性欧美暴力猛交Reclaiming White Identity, Community, & Culture

Apr 22, 2016

Farewell from Praxis Mag

Today, April 22, 2016 marks the second anniversary of Praxis Mag. I started this webzine with high hopes and the goal of growing the audience for pro-White thinkers and writers. It started off well -- averaging exactly 360 views per day (VPD) its first full month (May 2014) in operation and climbed to about twice that a year later -- then it more or less plateaued. Averaging about 700 VPD for the last year.

Because of the site's slow performance, the time I spend on it (about 15 hours per week), and other commitments, I decided, at the end of last month, that if the site didn't receive at least 800 VPD through the first three weeks of April, I would pull the plug. It didn't even come close at about 627, so I am now discontinuing it. I still think it is a great idea and may try it again in a slightly altered form when I have more time.

'Til then, please remember that there are more than 6,300 articles, essays, interviews, podcasts, videos, and more posted in our archives, representing a lifetime's worth of learning, many of which are classics that should be read/viewed/listened to by everyone -- over and over again. If you still hunger for more, see my other Aryanist website, The Colchester Collection, where I've published almost 1,000 Nationalist/Pro-Whote books, and will continue to publish more (I add roughly 10-15 titles per week).

I will also be writing more at my blog, The Foremost Problem now that I'll be freeing up some time.

Very Truly Yours,

Russell A. James
Praxis Mag

P.S. Our "Source Feed" represents a fairly comprehensive list of active pro-White webzines and blogs. I will continue to update it from time to time, keeping it relevant.

Apr 21, 2016

Six Essential Works on White Nationalism

via Counter-Currents

Editor's Note: See also The Colchester Collection's list of "101 Books Every White Man Should Read."

A reader asked me to compile lists of essential works on White Nationalism, race realism, the Jewish question, the New Right, and other topics. This is the first installment.

White Nationalism is about the creation of racially homogeneous homelands for all white peoples. White Nationalism is, therefore, incompatible with all types of multiracial societies, regardless of whether whites are supreme or subordinate.

1. Jared Taylor, White Identity: Racial Consciousness in the 21st Century (Oakton, Virginia: New Century Foundation, 2011). Read my review here.
2. Sam Francis, Essential Writings on Race, ed. Jared Taylor (Oakton, Virginia: New Century Foundation, 2007).
3. Patrick J. Buchanan, Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? (New York: Thomas Dunne Books, 2011). Read my review here.

By the definition of White Nationalism offered above, the first three books on this list do not advocate White Nationalism. Instead, Jared Taylor does not talk about solutions and does not like the label “White Nationalist,” preferring the less specific “white advocate.” Sam Francis basically advocated white supremacy. And Patrick Buchanan envisions a meritocratic but normatively white society, i.e., a soft form of white supremacism. These books are included here, however, because they offer facts and arguments sufficient to establish White Nationalist conclusions, even of the authors don’t want to go there.

4. Michael O’Meara, Toward the White Republic (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2010).
5. David Duke, My Awakening: A Path to Racial Understanding (Covington, Louisiana: Free Speech Press, 1998).
6. Wilmot Robertson, The Dispossessed Majority, fourth edition (Cape Canaveral, Florida: Howard Allen, 1996).

The last three books listed here are by White Nationalists, although O’Meara’s book is actually the only one that argues for that conclusion. Duke and Robertson do, however, provide essential premises. (Robertson’s The Ethnostate [Cape Canaveral, Florida: Howard Allen, 1992] argues for explicit White Nationalism.)

The fact that five out of six of these books are not actually about White Nationalism, but simply provide elements of a case for White Nationalism, while the sixth (O’Meara) was taken out of print by its author, underscores the need for a simple and compelling case for White Nationalism. Fortunately, two books are forthcoming from Counter-Currents that fit that description: Gregory Hood’s Waking Up From the American Dream and my The White Nationalist Manifesto.

How Neoconservatives Are Destroying Mankind’s Hope for Peace

via Darkmoon

America's next president?

When Ronald Reagan turned his back on the neoconservatives, fired them, and had some of them prosecuted, his administration was free of their evil influence, and President Reagan negotiated the end of the Cold War with Soviet President Gorbachev. The military/security complex, the CIA, and the neocons were very much against ending the Cold War as their budgets, power, and ideology were threatened by the prospect of peace between the two nuclear superpowers.

I know about this, because I was part of it. I helped Reagan create the economic base for bringing the threat of a new arms race to a failing Soviet economy in order to pressure the Soviets into agreement to end the Cold War, and I was appointed to a secret presidential committee with subpeona power over the CIA. The secret committee was authorized by President Reagan to evaluate the CIA’s claim that the Soviets would prevail in an arms race. The secret committee concluded that this was the CIA’s way of perpetuting the Cold War and the CIA’s importance.

The George H. W. Bush administration and its Secretary of State James Baker kept Reagan’s promises to Gorbachev and achieved the reunification of Germany with promises that NATO would not move one inch to the East.

The corrupt Clintons, for whom the accumulation of riches seems to be their main purpose in life, violated the assurances given by the United States that had ended the Cold War. The two puppet presidents—George W. Bush and Obama—who followed the Clintons lost control of the US government to the neocons, who promptly restarted the Cold War, believing in their hubris and arrogance that History has chosen the US to exercise hegemony over the world.

Thus was mankind’s chance for peace lost along with America’s leadership of the world. Under neocon influence, the United States government threw away its soft power and its ability to lead the world into a harmonious existance over which American influence would have prevailed.

Instead the neocons threatened the world with coercion and violence, attacking eight countries and fomenting “color revolutions” in former Soviet republics.

The consequence of this crazed insanity was to create an economic and military strategic alliance between Russia and China. Without the neocons’ arrogant policy, this alliance would not exist. It was a decade ago that I began writing about the strategic alliance between Russia and China that is a response to the neocon claim of US world hegemony.
The strategic alliance between Russia and China is militarily and economically too strong for Washington. China controls the production of the products of many of America’s leading corporations, such as Apple. China has the largest foreign exchange reserves in the world. China can, if the government wishes, cause a massive increase in the American money supply by dumping its trillions of dollars of US financial assets.
To prevent a collapse of US Treasury prices, the Federal Reserve would have to create trillions of new dollars in order to purchase the dumped financial instruments. The rest of the world would see another expansion of dollars without an expansion of real US output and become skepical of the US dollar. If the world abandoned the US dollar, the US government could no longer pay its bills.
Europe is dependent on Russian energy. Russia can cut off this energy. There are no alternatives in the short-run, and perhaps not in the long run. If Russia shuts off the energy, Germany industry shuts down. Europeans freeze to death in the winter. Despite these facts, the neocons have forced Europe to impose economic sanctions on Russia. What if Russia responded in kind?
NATO, as US military authorities admit, has no chance of invading Russia or withstanding a Russian attack on NATO. NATO is a cover for Washington’s war crimes. It can provide no other service.
Thanks to the greed of US corporations that boosted their profits by offshoring their production to China, China is moderinized many decades before the neocons thought possible. China’s military forces are moderized with Russian weapons technology. New Chinese missiles make the vaunted US Navy and its aircraft carriers obsolete.

The neocons boast how they have surrounded Russia, but it is America that is surrounded by Russia and China, thanks to the incompetent leadership that the US has had beginning with the Clintons. Judging from Killary’s support in the current presidential primaries, many voters seem determined to perpetuate incompetent leadership.

Despite being surrounded, the neocons are pressing for war with Russia which means also with China.
If Killary Clinton makes it to the White House, we could get the neocon’s war. The neocons have flocked to the support of Killary. She is their person. Watch the feminized women of America put Killary in office.
Killer(y) in waiting . . . The Jews' Next Puppet President

Keep in mind that Congress gave its power to start wars to the president.

The United States does not have a highly intelligent or well informed population. The US owes its 20th century dominance to World War I and World War II which destroyed more capable countries and peoples. America became a superpower because of the self-destruction of other countries.

Despite neocon denials that their hubris has created a powerful alliance against the US, a professor at the US Navy War College stresses the reality of the Russian-Chinese strategic alliance.

Last August a joint Russian-Chinese sea and air exercise took place in the Sea of Japan, making it clear to America’s Japanese vassal that it was defenceless if Russia and China so decided.

The Russian defense minister Sergey Shoigu said that the joint exercise illustrates the partnership between the two powers and its stabilizing effect on that part of the world.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said that Russian-Chinese relations are able to resist any international crises.

The only achievements of the American neoconservatives are to destroy in war crimes millions of peoples in eight countries and to send the remnant populations fleeing into Europe as refugees, thus undermining the American puppet governments there, and to set back the chances of world peace and American leadership by creating a powerful strategic alliance between Russia and China.

This boils down to extraordinary failure. It is time to hold the neoconservatives accountable, not elect another puppet for them to manipulate.

The Alt Right Is Right, "The Federalist’s Tracinski Wrong, about American History (and Donald Trump)

via The Occidental Observer

The Alt Right is busting out all over (two more Main Stream Media attacks today, here and here)! Some of of this is because Richard Spencer, head of the National Policy Institute, made the wise move of having high-profile public meetings in Washington, DC. But I think it’s more than that.

Donald Trump’s candidacy has resonated deeply with voters, to the point that his supporters are famously immune to the hostile MSM barrage. Mainly these are the (white) people who have been left behind by both parties—the Democrats and their Rainbow Coalition of the racially and sexually aggrieved advocating ever more immigration, multiculturalism, Political Correctness, and LGBT privileges; the Republicans with their unholy alliance between neoconservatives  traitorously promoting the interests of Israel, and the Chamber of Commerce/K Street/wealthy donors promoting free trade, outsourcing, cheap labor, Open Borders, etc.

That leaves the Alt Right as the only identifiable segment of the political spectrum with any kind of theoretical or ideological grounding that supports Trump.

To combat this new menace to Conservatism Inc., we have hit jobs like Robert Tracinski’s Yes, The Alt Right Are Just a Bunch of Racists in The Federalist [April 4, 2016] specifically professing to refute two articles that “run interference for the Alt Right”. [The Intellectual Case For Trump I: Why The White Nationalist Support? By Mytheos Holt, Federalist, March 30, 2016 and An Establishment Conservative’s Guide to the Alt-Right, by Allum Bokhari & Milo Yiannopoulos, Breitbart, March 29, 2016]

For all his intellectual pretensions, Tracinski [Email him] really depends on the knowledge that his audience can be stampeded by the “racists” smear. No need to do any heavy lifting. Nevertheless, I think his arguments, however disingenuous, are worth deconstructing as a case study in cuckservatism.

Tracinski’s main theme (also apparent at National Review) is that principles must always have priority over interests—it’s the moral thing to do!—and individualism over what he calls the “collectivist.” (Tracinski is some kind of Randian—he wrote Opposition to Immigration is Un-American [Capitalism Magazine, July 1, 1999] for the Ayn Rand Institute, although he’s apparently no longer associated with it). He writes:
This “Alt Right” agenda is not really part of the “right” because it is thoroughly collectivist in a vile and personal way…That’s why [the Alt Right] are openly opposed to free markets in favor of economic nationalism: this is an anti-freedom, anti-individualist movement. And it’s a big reason why the distinction between “identitarians” and white supremacists is a false one. Both are joined by the premise, “Du bist nichts; dein Volk ist alles.” You are nothing, your race is everything. [Link in original.]
If you think people are fundamentally defined by the color of their skin and by their ethnic and genetic background, then you are a racist, because that’s what “racism” means. If you think that your most important cultural and political priority is to defend the supposed interests of white people in opposition to the interests of other racial groups, then you are a white supremacist, because that’s what “supremacy” means. Dress it up however you like, but that’s what you stand for.
And yes, of course the left does it, too. They have their own racist theories dressed up under the heading of “identity politics.” So what? Your mom told you the answer to this when you were five: two wrongs don’t make a right.
Of course, this is simplistic nonsense. Even a cursory glance at the scientific literature will tell you, race is about a lot more than the color of your skin.

And are Jews in Israel who worry about their demographic future and design their immigration policy to remain a Jewish state “supremacist”? Are Japanese“supremacist”?

Tracinski even acknowledges that ethnic/racial identity is encouraged by the Cultural Marxist Left. This is a simple reality that is not going to change just because some cuckservative claims to believe it’s immoral.

According to Tracinski, however, it’s immoral for whites to play the “identity politics” game: “Two wrongs don’t make a right.”

Well, as an academic, I often asked my classes to imagine a species, or an individual, who decides that all that “nature red in tooth and claw” stuff is mean and cruel. All those others continue to band together with their kin and co-ethnics and, yes, these groups are forging ahead and successfully promoting their interests, such as expanding their territory. The territory of the altruist (because that’s what he is) is shrinking, but the altruist, if a writer for The Federalist (or National Review), can make a living condemning the moral turpitude of others who take the game of life seriously. But the altruistic species is obviously going to lose. Evolution is like that.

It’s the same now with immigration to the US and Europe. Ethnic groups with an interest in immigration (all of them, so far as I can tell) have well-funded organizations that manipulate immigration laws to get more of their people into what we used to think of as our territory.

The US formerly had an identity as a white, Christian, European-derived culture. But for intellectuals like Tracinski, defending the borders is immoral because it assumes a national or racial (i.e. “collectivist”) interest. Some individuals benefit from all this immigration (employers, immigrants) and some don’t (the rest of us). But Tracinski tells us it would be immoral for whites to band together to assert their collective interests.

To smear the Alt Right further, however, Tracinski claims that its objection to immigration has nothing to do with ethnic/racial competition—it’s really fear of miscegenation:
The main reason they oppose immigration is because letting in brown-skinned people might lead to white people marrying them and producing non-white babies. Their real central demand is an end to miscegenation, the mixing of the races.
This is idiotic, based solely on a Tweet by an anonymous Tweeter. (Although—long story—as an evolutionary psychologist, I would argue it’s not really irrational at all; e.g., marrying someone from a similar ethnic background makes you more closely related and hence more similar to your children).

I don’t know of any poll showing fear of miscegenation among Trump supporters. But we do know that most are afraid of becoming a minority. [New poll shows Trump supporters more likely to fear majority-minority America, by Tatishe M. Nteta and Brian Schaffner, March 5, 2016] Even a cursory glance at racial politics shows that hatred toward whites and the West is common and getting more so. And it’s not just Muslim terrorists hoping to establish a caliphate throughout the West: it’s Black Lives Matter (or here), La Raza activists, and not a few prominent Jews who have expressed their fondness for a post-European America.

Trump voters clearly have an implicit sense of white identity and white interests—what I’ve called implicit Whiteness. But this identity and these interests cannot speak their name without incurring the wrath of America’s hostile elites.

And no one on the entire mainstream political spectrum is willing to talk about it. Except the Alt Right.

With no evidence at all, Tracinski simply asserts that culture is everything. Thus he sneers that the Alt Right
are apparently unaware that ‘Hispanic’ refers to the linguistic and cultural influence of Spain, which is in—anyone? anyone?—Western Europe. So much for caring about the cultural legacy of the West.
But Mexico is a classic example of a collectivist culture—quite the opposite of what Tracinski would have us believe.

What if Tracinski is wrong and individualism and collectivism are more than skin deep? What if, e.g., the individiualism-collectivism trait is influenced by heritable personality traits (e.g., here and here)?

For example, Jews have been living in the West for a very long time but have retained a profound sense of ethnic identity and group interests (e.g., regarding Israel); they have established a myriad of Jewish organizations to advance their interests (especially the ADL and the notorious AIPAC); and they have an unrivaled ability to network with other Jews—all markers of a strong collective identity.

Similarly, Western individualism runs deep and has strong ethnic roots going back thousands of years in Europe. Both of the dominant strands of European culture—the Indo-European invaders of the third millennium BC and the primordial Northern hunter-gatherers—had strong individualist tendencies that are unique among all the cultures of the world.

Isn’t it obvious that Trump is right to ban Muslim immigration because doing so is in America’s collective interest?

But even without the triumph of the Imams, the Left is already fashioning arguments against First Amendment freedoms, with the ethnic identitarians like the ADL and Black Lives Matter taking the lead. [Why We Should Ban “Hate Speech”, By Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, August 24, 2012]

Can anyone seriously think that First Amendment freedoms will survive whites becoming a minority, when even now the First Amendment hangs by a thread, needing only one more liberal Supreme Court justice to begin the dismantling in earnest?

Similarly, for Tracinski it’s irrelevant that free trade enriches Wall Street elites at the expense of American workers. If American workers suffer, they’ll have to suck it up and get over their moral failings by getting a job that can’t be outsourced for the benefit of the oligarchs or taken by the current swarm of immigrants. Otherwise, their communities deserve to die, as Kevin Williamson of National Review would have it.

Trump supporters, and the Alt Right, are attuned to U.S. national interests on trade and immigration first and foremost. But for Tracinski, US national interests are nothing more than vile collectivism.

Apparently Tracinski can’t or won’t understand that individualism works well when pretty much everyone else is playing the same game. But it’s a disaster in competition with collectivists, particularly intelligent, highly networked collectivists.

This was the fundamental theme of my The Culture of Critique: Ethnic networking by Jews with access to prestigious academic institutions, academic presses, and the elite media created dominant intellectual and political movements that effectively excluded dissenters from positions of authority and influence.

Thus the concept of America as a white, Christian, European-derived civilization underlying the 1920s immigration restriction laws was gradually replaced by the“Proposition Nation” concept (another major theme of The Culture of Critique). The 1920s laws basically said that the US desired to remain a European nation by biasing its immigration toward Western Europe. It was a fundamentally fair assertion of the ethnic status quo as of 1890. And it was profoundly collectivist.

Tracinski is therefore guilty of a lack of historical perspective when he writes.
I can’t find anything particularly ‘right-wing’ about [the Alt Right]—not in the American sense, which has traditionally meant advocacy of free markets, individual rights, and the ideals of our Founding Fathers.
“Traditionally”? The fact is that until quite recently Americans had a sense of America that was far more than Enlightenment ideals and free trade. (For that matter, protectionism was an important component of American economic history and a major aspect of historic Republican doctrine).

From the first immigration law enacted by Congress in 1790 (which restricted citizenship to “free white persons of good character”), through the 1952 reassertion of the national origins laws enacted in 1924, right up until the 1965 immigration law—itself the outcome of (collectivist) ethnic political activism rather than popular demand, America had a sense that it wanted to remain a predominantly white, Christian society. This sense was deeply collectivist.

It was only after World War II that a racial/ethnic sense of white identity was increasingly purged from polite discourse by the rise of the new elite.
But the traditional identity of the historic American nation continued to thrive in the hearts and minds of millions of Americans—the core of Trump’s support.

This sea change in American identity is the result of a rather recent and far-from-inevitable process. Ideologues like Tracinski are the ones with no sense of the complexity of American history, American identities, or the Western tradition. They are projecting their ideology into the deep past by imagining a history that never existed.

Particularly important was the rise of neoconservatism—which fundamentally accepted the Left’s views on race, immigration, and the US as a Proposition Nation—and its purge of traditional conservatives from the Republican Party and the MSM beginning in the Reagan Administration (here, p. 26ff).

Because of the dominance of the Left and its obsession with “White racism,”Cuckservatism in all its forms tries to fly under the radar of Political Correctness by aggressively signaling its moral abhorrence of “racism.” This makes Cuckservatives respectable upholders of the status quo—and “willing executioners” in the transformation of America into something that would be unrecognizable and abhorrent to the Founding Fathers.

Why It’s Impossible for Men to Be Authentic

via Return of Kings

I noticed that the more I’m myself in a relationship with a woman (as I see myself), the happier I am with her. On the other hand, the more I have to change my behavior in line to what I think she would find attractive, the less satisfaction I get from that relationship. While “being yourself” is not the key to getting laid, it may be the key to being satisfied in relationships, but now that times have changed, this may be an impossible feat.

In more ancient times, relationships were much different than what we experience now. Back then, when a woman valued a man’s resources for her very own survival, the man could more or less be himself since there were less options for her to walk away YOLO-style and immediately find another man. He acted the opposite of what we have today, where most men apply a filter to their natural impulses in order to keep their women in a permanent state of being attracted. Today we do what we believe or know that women will like in a way to minimize our rejection rate and maximize the quantity or quality of sex or love that we receive. We apply rules, techniques, and strategies to meet women, because without them it would not be possible to achieve intimacy.



Even beta orbiters do this when they volunteer to be in the friendzone—they are applying a strategy that they truly believe will be the most effective means of starting a sexual relationship, however foolhardy that may be. Whatever strategy is used, whether beta or alpha, men must act inauthentic in order to gain intimacy that feels authentic. The beta must pretend to be a friend when he is interested in the girl and wants sex. The alpha must pretend to be aloof when he is interested in the girl and wants sex. They are both putting on a performance for the same goal. One performance gets the girl in her prime while the other gets her afterwards, when she has gained 20 pounds and becomes host to three different HPV strains.

The extreme of this inauthenticity is the married man who must apply “game” on his wife, even though she pledged to dedicate her life to him unto death, just so that she doesn’t get bored with him and cheat before draining his blood in a divorce. While the player has to put on a clown suit when he goes to the club to pick up women, the married man has to permanently wear the clown suit and hope she never strays, especially if he married an attractive Western woman.


Generic 1960s pic of a father and son scene.

Today, no man can be authentic in front of a woman. We can only behave and act through techniques and behaviors which have been documented to work. We have to learn an assortment of alpha traits and become more psychologically aware than BF Skinner just to get laid. We have to rip out our beta male souls, or just a natural impulse to be a good person, and morph it into something that a modern woman appreciates enough to spread her legs for the moment of sex, which ironically is becoming less authentic with each passing year as girls poorly mimic what they see in porn or read in stupid books, making loud noises of simulated pleasure while demanding to be strangled like a rag doll.

For men, acting must occur in the most mundane of situations:
  • Are you sitting next to your girlfriend in a cafe and get the urge to compliment her beauty? You better not because then she will think you’re needy.
  • Are you annoyed that she’s taking so long to reply to text messages? Too bad because you can’t tell her it bothers you. Take a long time to reply as well so she becomes anxious and remains attracted to you.
  • Are you sad because your aunt just died? You better hide it because if she sees that you’re upset she will think you’re a weak man and start replying to her OK Cupid message backlog.
  • Do you want to tell a girl on a first date how she is fun to be with? You can’t do that because she’ll think you’re falling in love with her.
One reason the game is not worth it for some men is because we are forced to be actors and clowns in the presence of women for transient sexual gain. I would do 1,000 approaches if it meant I met a girl who would unconditionally love me for who I am and will become for all eternity, but this is an absolute impossibility where girls can survive without men. Instead I will have to dance and juggle for her, sleep with her maybe 10 times, but more like 4 or 5, and then the relationship will get stale, neither of us able to find the will or motivation to continue because of the type of 20th century environment we were born into by no choice of our own.

Successful relationships depend on authenticity

Couple role playing with dog leash
Relationship that is not successful

Relationships that have lifelong worth, where you gain as much value as you put in, can only come when you’re the most authentic (it’s impossible to be 100% authentic, but 80% or above is a good goal). This is the point where it doesn’t feel like you’re expending labor every day just to keep her. Unfortunately, it’s becoming impossible to achieve high authenticity outside the realm of familial and friendly relations where you can be more direct with your beliefs, desires, dreams, and hopes. With women you’re sexual with, being open and honest is dangerous. Tell her what you think or feel and she’s out the door.

The problem is that if you can’t be honest with someone and express your true thoughts, you’re in a relationship that can’t possibly last. If you’re applying game to your wife, and that game is not congruent with your beliefs, the marriage will end. If you’re authentic to a person who is inauthentic, that relationship will fail. Becoming authentic—of knowing not only the red pill truths of the world but the truths of your self—may be a losing proposition in a world that is becoming grotesquely inauthentic, even denying basic truths of human nature and gender like we see with progressivism in America. Knowing the truth may be the fastest path to isolation and loneliness because sooner than later you’ll tired of putting on your actor’s mask.

Options for men who don’t want to wear the mask

Woman sitting on bed, man sleeping

While it’s easy to be inauthentic for the short time it takes to get many girls into bed, this isn’t a sustainable solution if you ever want to take off the mask. That leaves us with two options. The first is to become the alpha male that most women want, where your impulse changes from unconsciously doing naturally beta acts to alpha acts. This can only come when you internalize game (at least 5 years of practice) like how a professional basketball player can shoot with his eyes closed, but how alpha you can become from full-blown beta is up for debate.

The second option is to have fun being the clown to get a variety of sex, but only plan for long-term relationships with women who appreciate your true—albeit constantly changing—self. It’s clear to me that for men to be happy with women in today’s environment, a combination of both will have to take place.

Men will have to uproot their nice guy instincts and put on a mask to have sex with pretty girls who demand a clown while considering something long term with the occasional girl who loves us even more when we temporarily take off that mask. Yet in terms of being ourselves at all times with women and being everlastingly happy with them—I’m sad to announce that we live in an age where that is not possible. And there’s nothing we can do about it.

A Militant Manifesto for Taking Back Our Ethnic Homelands, Part 2

via National Action

Part 1

‘If European societies were to model themselves on the ideal dear to the humanitarians, if they should go as far as to inhibit selection, to favour systematically the weak, the vicious, the idle, the ill-adapted – the ‘small and humble’ as they are termed by our philanthropists – at the expense of the strong, the energetic who constitute the elite, then a new conquest by new ‘barbarians’ would by no means be impossible’.
– Vilfredo Pareto, Les Systemes Socialistes (1902)
So having diagnosed the condition, what is the cure? Do we wheel the patient off to the hospice and ease his pain with morphine? Or raise the scalpel to excise the tumor that rots him? There are precedents for both, but neither option has delivered the desired outcome to date. And therein lies the dilemma, can the patient survive the operation?

One thing is however certain, without some form of intervention the organism will die.

For the democratic notions of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, the motto of the French Republic, and indeed that exemplar of civic conduct par excellence, the Republic of Haiti, are a Jacobin mirage. We, just like Dorothy, the orphan girl from Kansas and her faithful dog Toto in L. Frank Baum’s classic children’s novel The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (1900) are being led down the Yellow Brick Road to an illusory nirvana, an Emerald City of multicultural delights where we will all live in a Shangri la of eternal harmony. But behind today’s edicts to prevent racial discrimination and religious intolerance and all the commissions and the statutory bodies that enforce such laws across the whole developed world hide the same zealots that sat on The French Revolution’s Committee for Public Safety and the Committee of General Security. And lurking further back in the darkest shadows, their puppet masters, illusionists just like The Great Oz, safe in their lodges and secret fraternities. Those that support, for their own purposes, the illegitimate heirs of the vindictive autarchy of Maximilien Robespierre (1758- 1794) and his sans-culottes. They being the true instigators of the Reign of Terror in Paris, which witnessed groups of Carmelite Nuns from Compiegne going to the guillotine singing the hymn Veni Creator Spiritus; the mass drownings of thousands upon thousands in Nantes, colloquially known as republican baptisms; and the genocide of 200,000 civilians by the colonnes infernales led by the infamous revolutionary general Louis Marie Turreau (1756-1816) in the Vendee.

So, please do not labour under any misapprehension. The values of Liberal Democracy will shape our very own future as did Turreau’s murderous campaign, spreading south of the Loire to the Layon river and incorporating Maine-et-Loire, Thouars, Saumur, Chatillon and Vihiers.The Vendee operations being of such an intense and malign character that the historian and President of the Saint-Simon Foundation, Francois Furet (1927-1997) said, it, ‘not only revealed massacre and destruction on an unprecedented scale but also a zeal so violent that it has bestowed as its legacy much of the region’s identity…The war aptly epitomizes the depth of the conflict…between religious tradition and the revolutionary foundation of democracy’

And today we supposedly live in the democratic age. An epoch to which such wars of annihilation gave birth. A political system built upon the bones of people like the rosary draped Vendeans, who, inspired by the spirituality of Saint Louis de Montfort, donned the Sacre Couer, a symbol for God and King, only to be hunted down to the last man in the woods and marshes of Savenay by their fellow citizens. As per the boast of Republican General Joseph Westermann, nick-named the butcher, to the Convention in Paris, ‘There is no Vendee. It has perished with its women and children, under our sword of freedom. Following your orders I have crushed the children under our horses’ hooves, and massacred the women – They will bear no more children for the brigands. I have not taken a single prisoner’. . . . Read more

Finland’s Soldiers of Odin Spread to Canada


The purpose of Vice magazine, like most Main Stream Media outlets, is to hunt down dissenters from the existing System and then whine and caterwaul about them until their subjects’ lives are ruined. So they sent in some guys to “infiltrate” the Soldiers of Odin in Canada.
The international group has been described as everything from a far-right vigilante group and neo-Nazis—two descriptions they actively dispute—to heroes keeping the streets clean. Despite its historic name, the club has a very short history, forming in October of 2015 in the small northern Finnish town of Kemi as a response to an influx of migrants. It’s since expanded to many more towns and countries across Europe.
At the heart of all of these cells exists a burning anti-immigration sentiment.
The group gained infamy for their patrols, group events where they gather and march through the snowy streets of Finland as a show of intimidation to the refugees. There haven’t been any reported acts of violence; the group has publicly stated they consider the patrols “observe-and-report styled patrols” but, if necessary, they will “come to the defense of anyone who may need us.”
There’s the usual signaling about how evil they all are, followed by adoring interviews with Muslims. However, when it comes to Soldiers the reporter himself actually interviews, nothing bad happens. Nonetheless, Lamoureux says “the wannabe Soldiers of Odin I’ve met made me deeply uncomfortable and nervous” and that they were rough guys, including “riggers” and “retired army men.”

Yes, an adult journalist actually wrote the phrase “retired army men.”

At the end of the story, some of the Soldiers ask to check the ID of the reporters. They run away.

The coverage of all of this resembles the MSM hysteria over the Minuteman Project when that made its debut. Like the Soldiers of Odin, the “patrols” consisted of watching and reporting to law enforcement. Like the Soldiers of Odin, the Minuteman Project was borne out of the deliberate refusal of law enforcement to do its job.

The MSM is incredibly hostile to any groups of Western men self-organizing to defend their communities. In contrast, it actively covers when Third Worlders inflict violence and chaos on Western societies, as we saw in Cologne or in Rotherham.

Don’t like the idea of politically motivated pseudo motorcycle clubs organizing in the streets? There’s a simple solution. Stop admitting Muslim refugees, stop deliberately destabilizing Western societies, and enforce the law.

Another Dodgy Dossier

via Western Spring

How could anyone vote to leave the European Union now that we know that we will all be £4,300 a year better off by 2030 if we stay in? Except that we will all be better off anyway even if we leave, just not by quite as much – and all of that is assuming that economic growth continues at a predictable rate until 2030. And in economics nothing is predictable. If we are trying to look forward fourteen years to 2030, try instead to look back fourteen years to 2001 and ask yourself which economists then predicted the crash of 2008 – answer, none.
It is not just dodgy forecasts that we can pick up from the Treasury’s document. There are also all those little things which the Treasury did not see fit to deal with but which will have quite a significant, and positive, impact should we choose to leave. To mention a few; freedom from regulation, freedom to trade with the rest of the world, freedom from having to pay umpteen millions to the EU every day, freedom from the colossal cost to the infrastructure (schools, housing, transport, NHS etc.) of mass immigration.

Now, with mass immigration I come to the point which really interests anyone who supports Western Spring. It is beyond belief that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a government which is pledged to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands has predicated much of his strategy for “Remain” on the crude GDP growth dependant on mass immigration adding a further 3.3 million EU migrants to our population by 2030, which is about 235,000 per annum. These figures do not include immigration from outside the EU, nor do they take into account births to all the newcomers and to all the “Non-White British” already here.

So here are some facts  – not forecasts because the implications are obvious – of my own. Excluding the other countries of the United Kingdom,whose populations are more or less static and which attract little immigration, the population of England at the census of 2011 was 53 million of whom 42 million (80%) declared themselves to be White British. (It may be of interest to note that the population of England according to the census of 1951 was then 42 million, almost all White British).

The 20% who are not White British have 35% of the children born annually in England adding another 245,000 to their number every year. Net immigration, excluding UK citizens returning to the country after a spell abroad, is running at 363,000 per annum. A total increase of 608,000 every year, a figure which can only go up as children are born to the new arrivals. Given these figures it is easy to see how the Office for National Statistics has concluded that White British people will be a minority among under eighteens by 2037, just 21 years from now.

Our national identity is being ground out of existence and Englishmen such as George Osborne and David Cameron are throwing the entire government machine into hastening the process. They must be thwarted.

The Ficticious Negro Aptitude for Nation Building

via Koinen's Corner

As is my habit, during the course of browsing this morning's internet news I stopped by Stormfront to scan the latest items of interest.  There, under the category 'Ideology and Philosophy,' I came across the post: 'Did blacks build a country, a civilization somewhere'?  Interesting thread.

Now, as you know, these internet forums tend to display the full range of temperament, quality of thinking, and language skills -- from firebrand to Milquetoast, coherent to unintelligible, and scholarly to barely literate.  So I was pleased when I came across post #25 in that thread, put up by someone with the handle 'Phoenix,' in response to a previous poster:

I thought the above was a succinct and sensible comment, a brief and intelligent analysis of the situation.

If you have the time, you might want to read the entire thread.The Phoenix post is here.

And then, surprise, surprise...

I didn't have to wait long to get slapped upside the head with yet another article on the web that proved, once again, what abject failures the darkies seem to be whenever faced with the rigors of maintaining a civilized society.

So here you go; here is this morning's case in point as reported on Fox News:

Once seen as White House triumph, new nation of South Sudan descends into war, misery

It gives one cause to ponder -- where have we seen this kind of thing in recent years, to varying degree, in one form or another (killing, riots, arson, economic destitution and need for financial assistance, starvation, disease, cannibalism, you name it)?  Haiti?  Baltimore?  Rhodesia?  Philadelphia?  South Africa?  New Orleans?  Nigeria?  Ferguson?  Mali?  Chicago?  Damn near anywhere there are a lot of Negroes?

Yeah, right.  We need to import more of these (and other) 'colored folk.'  We need more diversity, multiculturalism, multiracialism, racial/cultural 'vibrancy,' and race mixing.

Sure we do.

The Orthodox Nationalist: The “Phyletism” Hoax

via TradYouth

This is Dr Matthew Raphael Johnson’s first broadcast since June of 2012 and the topic, unsurprisingly, is Orthodox nationalism.

Matthew Heimbach was “excommunicated” by the Orthodox Church of Antioch (Syria) on the grounds of “Phyletism.” This “heresy” exists only in their imagination and this broadcast deals with the development of this imaginary heresy and explains how it refers to the economic interests of the Greek elite. Ruling over Slavic societies, these elites, in union with the Turkish occupiers, bought and sold Orthodox dioceses like business investments.

When the Bulgarians had enough and when Russia had damaged the Ottoman State such that the Slavs could be free again, the Church of these lands threw out the Greek financiers and replaced them with actual Orthodox bishops.

In a panic, the financiers of the Ottoman State called a “council” in 1872 to condemn this on the grounds of “phyletism” that is, that ethno-nationalism was forbidden as a foundation for the church. That the Orthodox church is organized according to ethnic membership apparently did not occur to them.

“Phyletism” is not a heresy. The Russian, Serbian, Romanian, Bulgarian and Alexandrian churches rejected this at the time. It is a “heresy” only to the alienated, bourgeois Orthodox frauds in the Antiochian jurisdiction in America.

Dispossession: Andrew Jackson vs. Harriet Tubman

via Radix

It seems as if every week there is some new expression of White dispossession in America.

The Cultural Marxist revolution that marched through the institutions of academe and seized the commanding heights of culture throughout last century is starting to trickle down to every province in the hollow empire. From removing Confederate flags, statues, and even building names, the revolution rolls on until any trace of the “racist, sexist, Nazi” past of our people is erased.

News came out just this morning that there will be a new face on the twenty dollar bill. Harriet Tubman, an illiterate fraud, will be replacing Andrew Jackson sometime about 2020. Of course, this should come as no surprise, especially when in some places Tubman is given as much space if not more than traditional American historical figures like George Washington.

Of course, this change can’t come soon enough for some. From Politico:
Reaction to Tubman, a Civil War-era abolitionist, replacing Jackson on the front of the $20 was widely positive. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) tweeted: "If this is true, great news! Tubman on $20 is the right call. The redesign needs to happen as soon as possible. Women have waited long enough."
Yes they can! Or so it seems.

But what about that other hold out of toxic masculinity on our currency, Alexander Hamilton? It appears as if his place has been saved, not due to his place in history, but because of the success of a Broadway minstrel show directed by a Puerto Rican which bears his name.

The Romans had a practice known as Damnatio memoriae. Through this the memory of some dishonorable Roman would be erased from records and art. What we have in our clown world is something of the reverse. A sort of Damnatio populi, whereby the heroes of our history are only known through some insipid Hollywood style history if at all. Their achievements either forgotten or condemned by our “Enlightened” age.

Of course, not all of this sturm und drang has to be viewed negatively.

It is another opportunity. Because what our opponnents don’t realize is that in these very public acts of dispossession they make explicit what before was only an implicit feeling. For many in America, there has always been a sinking feeling that something was wrong.

But when so many confused Americans take a look to their town squares they see a rapid change. When they look in their wallets they see unfamiliar faces. The dispossession, or the Great Erasure, starts to become real.

These actions, like so many in the past few months, only accelerate things. More of our people are starting to wake up from a sort of slumber, and it's actions like these that provide the wake-up alarm.

Disability and Tradition

via Traditional Britain Group

Disability and Tradition: they are not often discussed. It is only in the past few months that I have begun thinking about and around the issue. Why? You may ask. As I write, the Conservative Party is taking sides on the issue of disability benefits. As this is a matter of internal UK policy, I shall not, as an Irish citizen, directly comment on it. I may return to it.

Those of us who read The Spectator, would have seen Simon Barnes’ heartfelt piece on how Political Correctness has benefited him and his son. Barnes’ son has Downs Syndrome. The kernel of the argument he puts forward is that the sensitivity of language ushered in by PC has indeed helped us understand words which once described Downs could, in fact, be seen as hurtful.

Observant readers might have noted I used the phrase ‘has down syndrome’ rather than ‘suffers from…’. I have cerebral palsy. Do I suffer from it? As I was born with it, it is part of me. It does not define me. My understanding of, and debt to, Western Christian civilization is far more important.

I must admit that, in my younger days, I did flirt with notions of equality but even then I knew any ‘rights’ given to me came with a personal responsibility on my part to use these rights wisely.

Is Rights the right word?

Anybody who knows me tells me I have a hell of a lot of determination. I only walked at seven. My A-levels were completed on a typewriter with me writing 7 words a minute. These are all facts. Yes my life has improved with some accomodations. Extra time at college exams, the odd ramp here  and there. The patient human as I type out what I need in a shop etc.

Many of these accommodations are not about prescriptive egalitarian laws. They are about common sense. They are about the Great British trait: Fair Play. Our knowledge of disability has grown. We have friends or family. We have our wounded Heroes.

This vision of ‘Fair Play’ may not go down well in the disability rights lobby. Rightly or wrongly, it is dominated by leftist ideals. They wish to seek out people to ‘blame’ for lack of access. They handcuff themselves to buses making common criminals of themselves. They seek to persuade other disabled people that they have common ground with numerous races who view disability as akin to Satanism!

The hard left has a miserly record. Ironically the Americans with Disability Act was enacted by Bush Snr. And I think Lady Thatcher’s government enacted interesting laws in 1987.

This is the first time I have written anything as a Traditionalist who happens to be disabled. One hopes my words begins a conversation.