooks is “not a fan of this movement” but sees its “potential to shape the coming decade.” He notes that “every single idea associated with the educated class has grown more unpopular over the past year.” For our purposes, it is worth noting that the “educated classes” (the media, public policy, and academic elites) have never been more disproportionately Jewish than they are today.

A majority of White Americans have grown disgusted with Jewish influence in our culture, but have yet to connect the dots. They don’t see the Jewish economists behind globalism or the Jewish advocacy groups behind abortion. There is no discussion of the issue in the MSM. It remains to be seen whether or not White Nationalists will capitalize on this opportunity.

From Antisemitica, January 5, 2010

A point in favor of the philo-Semites emerged this morning. In light of my pledge of fairness, I felt compelled to report it. Jewish attitudes toward immigration are more complex than White Nationalists have imagined. If the CIS/Zogby data is accurate, the typical Jew is at odds with the Jewish leadership on immigration.

- 61% of Jews do not believe legal immigration should be increased or that illegal aliens should be given a path to citizenship. 16% of Jews support amnesty and increasing legal immigration.

- 69% of Catholics do not believe legal immigration should be increased or that illegal aliens should be given a path to citizenship. 12% of Catholics support amnesty and increasing legal immigration.

- 75% of Evangelical Protestants do not believe legal immigration should be increased or that illegal aliens should be given a path to citizenship. 7% of Evangelical Protestants support amnesty and increasing legal immigration.

- 73% of mainline Protestants do not believe legal immigration should be increased or that illegal aliens should be given a path to citizenship. 10% of mainline Protestants support amnesty and increasing legal immigration.

- 50% of Jews believe the total number of immigrants is “too high,” 22% believe it is “just right,” 5% believe it is “too low,” and 23% are “not sure.”

- 69% of Catholics believe the total number of immigrants is “too high,” 14% believe it is “just right,” 4% believe it is “too low,” and 14% of “not sure.”

- 72% of mainline Protestants believe the total number of immigrants is “too high,” 11% believe it is “just right,” and 2% believe it is “too low.”

- 78% of Evangelical Protestants believe the total number of immigrants is “too high,” 9% believe it is “just right,” and 3% believe it is “too low,” and 10% are “not sure.”

There is a lot of meat in this study. Several more questions were asked. The overall picture that emerges is that Jews are more likely to support amnesty and immigration than other religious groups, but the Jewish rank-and-file (like Protestants, Evangelicals and Catholics) is at odds with the Jewish leadership on immigration. Most American Jews do not seem to support the inundation of the United States by third world immigrants.

From Antisemitica, December 31, 2009

James Howard Kunstler, a Jewish writer/Peak Oil doomer, is predicting White Nationalists will overcome their political marginalization in the year ahead. He sees a “variety-pack of political disturbance” including “dangerous players such as the political racialists, the posse comitatus types, the totalitarian populists” coming “out of the woodwork” and joining “the contest over dwindling resources.” Racialist ideologues will offer “revolutionary action to redefine some lost sense of national purpose.”

In his 2010 forecast, I was surprised that Kunstler didn’t include his usual dire warnings (Palinites with pitchforks) about “cornpone Nazism,” a subject he has endlessly harped upon in the past. Kunstler has become notorious for his scathing hatred of ordinary White people. Last month, he went so far as to describe the White working and middle class as “The Yeast People.” I’ve been following him for years and have never seen him use this kind loaded rhetoric to attack blacks and Hispanics for their sordid underclass culture, which by any honest measure is several orders of magnitude worse than comparable trends in the White community.

Kunstler’s attack on the BNP is especially revealing: “History is ironical. Perhaps this time the Germans will be the good guys, while England goes apeshit with its BNP. Wouldn’t that be something?” The BNP is the only political party in the UK which has raised awareness of the Peak Oil issue, which everyone knows is so dear to his heart, but Kunstler sees Nick Griffin as the leader of the bad guys. He implies that the BNP are Nazis.

Kunstler’s Jewishness, the source of his fear and loathing of White people, weighs more heavily in his mind than anything he has said about Peak Oil, suburbs, walkable communities, relocalization, or the automobile. I can’t help but wonder whether or not this animus is the real source of his social criticism.

From Antisemitica, December 28, 2009

In the New York Times, Michael Feinstein (a Jewish Op-Ed contributor) contests the Christian ownership of Christmas in America’s “newspaper of record.” He argues that the “spirit of the holiday is universal” and that Christians should understand “this encroachment.” Feinstein claims that we live in a “multicultural time” and the “mixing up” of traditions is the “inevitable result.” Is it really?

In a moment of candor, Feinstein draws attention to the various Jewish writers who have “eroded” the Christian “religious tradition” and contributed to the secularization of the holiday. He speaks of his “barely concealed rage” at the audacity of an orchestra board representative who told him his concert program was “too Jewish.” In response, he defiantly promised the second night’s show would be “even more Jewish.”

I can’t imagine an offensive Christian article about Jews, one written in such a condescending and contemptuous spirit, ever getting published in the pages of the New York Times, especially in the holiday season. Apparently, NYT editors don’t believe their multiculturalist sensitivity is applicable to America’s Christian majority, but this is hardly a revelation.

It could serve as a starting point, however, for a much needed discussion of “Jewish Privilege.”

Leonard Zeskind’s Blood and Politics: The History of the White Nationalist Movement from the Margins to the Mainstream is a history of the White Nationalist movement from 1974 to 2004. Although I have owned a copy since its publication in May, I have only recently sat down and read it cover to cover. It has received multiple reviews (from within and without the racialist community) which contain a fairly accurate summary of its contents.

The book tracks the evolution of old fashioned Jim Crow “white supremacy” into modern White Nationalism over a thirty year period. In presenting his case, Zeskind draws an analytical division between “vanguardists” and “mainstreamers,” radicals and respectables, reformers and revolutionaries that has characterized the modern pro-White movement since its earliest days.

The “mainstreamers” believe in moderation and an electoral path to victory. The vanguardists believe in creating small, often violent organizations of the elect few and waiting for a general social/economic collapse. Throughout the narrative, Zeskind uses the stories of William Pierce (revolutionary) and Willis Carto (reformer) to illustrate these two conflicting tendencies within the movement.

Blood and Politics is comprehensive in scope. Zeskind runs through every imaginable sector of the pro-White movement: Klan, Neo-Nazi, Creator, Christian Identity (one-seed and dual-seed), Christian patriot, Neo-Confederate, White Nationalist, Council of Conservative Citizens, skinhead, revisionist, militia/paramilitary, underground terrorist, paleocon, race realist, and populist. He does an excellent job of illustrating how racialists drift through one or more of these cross-pollinating subcultures. Everyone from Francis Parker Yockey and Louis Beam to Tim McVeigh and Erich Gliebe is mentioned at some point or another.

For an Ashkenazi Jew, I dare say that Blood and Politics is objective in tone, almost scholarly even. To be sure, Zeskind writes in a Jewish anti-racist voice and can’t resist the occasional humanist quip, but his account of the White Nationalist movement is surprisingly free of the usual boilerplate. I found it informative, profited from reading it, and expect others will as well. If I had to level any specific criticism, I would say that Zeskind sacrifices depth for scope. He skips around from one sector of the movement to another in two or three pages.

The Gen Y racialist will find Blood and Politics somewhat familiar, yet profoundly alien. This is very much the history of another generation of racialists: its leaders, organizations, strategies, rhetoric, feuds, triumphs and tragedies. Over the past few months, I found myself picking it up and putting it back down. I immediately read the few bits that interested me: Duke’s political campaigns, Taylor and Amren, Pierce and the National Alliance, The Bell Curve controversy, Buchanan and Sam Francis. I had to force myself to read the parts that did not. Later, I reflected on my new interest in sectors of the movement I had previously ignored.

Have you ever heard of “leaderless resistance” before? Have you ever seen racialists using strange numeric codes like 14/88 or 33/5? What about acronyms like “Z.O.G.” and “O.R.I.O.N.” or slogans like “White Pride World Wide” and ”RAWOHA?” Have you ever heard vague references to the Fort Smith trial, the Northwest territorial imperative, or a gang of Aryan bankrobbers known as The Order? Can you explain the difference between one-seed and dual-seedline Christian Identity? In Blood and Politics, you will learn all about this and much more.

Be warned. This is not a story about the last decade. The internet hardly figures at all into Zeskind’s narrative. Blood and Politics has sixty chapters, but not a single one about Stormfront, the largest website in the movement. Instead, Zeskind focuses on Don Black in his days as a Klansman, the jail time he served for plotting the invasion of Dominica, and his role in the defunct Populist Party. Alex Linder and VNN are nowhere to be found, but Glenn Miller and the White Patriot Party are discussed at length. There is no mention of Kevin MacDonald. The proliferation of vBulletin discussion forums in the 2000s — the critical nodal point for Gen Y contact with the White Nationalist movement — is also ignored.

Blood and Politics is not about us. We were teenagers in the Clinton years. Under George W. Bush, we went to college, developed political opinions, graduated and entered the workforce. Some of us admired Dr. Pierce and tuned into ADV radio broadcasts. A few of us joined the National Alliance in its final days as a viable organization. We frequently read Pat Buchanan, Steve Sailer and Sam Francis at VDARE, created or joined online racialist forums, tuned into and laughed at Goyfire, subscribed to American Renaissance or The Occidental Quarterly, but never followed the travails of Willis Carto. We tend to be white collar atheists or pagans with an HBD-informed view of racial differences and a Kevin MacDonald take on the Jewish Question.

To say the least, this period of movement history (1974 – 2004) is strange, but important seeds were sown in this bleak period. I can’t resist comparing it to the Dark Ages. In a manner of speaking, it followed the Roman Empire but preceded the Renaissance. I think of David Lane who considered himself a latter day Viking, or Robert Miles, Louis Beam and Tom Metzger who thought Whites were over-civilized and could use a little Aryan barbarism. The violent, tattooed, beer soaked skinheads (the barbarians) represented a tremendous decline from courtly Southern segregationists (Roman patricians). Racialist discourse degenerated like Old Latin into dire warnings about black helicopters, the New World Order, and “Z.O.G.” From Race and Reason to the Aryan Nations theory that Jews are the genetic spawn of Satan to The Bell Curve. That’s the theme of Blood and Politics.

But there is another side of the story. In 1972, Wilmot Robertson published The Dispossessed Majority, a path-breaking work that pointed the way forward. In 1992, he published The Ethnostate, a seminal contribution to an emerging White Nationalism. Revilo P. Oliver was active in this period. Dr. Pierce thundered against the Jews from a West Virginia mountainside. David Duke encouraged his followers to ditch their Klan robes and Stormtrooper uniforms. Jared Taylor appeared on the scene and restored a little class and literacy to the pro-White movement. Herrnstein and Murray picked up Carleton Putnam’s baton.

The vanguardists made their own contributions. In Blood and Politics, you will read about the Posse Comitatus and Nehemiah Township, an attempt to carve out a White ethnostate in North Dakota. Bob Mathews and The Order shed blood for the ideal of a Aryan nation in the Northwest. William Pierce and the National Alliance pushed the ideal of an exclusive White ethnostate. In fact, “White Nationalism” owes more to its ruder beginnings in Aryan Nations literature and The Turner Diaries inspired bankrobbers than to Jared Taylor’s polished suit and tie crowd. We can’t ignore this part of our heritage.

If the past was reminiscent of the Dark Ages, White Nationalism has since settled into its High Medieval period. The interregnum is over. We have raised a few institutions that are like beautiful Medieval cathedrals. We have established a small network of discursive spaces that are like the first universities. We have a powerful new genomics based theory of race and and a new general theory of anti-Semitism that draws upon sociobiology and evolutionary psychology.

I foresee a period of growth and maturity ahead. The sheets and costume crowd are fading out. The old leaders are aging and dying off. Their version of racial discourse will pass away with them. In the next decade, I think a mass membership White advocacy organization will finally emerge for sane and normal people. The cultural ground has been prepared for it.

The field is wide open to a new generation of racialists willing to make their mark. Three decades from now, the sequel to Blood and Politics ought to prove interesting than the original. I think Mr. Zeskind will be following many of us in the years to come.

Read Jonathan Pyle’s review of Blood and Politics here.

My favorite blog is Hunter Wallace’s Occidental Dissent: Western Racial and Cultural Preservation. Wallace now has a new blog: Antisemitica: Reasoned Analysis of the Jewish Question. Judging from early posts like the following, the analysis is not merely reasoned, but also refreshingly frank and courageous.

“Why Anti-Semitism?”
Antisemitica, December 12, 2009

Why label yourself an anti-Semite? Isn’t that adopting the discursive terms of the enemy? Why not use terms like “Jew-wise,” “Jew-aware,” or “Judeophobe” instead? This is a common strategic objection made by White Nationalists.

My answer:

1) The charge is true. An anti-Semite is a person “who discriminates against or who is hostile toward or prejudiced against Jews.” I advocate discrimination against Jews. Therefore, I am an anti-Semite.

2) Appearing disingenuous. I don’t want to appear disingenuous. I believe in calling a spade a spade. It is better to be honest and upfront about my views.

3) The charge can’t be successfully dodged. Jew criticism will always be labeled “anti-Semitism.” Since I am advocating the expulsion of Jews from North America, the charge of “anti-Semitism” is highly likely to stick.

4) The term hasn’t always had negative connotations. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, anti-Semitism was popular in respectable circles. Critics of Jews openly labeled themselves anti-Semites. I wish to recapture this sense of the term.

5) Discourse poisoning. The charge of being “anti-Soviet” is laughed at today, but was once taken quite seriously in the USSR. Sometimes the best response to smears is ridicule and defiance. “Anti-Semitism” is a verbal bomb that can’t be avoided. It has to be defused.

6) Morality. Dodging the charge of “anti-Semitism” suggests there is something immoral about discimination against Jews. I believe this policy is both ethical and rationally justifiable.

7) PC. I don’t want to see liberal political correctness replaced by a racialist version. I use the term “anti-Semite” for the same reason I avoid using “European-American.”