Two Cheers For Trump Advisor Mike Anton—He Has The Right Enemies

Kevin MacDonald writes:

Anton, now the senior director of strategic communications at the National Security Council, has given the clearest indication of his attitudes. Written under the pseudonym of “Publius Decius Mus” (a Roman consul who sacrificed his life for the success of his troops) his September 2016 essay “The Flight 93 Election” is in tune with Alt Right themes—with some important exceptions,.

Anton’s essay caused a stir on the Right, but it was pretty much ignored by the Left until he was unmasked by The Weekly Standard on February 2 [Decius Mus Unmasked] because of his usefulness in smearing the Trump administration. Since then, it’s been hysterical condemnation.

beautifullosersFundamentally, Anton claimed that Conservatism Inc. had completely failed because it refused to acknowledge that the long-term effects of importing a Third World population would be the end of conservatism. Conservatives Inc. types are “beautiful losers,” as Sam Francis described them — garnering huge sums of money but quite content with their sinecures while the movement as a whole is “headed off a cliff…The whole enterprise of Conservatism, Inc., reeks of failure. Its sole recent and ongoing success is its own self-preservation.”

Conservatives, according to Anton, are

the Washington Generals of American politics. Your job is to show up and lose, but you are a necessary part of the show and you do get paid. To the extent that you are ever on the winning side of anything, it’s as sophists who help the Davoisie oligarchy rationalize open borders, lower wages, outsourcing, de-industrialization, trade giveaways, and endless, pointless, winless war.

Perhaps the most amazing thing about Neocon and Conservative Inc. hostility toward Trump was that it was obvious to everyone what a Hillary Clinton presidency would mean—as Anton said, it would be

pedal-to-the-metal on the entire Progressive-left agenda, plus items few of us have yet imagined in our darkest moments. Nor is even that the worst. It will be coupled with a level of vindictive persecution against resistance and dissent hitherto seen in the supposedly liberal West only in the most ‘advanced’ Scandinavian countries and the most leftist corners of Germany and England.”

Yes indeed. A Clinton presidency would have been the end of outlets like VDARE.com and Occidental Observer, with a revamped Supreme Court more than ready to let the likes of Elena Kagan restrict free speech critical of immigration and multiculturalism, as we already see throughout Western Europe and on college campuses throughout America. The Leftist case against free speech has already received a great deal of attention by academics, so it’s just a matter of time before this way of thinking reaches a majority on the Supreme Court. Clinton’s presidency, especially with a compliant Democratic Congress, would have resulted more such Leftist Supreme Court justices.

And of course, it would have resulted in a huge immigration surge and amnesty for illegals, eventually electing a permanent Leftist Democrat voting majority.

For the Left, anyone not on the page with the transformation of America is a “Nazi.” As Anton noted caustically:

The Left was calling us Nazis long before any pro-Trumpers tweeted Holocaust denial memes. And how does one deal with a Nazi—that is, with an enemy one is convinced intends your destruction? You don’t compromise with him or leave him alone. You crush him.

Naturally, “crushing” includes sucker-punching people like Richard Spencer and other forms of physical violence, not to mention ostracism and job loss.

Anton’s conclusion:

So what do we have to lose by fighting back? Only our Washington Generals jerseys—and paychecks. But those are going away anyway. Among the many things the “Right” still doesn’t understand is that the Left has concluded that this particular show need no longer go on. They don’t think they need a foil anymore and would rather dispense with the whole bother of staging these phony contests in which each side ostensibly has a shot. (My emphasis)

Conservatives were on the point of losing by the time of the “Flight 93 Election” because the Left controls the Main Stream Media, and because conservative “leaders” bend over backwards to be acceptable to them. But, above all, it comes down to immigration. Anton wrote:

The ceaseless importation of Third World foreigners with no tradition of, taste for, or experience in liberty means that the electorate grows more left, more Democratic, less Republican, less republican, and less traditionally American with every cycle. As does, of course, the U.S. population, which only serves to reinforce the two other causes outlined above. This is the core reason why the Left, the Democrats, and the bipartisan junta (categories distinct but very much overlapping) think they are on the cusp of a permanent victory that will forever obviate the need to pretend to respect democratic and constitutional niceties. Because they are.

The sacredness of mass immigration is the mystic chord that unites America’s ruling and intellectual classes. …

This is insane. This is the mark of a party, a society, a country, a people, a civilization that wants to die. Trump, alone among candidates for high office in this or in the last seven (at least) cycles, has stood up to say: I want to live. I want my party to live. I want my country to live. I want my people to live. I want to end the insanity.

“My people”? Whatever could he mean by that? Sounds like a thinly disguised hint that Trump is a White advocate.

What to do? Here Anton reveals his fundamentally non-Alt Right perspective. He advocates assimilation and working class solidarity rather than more radical measures:

But we can probably do better than we are doing now. First, stop digging. No more importing poverty, crime, and alien cultures. We have made institutions, by leftist design, not merely abysmal at assimilation but abhorrent of the concept. We should try to fix that, but given the Left’s iron grip on every school and cultural center, that’s like trying to bring democracy to Russia. A worthy goal, perhaps, but temper your hopes—and don’t invest time and resources unrealistically.

By contrast, simply building a wall and enforcing immigration law will help enormously, by cutting off the flood of newcomers that perpetuates ethnic separatism and by incentivizing the English language and American norms in the workplace. These policies will have the added benefit of aligning the economic interests of, and (we may hope) fostering solidarity among, the working, lower middle, and middle classes of all races and ethnicities. The same can be said for Trumpian trade policies and anti-globalization instincts. Who cares if productivity numbers tick down, or if our already somnambulant GDP sinks a bit further into its pillow? Nearly all the gains of the last 20 years have accrued to the junta anyway. It would, at this point, be better for the nation to divide up more equitably a slightly smaller pie than to add one extra slice—only to ensure that it and eight of the other nine go first to the government and its rentiers, and the rest to the same four industries and 200 families.

Will this work? Ask a pessimist, get a pessimistic answer. So don’t ask. Ask instead: is it worth trying? Is it better than the alternative? If you can’t say, forthrightly, “yes,” you are either part of the junta, a fool, or a conservative intellectual.

I believe Anton’s hope that America’s different races and ethnicities will magically come together, identifying with their social class rather than their racial/ethnic identities, is a pipe dream. As Anton himself admits, such a notion goes against the entire agenda of the Left with its “iron grip” on the educational system and the MSM.

So even if Anton is right that cutting off immigration would foster assimilation, the contrary forces are pushing hard in the opposite, Cultural Marxist direction. They want their non-White constituencies to identify racially and ethnically first and foremost and they want their White constituencies to identify as a member of one of the ever-proliferating sexually defined victim classes (LGBTTQQIAAP??), or at least as just plain old guilt-ridden White liberals. The millions of poor, illiterate, low-IQ immigrants constituting the vanguard of the Left will ensure huge welfare payments and Affirmative Action indefinitely.

The fact is that the racialization of politics is the most salient fact of our time. The White population was coalescing in the Republican Party long before Trump came along and told them what they wanted to hear.

The days when the Democratic Party had a claim to the allegiance of the White working class are long gone, and for good reason: Their jobs have been shipped overseas and their wages have been impacted by the tsunami of immigrants. And unlike the elites who are able to avoid the costs by moving away, they are stuck with failing schools, dysfunctional neighborhoods, overcrowded neighborhoods and all the other consequences to public goods. The rainbow future is death for the White working class.

But, despite Trump’s appeal to the ordinary Americans, what he has been saying is absolutely not what the Washington Generals who have led the GOP wanted to hear. They were content to lose graciously while continuing to pick up their pay checks — until the plane crashes into the mountainside, at which point they would just jettison their “conservative principles” and capitulate the progressive agenda (“the GOP must have better outreach to Hispanics”). It was all just talk anyway, talk designed to appeal to a traditional American constituency that is being dispossessed

They’re glib, and facile writers, so I’m sure the progressives will find a place for them. Neocons, who now dominate he conservative media, originated on the Left and in a very real sense never abandoned it, despite their ability to push the buttons conservatives love to hear. Their essential role has been to move the GOP to the Left on all the issues the Left holds dear—first and foremost immigration. Just as Neocons had no real qualms about a Hillary presidency, they will happily sign on to a progressive agenda as long as it is aggressively pro-Israel and anti-Russian.

So in answer to Anton’s question, “Will it work?,” I would have to say it’s definitely worth it to build the wall and deport illegals — and also end Birthright Citizenship, end legal immigration and not provide refugees or guest workers with a path to citizenship. But even with all of this, what Anton calls the junta has created so many facts on the ground that none of these will really alter the downward trajectory of White America.

No, it won’t work. But it’s one helluva start. At the very least it will wake up White America to the scope of the problem, with all that implies for the future when things get really sticky. When White America sees itself heading over a cliff, as I believe that it will given the demographic trends already in place (e.g., White children are already a minority). the really interesting stuff will begin.

As VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow has said, it will come to blood. All the utopias dreamed up by the Left inevitably lead to bloodshed—because they conflict with fundamental human nature.

Despite Anton’s relatively mild views, he is now being attacked as evil incarnate by the entire Establishment, from the Left to the Neocon Right, with prominent Jewish writers leading the charge.

Leftist columnist Jonathan Chait’s assault is headlined America’s Leading Authoritarian Intellectual Is Working for Trump.[ New York Magazine, February 2, 2017] Weirdly, but typical of the Left, any opposition to immigration is labeled as “authoritarian” and “anti-democratic” — even though Anton is clearly doing his best to salvage the last hope for maintaining our institutions and social class-based politics in the face of the racialization of politics brought about by the Third World invasion. As Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban phrased it recently, commenting on the attitudes of the EU, “They have declared that the people constitute a danger to democracy.” [You will CRUSH the people’ Hungarian PM slams ‘GLOBALIST ELITE’ for open-door migration, By Charlie Bayliss, Express (UK), February 14, 2017]

Chait [Email him] characterizes Anton’s comments on immigration as a claim that America is undergoing a “foreign invasion”—assuming his readers will blanch at such an outlandish thought:

What Anton’s essay did was to synthesize and intellectualize the right-wing case against democracy and marshal it on behalf of the Republican party presidential nominee. And now that nominee has won, and his administration has appropriately brought onboard the author of authoritarianism.

Similarly, Jessica Schulberg [Email her] bridled at Anton’s defense of the America First Committee among other heresies:

A senior national security official in the Trump administration wrote under a pseudonym last year that Islam is an inherently violent religion that is “incompatible with the modern West,” defended the World War II-era America First Committee, which included anti-Semites, as “unfairly maligned,” and called diversity “a source of weakness, tension and disunion.”

Trump Aide Derided Islam, Immigration And Diversity, Embraced An Anti-Semitic Past, Huffington Post, February 8, 2017

These claims were gleaned from Anton’s earlier pseudonymous article Toward a Sensible, Coherent Trumpism Unz Review, March 10, 2016 ).

Typical of Leftist point-and splutter, Schulberg assumes her audience will be sufficiently triggered by the mere fact that Anton has uttered such heresies — no need to evaluate whether the facts support them. In fact, they do: Social science research, summarized by Frank Salter, shows that indeed diversity does create division and conflict. But, as Anton notes, “The sacredness of mass immigration is the mystic chord that unites America’s ruling and intellectual classes.”

And Anton’s point that “Islam is not a ‘religion of peace’; it’s a militant faith that exalts conversion by the sword and inspires thousands to acts of terror—and millions more to support and sympathize with terror” seems so obvious it’s not worth debating.

Most significantly, Anton argued that the America First Committee has been “unfairly maligned,” aiming to vindicate Trump’s slogan “America First.” Along with the Immigration Restriction Act of 1924 and refusing some Jewish refugees in the 1930s, the saga of the America First Committee is etched in many Jewish minds as the most egregious examples of anti-Semitism in American history. Schulberg is quite correct that some in the America First Committee, including Charles Lindbergh, emphasized Jewish involvement in the campaign for entering World War II (along with the British and the Roosevelt administration). But there is a very rich factual basis to Lindbergh’s assertion: there is no question that Jews used their substantial power in the media to push for war (see here, p. vii–xvi).

Bill Kristol set the tone for the neocons, linking Anton with that other bête noire of the establishment, Steve Bannon:

The Bannon-Anton wing of the Trump White House has a penchant for semi-conspiratorial analyses and semi-kooky prescriptions. … And for them, being responsible isn’t a virtue. Which is worrisome.

Kristol [Email him] then went full argumentum ad Hitlerum, reacting favorably to Jonathan Chait’s piece:

It’s very heartening that Mike Anton is part of the Trump administration. He shows a clear understanding that immigration is the fundamental problem facing any attempt to resuscitate anything resembling traditional American political culture and institutions. And he understands that if drastic things are not done on the immigration front, traditional American political culture and institutions are indeed heading over a cliff. I assume this means, at least, that he will do his best to keep the Trump administration heading in the right direction on that most critical issue.

Posted in Michael Anton | Comments Off on Two Cheers For Trump Advisor Mike Anton—He Has The Right Enemies

The Man in the High Castle

From Counter-Currents:

The second season of the record-breaking show, The Man in the High Castle (hereafter TMHC), debuted last December on Amazon’s streaming service. The story is loosely based on Philip K. Dick’s novel of the same name, which establishes the setting: an alternative history scenario where the Third Reich and Imperial Japan won the Second World War and now (the show is set in 1962) occupy the United States, with Japan controlling everything west of the Rockies and Germany the Eastern seaboard. The show, whether intentionally or not, is tremendously subversive, as it is the first entertainment offering in which Nazis are depicted as complex, inspiring magnets for audience identification, while the figures of the resistance are little more than bloodthirsty plot foils.

People love it. TMHC is the most-watched Amazon original series to date, and while its audience is smaller than Netflix’s, it is already a major content-streaming platform and growing. More importantly, Amazon streaming video is watched by the people we want to reach – people who can afford a $99 Amazon Prime subscription – in other words, middle-class white people. In fact, THMC would not have existed without such support from whites. It is an Amazon original production, meaning the show was developed by Amazon Studios in response to audience demand. To cut costs and ensure success, Amazon greenlights the production of pilot episodes from several series each year, but only those pilot episodes that receive the most views (or acclaim) receive funding for a subsequent full series. TMHC was launched due to the overwhelming success of its pilot episode. Put simply, Nazis are in demand. And indeed, they always have been.

There are more movies about the Second World War and the Third Reich than there are about America’s own Revolutionary War, the Civil War, or any other war America has waged. Even leaving aside war films, the Third Reich is the source material for a vast array of films, series, and books, as we have seen with films about Captain America, Indiana Jones, Star Wars, and countless others where a truly foreboding enemy is called for…

The story also involves Imperial Japan, but nobody watches the show because of the Japanese. Audiences gather to partake in the forbidden fruit of the Nazi mystique…

The real protagonist of the show, however, is the American Nazi Obergruppenführer John Smith, head of the American Reich’s SS department that is charged with investigating the resistance and finding the man in the high castle. He is Joe Blake’s kommandant, and orders Joe to find Juliana Crane and seize the tape in her possession. Obergruppenführer Smith’s leading role in the show was probably not by design. In the first season, he is a secondary figure in the main plot, which takes place between Juliana and Joe, but by the second season, Obergruppenführer Smith is the unquestionable star of the show. And rightly so, since he is the most compelling character and the one that makes TMHC worth watching.

I told friends and family members interested in the show that my favorite character was a Nazi. They were naturally shocked at my choice, dismayed that I would like a Nazi. “How can you root for a Nazi, that’s horrible” was a common refrain. After watching the show, most had either come to the same conclusion or at least expressed understanding. When ordinary folks can root for a Nazi, or at least find him “likable,” this represents a major shift in the Right-wing consciousness of the cultural milieu. And it is surely not accidental that Obergruppenführer Smith is the anti-hero of the current year…

His name is John Smith, the quintessential American name of Jamestown fame. The creators intended to take the Norman Rockwell ideal of a father and turn him into a Nazi, as indicated by their promotional trailer. Their purpose, no doubt, was to pathologize the All-American family man by showing how completely “fascistic” America was in its past, and that it could seamlessly fit in with the Third Reich.

The reverse, of course, is that viewers begin to reconsider their perceptions of National Socialism, which in this show happens to look identical to their beloved 1950s America. Lost in the Left’s fixation on the Declaration of Independence’s pablum about “all men are created equal” and the Jewish poem retconning the Statute of Liberty, is that America’s foundations are deeply fascistic. The White House, Capitol, and most of Washington DC exhibit the neoclassical architecture of the fascist Greco-Romans. America’s republic, which originally restricted rights and privileges to landowning males, was a descendant of the Roman Republic, where only landowning men could serve in the military and by extension were the only ones who had certain rights and privileges. Indeed, at the very heart of America’s government, the House of Representatives, stand two fasces side-by-side with the American flag.

Once again, the Left is reminding Americans of their fascistic roots, blithely unaware of its subversive appeal, as particularly seen in the case of Obergruppenführer Smith. Not only does John Smith normalize the idea of a “Nazi,” but he is its champions. He’s the idealized version of male patriarchy that was long ago removed from our popular entertainment. A glance at the current year’s Modern Family typifies the change: the fathers in that show are, from oldest to youngest: a divorced and remarried race-mixing boomer with a non-white child, a bumbling doofus who plays the show’s fool, and two homosexual partners with an adopted Asian child. Between Obergruppenführer Smith and this cast of degenerates, the only father Middle Americans can relate to is a Nazi.

The same sentiment applies to the Third Reich. Rather than the bleak dystopia presented in popular indoctrination, the Third Reich was the opposite: a marvelous utopia. In THMC, under Nazi rule, America has at long last become a shining city upon a hill. Its cities and suburbs are remarkably bucolic, the architecture is grand and awe-inspiring, the streets are clean and safe, and the populace is healthy and generally well-off. Its technological innovation is unmatched. The Third Reich has accomplished incredible feats by 1962, such as transcontinental air travel aboard rocket-propelled planes that takes half the time it takes even today on supersonic jets (and in the book, the Third Reich has also colonized the Moon, Venus, and Mars, although this is never referenced in the show). The Reich is also portrayed as vastly superior to the dirty, disorderly, and technologically bereft Imperial Japan when it is compared to the advances of Magna Germania…

Obergruppenführer Smith’s son is studying for a school exam, much to his consternation. The implication is that eating breakfast together with the family is held in high esteem. By contrast, Americans today can barely get their families together for dinner outside of a holiday, let alone an ordinary breakfast. When the son explains to his father the reasons why he is studying at the breakfast table – his desire to outperform a school rival on an exam – Obergruppenführer Smith responds that his son has already bested his rival because his intentions are noble. He goes on to explain that his son’s rival is an individualist who thinks only about his own self-interested success rather than what is best for society. In the long run, the individualist is doomed to failure, because his society is doomed to fail. As Obergruppenführer Smith opines, “The decadence ruined [America] before the war.”

Other such positive scenes appear intermittently throughout the show, portraying National Socialism as morally superior to the American ideal. It is in these moments that the show is at its best. TMHC is also worth watching for its incredible renderings of a Third Reich that might have been, being both evocative and good LARPing fun to experience. Viewing National Socialist architecture, costumes, and set-pieces is gratifying, and the show excels at world-building.

Posted in Nazi | Comments Off on The Man in the High Castle

How Do You Sell White Nationalism To Liberal Jews?

Spencer Quinn writes:

Here is my attempt at selling White Nationalism to liberal, diaspora Jews. I know, it will be a hard sell, but as a writer, I strive for a perspective as wide as the world. An impossible dream, yes, but still I strive. Why? Because white ethnostates are what the white race will need in the very near future to avert the impending existential crisis of multi-racialism. And some of the most powerful people standing in our way today are liberal, diaspora Jews.

As we all know, non-white invaders are barbarizing traditionally white homelands, and the white elites, crippled by the twin diseases of Cultural Marxism and political correctness, have become powerless to stop it. Our identities, both racial and national, have been suppressed, and our futures as potential minorities in our own nations are fraught with uncertainty. We see the oppression, chaos, and poverty in the Muslim world, black Africa, and Latin America, and know that given enough immigration from these places, our world will decline rapidly. In fact, the decline has already begun.

Of course, it’s not enough to halt this decline. We must reverse it and make the white nations great again. Considering all the wonderful things white Europeans have given the world since Antiquity, it would be better for everyone, not just the whites, if this happens. As it stands now, however, whites are on the road to second-class citizenship in our own countries, and perhaps eventual extinction in many parts of the world. The goose that laid the golden egg just might get cooked and eaten one day, and, as Jews, I really hope that’s not what you want.

As an American, I can think of three broad methods for achieving a white ethnostate in North America. One is what Counter-Currents editor Greg Johnson calls the Slow Cleanse. Basically, self-identifying whites take control of the American government and initiate pro-white policies which, among other things, forbid non-white immigration and encourage non-white self-deportation. Such a peaceful transition would occur until whites once again make up the ninety to ninety-five percent majority they enjoyed prior to the 1965 Immigration Act. This would take a long time and would certainly cause some difficulties for non-whites, but ultimately would save the white race from its current predicament, in North America at least.

The second method is Balkanization, which, thanks to the traction achieved recently by Calexit, is something many of us are talking about right now. Americans are already balkanized by race in many places. And, let’s face it, we’re starting to hate each other. The Left-Right fault line runs deep. A divorce may be in order. In response to the violent backlash against conservatives in American universities, the Ace of Spades recently wrote:

On the plus side, it will take us closer to National Divorce, which will benefit all parties.

I don’t want revolution, I don’t want “resistance,” I don’t want violence. I don’t want to make others live under my heel (despite the fact they dearly wish to make me live under theirs).

I just want Done. I want Gone. I want Goodbye.

Sadly, this is perhaps the only sentiment that many on the Left and Right can agree upon these days.

Balkanization would also be a peaceful method to achieve a white ethnostsate. I’m not sure how it would come about, but I imagine that under the best circumstances, representatives from various groups would meet and hash out who gets what. For example, the White Nationalists get the Pacific Northwest, the midwest, and most of the former Confederacy. The northeast and most of the west coast would go to the multi-racial Left, and the southwest would go to the Hispanics. Lawrence Murray has an interesting rundown of American Balkanization on his Atlantic Centurion site, and I am sure there is much to quibble over. Really, however, the details don’t matter too much, as long as whites get their ethnostate and a chance to rebuild.

The final method is warfare. At this point, all bets are off and God only knows how it will all play out. Whites could get everything or lose everything, or settle for something similar to what we have now after sacrificing millions of lives. And the same goes for you and everyone else. This possibility, of course, is the one that we all want least, but will be the only option remaining for whites if the Slow Cleanse and Balkanization don’t work out. We hope you understand that at that point, the alternatives for whites will be either to fight or submit completely to our enemies. Remember Masada? It will be something like that, only on a much larger scale and quite a bit more successful. And when that happens, you can rest assured that whites will have little tolerance for non-whites, Jews included, given that we will be blaming them for our dire predicament. Jews have been a consistent and influential Left-wing presence in America for over one hundred twenty years and have promoted non-white immigration as often as they could. Just because you look like us does not mean we will let you off the hook once we’re contemplating first and last things. At that point, your choices will be limited to fleeing to Israel or siding against us, sort of how you are siding against us now. And if you choose the latter, you will have no room to complain when things get violent and deadly…

Argument 2: It’s hypocritical to support a Jewish ethnostate in Israel and not a white one anywhere. White Nationalists basically want the same thing Israelis want. Among other things, this includes a homeland which secures our perpetual majority. Israel could even be seen as a model for a white ethnostate. So how can you claim to be consistent when you support open borders for America but not for Israel? See the hypocrisy? Of course, I know the typical response to this. America and Israel, they say, are apples and oranges, the former being a vast, pluralistic society which has thrived on immigration for over two hundred years, whereas the latter is a tiny nation, besieged by enemies, constantly under threat, and the only place on Earth where Jews as a group can call home. Therefore, it’s not appropriate to compare one with the other.

But yes, it is appropriate. First of all, we should never mistake a definition for an argument. Just because you define the United States as a pluralistic, racially diverse nation does not mean I have to, or that it should be one. The Founding Fathers, with the Naturalization Act of 1790, certainly didn’t think so. America is what we say it is, that is, the white people who founded it, broke its land, built its cities, fought its wars, and upon whose genius the world relied to create one of the greatest civilizations in history. Without whites, there never would have been a United States, so I do believe we get the final word on who gets to live here and who doesn’t, just as the Israelis do when it comes to Israel.

And while we’re on the topic of defining what a country is, some people choose to define Israel as an apartheid state. Is that enough to make it so?

Finally, as for the argument about being a tiny, besieged country, please don’t pretend that that’s such a bad thing. Israel is only besieged by enemies because it is smart enough not to let its enemies in as immigrants. Better to be a besieged country that is armed to the teeth, racially proud, and equipped with several hundred nuclear weapons than a declining superpower which is slowly rotting from the inside. If anything, the United States is in worse shape than Israel, since the process doing us in is impossible to reverse without massive amounts of bloodshed.

So, for the sake of consistency, and for the millions of innocent whites being robbed of their homelands one immigrant at a time, you should support White Nationalism…

Argument 4: One does not have to hate Jews to support White Nationalism. As I have written before, there is an objective need for White Nationalism. Therefore, it does not matter how a person feels about Jews in order to support it. Yes, it is true that many White Nationalists are anti-Semites. I have read and heard the heinous abuse which gets dumped on Jews on the Internet and elsewhere. I know what goes on. I understand your antipathy towards White Nationalism. But just because a portion of a population can get verbally abusive does not mean that the population as a whole does not deserve an ethnostate…

Argument 5: As long as Jewish nationalism exists, White Nationalism will not lead to a second Holocaust. Had Israel been around during the early years of the Third Reich, I really believe there wouldn’t have been a first one. It’s not like the Nazis didn’t try to encourage Jewish nationalism prior to the war. For many reasons, not least humanitarian ones, Jews deserve their homeland, and I am glad Israel can take care of itself. I really am. Further, Jews have a lot to offer as a people, and I would like for that to continue in a place like Israel, which can suit the unique character of its people. And if you look at history, Jews suffered the most when they were a wandering diaspora in gentile lands. Do you really want that to continue? Because it will if liberal, diaspora Jews continue to import Muslim anti-Semites into white-controlled lands…

And since so many of you wish to use the Holocaust to create self-abnegation among innocent people, perhaps whites should start doing the same to you. Are you not familiar with Jewish complicity in the Holodomor and other Soviet war crimes? Jonathan Bowden relates a story about how a British National Party deputy chairman once fielded a question about the Shoah during an interview. He responded, “Well, which ‘Shoah’ are you referring to? Are you talking about the Communist holocausts, many of which were inspired by Jewish ideas?” He’s right, you know, although Jewish involvement in such atrocities went far beyond mere ideas. Stalin’s Jewish lieutenants and associates, such as Politburo member Lazar Kaganovich (who oversaw much of the famine in Ukraine in the early 1930s), NKVD commander Boris Berman (who committed acts of terror and atrocities in Belarus), secret policemen Matvei Berman and Naftali Frenkel (who helped develop the Soviet slave labor system, the latter of whom oversaw the deaths of two hundred thousand slaves during the construction of the White Sea Baltic Canal in 1932), and many others were complicit in the deaths of millions, especially in Ukraine. And I think it goes without saying that Bolshevism, one of the most murderous movements in the history of mankind, was in large part a Jewish phenomenon, at least until Stalin turned on the Jews in the 1930s. So without Jews, there is no Bolshevism. And without Bolshevism, there is no USSR. And without the USSR . . . well, you see my point. Louis Rappaport, a Jewish writer, described Lazar Kaganovich in 1989 as having “more blood on his hands than any living person.” In the same vein, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, in his monumental The Gulag Archipelago, offhandedly referred to Genrikh Yagoda, the Jewish chief of the Soviet secret police during the 1930s, as the “murderer of millions.”

Posted in Jews, Nationalism | Comments Off on How Do You Sell White Nationalism To Liberal Jews?

Is There A Way To Find Out Your Pilots’ Names Before Your Flight?

Just in case you don’t want to fly Allahu Air.

I would not be thrilled if my pilot were named Mohammed. Frankly, I’d rather not have a woman pilot experiencing PMS.

When I can’t sleep, I watch Mayday: Air Crash Investigations. In episode 8 of season 15, we learned about the crash of Garuda Indonesia Flight 200 because of the recklessness of its captain.

I would prefer to have pilots with Anglo-Saxon names.

I was struck in this episode by how an Australian security officer who survived the crash was pulling people out of the burning plane while the Indonesian rescue workers stood off to the side confused and incompetent.

The safety of a country’s airlines are a good indicator of its competence. Unsurprisingly, Africa’s airlines are the worst.

Wikipedia:

The oldest airline in Indonesia (founded in 1949),[6] Garuda Indonesia had received a number of criticisms in the months surrounding the crash. According to Australian aviation experts, Garuda Indonesia had one of the worst safety records among the world’s national carriers.[7] Since 1950, Garuda Indonesia has had 13 major accidents. The most recent was in 2002, when Garuda Indonesia Flight 421 ditched in the Bengawan Solo River due to engine flameout caused by excessive hail ingestion, killing a flight attendant.[7] The worst accident was in 1997, when Garuda Indonesia Flight 152 flew into a wooded mountain on approach to Medan, killing 234 people. The managing director of the Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation, Peter Harbison, stated that the major accidents in Indonesian aviation history were all caused by the combinations of airports’ and fleets’ low safety standards and the poor weather conditions in the area, including severe thunderstorms and other forms of inclement weather.[7]

Following the crash of Flight 200, the European Union banned Garuda and all Indonesian airlines from flying into the EU…

At 6:58am local time (UTC+7),[12] the captain attempted to land at Adisucipto International Airport in Yogyakarta, despite a faulty approach with excess speed and steep descent, and the resulting warnings of copilot and flight system.[13] The aircraft touched down 860m beyond the runway threshold[14] at a speed of 221kt, 87kt faster than the normal landing speed.[15] According to passengers, the aircraft shook violently before it crashed.[16] The aircraft overran the end of the runway, went through the perimeter fence, was heavily damaged when it crossed a road, and stopped in a nearby rice field. A fuel-fed fire raged, which could not be reached by airport fire-suppression vehicles. While most passengers were able to escape, a number of passengers perished inside the burning fuselage.[17]

The pilot, Captain Muhammad Marwoto Komar, initially claimed that there was a sudden downdraft immediately before the flight landed, and that the flaps on the aircraft may have malfunctioned.

Posted in Health | Comments Off on Is There A Way To Find Out Your Pilots’ Names Before Your Flight?

Trump’s News Conference Was Epic

Because I feel that Trump is on my side, I don’t mind his character flaws so long as they are part and parcel of a package that acts in my group’s (white Americans) best interests.

If I felt that Trump was not on my side, I would hate his character flaws and use them to demean him. But I like Trump’s agenda, so when he is nasty and economical with the truth, I don’t mind much because he’s on my side.

Of course Trump gets annoyed at the antisemitism question. Because we won’t accept the answer, so he can’t give it: That there is rising antisemitism in reaction to our disproportionate power, influence, and bad behavior. But we won’t listen to the answer. Not a chance. And he’s not going to humor us with usual blame it on the goy nonsense, because it’s not good for us. It just makes everything worse.

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* Yeah, on some level it seems not even to have occurred to the media that if it goes quite deliberately into a relentless attack on Trump, and even announces to the entire world that that is what it’s going to do (because they “must not normalize Trump!”), then they will be helpless before an equally relentless and direct counterattack by the most visible person in the world, in which they are accused of ginning up Fake News and phony controversies and acting as if they are the opposition party.

It’s actually almost funny to see the media now taking terrible offense at the idea that their attacks are contrived, that they don’t deserve to be treated like a genuine press with standards of objectivity, that they aren’t serving the American people but only their own fanatic partisanship.

You have to believe that many in the media know in their hearts that they’ve completely forfeited the right to be regarded as an honest broker of the Truth for the American people. Anybody taking even the most cursory glance at recent front pages of the NYT sees any claim to balance or objectivity as ludicrous on its face.

Posted in America, Anti-Semitism | Comments Off on Trump’s News Conference Was Epic