1,008 words

Only three weeks to go! On November 2, 2019, the Scandza Forum returns to Oslo, Norway, with an impressive list of speakers:

Kevin MacDonald, Professor Emeritus at California State University-Long Beach. He is the author of more than one hundred scholarly papers and reviews, and is the author of Social and Personality Development: An Evolutionary Synthesis (1988), A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy (1994), Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism (1998), and The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements (1998). He has also edited three books, Sociobiological Perspectives on Human Development (1988), Parent-Child Play: Descriptions and Implications (1994), and Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Development (2004). Cultural Insurrections, a collection of essays, appeared in 2008. In April 2015, Professor MacDonald spoke in Stockholm on the psychological mechanisms of pathological altruism, at an event organized by Fróði Midjord and Logik Förlag, and in the spring of 2017 he gave a speech at the first ever Scandza Forum.

Edward Dutton, PhD, is a British academic and writer based in northern in Finland. Editor-in-Chief of the scientific journal Mankind Quarterly, Dr. Dutton is the author of numerous peer-reviewed articles and many scholarly books, most recently: At Our Wits’ End: Why We’re Becoming Less Intelligent and What It Means for the Future, Race Differences in Ethnocentrism, The Silent Rape Epidemic: How the Finns Were Groomed to Love Their Abusers, and Churchill’s Headmaster: The ‘Sadist’ Who Nearly Saved the British Empire. Dr. Dutton burst onto the vlogging scene in January 2019 with his growing YouTube channel, The Jolly Heretic. This will be his first appearance on the Scandza Forum stage.

Helmuth Nyborg, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Aarhus. Among other things, Professor Nyborg has done research on the genetic heredity of intelligence and behavior, and he has written on “collective fraud” regarding the nature/nurture debate in academia. One of his debate articles in Danish mainstream media from 2016 is titled “Danishness – culture or biology?” Professor Nyborg has previously spoken at American Renaissance, and he appeared in an interview with Stephan Molyneux on the topic of “Race, Genetics, and Intelligence.” This will be his second appearance at the Scandza Forum.

Greg Johnson, PhD in philosophy, is the founder and editor of Counter-Currents/North American New Right, former editor of The Occidental Quarterly, and is the author of numerous articles as well as ten books, including The White Nationalist Manifesto (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2018). Dr. Johnson is one of the leading intellectuals of White Nationalism and the Alternative Right, and he has spoken at every Scandza Forum.

Fróði Midjord, founder of the Scandza Forum, is host of the Guide to Kulchur podcast and YouTube channel, and is a regular participant on Counter-Currents Radio and an internationally appreciated conference speaker. Last year, Mr. Midjord spoke at seven conferences in five different countries.

***

Our theme for this event is Human Biodiversity, the suggestion that the diversity found among and between human individuals and populations has a significant basis in biology. Although the theory of evolution is well-established, for decades it has been taboo to apply evolutionary and biological explanations to human behavior, and especially to differences between human populations and races. Popular culture and the political mainstream today has implicitly assumed the “blank slate” theory as an axiom for what can be discussed in polite society.

One famous example of this is James Watson, who won the Nobel Prize in Medicine 1962 for his groundbreaking research on DNA. In 2007 he told a newspaper that he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really,” which would be an uncontroversial statement for anyone who is actually familiar with the research on the subject. However, the statement ignited a mass media witch-hunt which resulted in Watson selling his gold medal in 2014, because he had been ostracized from the scientific community.

During this event, we will break those taboos, speak freely on the “Nature vs. Nurture” debate, and discuss human diversity from an evolutionary perspective.

***

If you want to know more about our events, please watch any of my several appearances on podcasts and live streams where I have been interviewed about the Scandza Forum, including:

• Red Ice Radio
• The Public Space
• Happy Homelands
• Millenniyule
• Erkenbrand
• This Week on the Alt Right
• Anton och Jonas (in Swedish)
• The After Party and TAP After Hours
• Patriotic Weekly Review

***

If you want to attend, please send us an email for information on how to proceed with the registration: info@scandzaforum.com

Since we have two conferences coming up, remember to let us know which one you want to attend (you are also welcome to register for both events, of course).

Because we care about your safety, we have a vetting procedure to make sure that everyone attends with honest intentions. There are three ways you can get admission to the event, so remember to include the necessary information when you contact us:

1. If you have attended one of our events previously. Make sure to make a note of this when you send us an email.
2. Get a trusted person to vouch for you (i.e., vouch that you want to attend with honest intentions and that you will follow our security procedure). If you know someone who has attended a previous event, or otherwise knows us, let us know in your email. Remember to also ask that person to send me confirmation that he/she can vouch for you.
3. Send us photo ID and some personal details (e.g., address/phone no./social media) that will allow us to verify your identity, so that we can make an evaluation. No anonymous registration is accepted.

This will be an unforgettable event – so make sure to register now!

Finally, I want to thank our supporters and donors – you know who you are. It is with their help that the previous Scandza forums were made possible, and that we now are able to move forward!

I am looking forward to seeing you all in Oslo on November 2.

Stephan Balliet

1,557 words

It happens now with accelerating regularity: a white man who is alarmed at white ethnic displacement — “the great replacement” — goes to a place frequented by non-whites, often a place of worship, and starts shooting.

• On Saturday, August 3, 2019, a 21-year-old white man, Patrick Crusius, walked into a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, and killed 20 people and injured 26 others.
• On Saturday, April 27, a John Earnest, a 19-year-old white man walked into the Chabad synagogue in Poway, California near San Diego and shot two people, killing one. Two others were injured by shrapnel.
• On Friday, March 15, 2019, a 28-year-old white man, Brenton Tarrant, reportedly entered the Al Noor Mosque and the Linwood Islamic Centre in Christchurch, New Zealand, killing 50 people and wounding around 40 others.
• On Saturday, October 27, 2018, a 46-year-old white man, Robert Bowers, was arrested for entering the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, killing eleven people and wounding six others, including four police officers.
• On Sunday, January 29, 2017, a 27-year-old white man, Alexandre Bissonnette, entered the Islamic Cultural Center in Quebec City, Canada, killed six Muslims gathered for prayer, and injured eight more.
• On Wednesday, June 17, 2015, a 21-year-old white man, Dylann Storm Roof, entered the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, killed nine blacks gathered for Bible study, and injured three more.
• On Sunday, August 5, 2012, a 40-year-old white man, Wade Michael Page, a racist skinhead, opened fire at a Sikh temple near Milwaukee, killing six worshipers and wounding three others. He then shot and killed himself.

And now it has happened again:

• On Wednesday, October 9th, 2019, a 27-year-old man, Stephan Balliet, brought a gun to a synagogue in Halle, Germany. Because he found the building locked, he reportedly killed a woman who was in the vicinity and another man in a nearby kebab shop. His victims were neither Jews nor “kebabs.” They were fellow Germans. He also wounded two other people.

Because these shootings all follow the same basic pattern, I have created a boilerplate article responding to them:

• “Understanding the El Paso Walmart Massacre”
• “Understanding the Poway Synagogue Shooting”
• “Understanding the New Zealand Mosque Massacre”
• “Understanding the Pittsburgh Synagogue Massacre”
• “Understanding the Quebec Mosque Massacre”
• “Understanding the Charleston Church Massacre”
• “Understanding the Sikh Temple Massacre”

The basic argument is always the same. I just need to change a few of the particulars.

As a white person, I look down upon the criminals among us. I do not reflexively defend and glorify them. This was a terrible act: immoral, illegal, and politically damaging to white interests. I hope Balliet receives a fair trial and — if found guilty — a just punishment, but that seems unlikely given the racially charged, anti-white atmosphere in Germany today.

We obviously don’t know all the facts yet, but based on Balliet’s livestream, we can say several things with confidence.

First, Balliet was definitely concerned with white racial dispossession.

Second, this shooting spree could not have happened in a homogeneously white society. When different peoples are forced to live together in the same system, frictions are inevitable. These frictions give rise to misunderstandings, distrust, alienation, and long-simmering resentments, which flare up into hatred, violence, and social upheaval. Balliet’s actions are predictable consequences of multiculturalism. Sadly, we will only see more such violence until white nations regain their sanity and reverse multiculturalism.

Thus the New Right stands for the principle of racial divorce. It is time for whites and non-whites to go our separate ways and pursue our own destinies. We stand for the creation of separate racially homogeneous societies, through the peaceful and humane process of redrawing borders and shifting populations.

In the case of Germany, virtually all non-Europeans there are recent, post-World War II immigrants, and the best solution is for them to return to their homelands.

Third, we should resist dismissing Balliet with the all-too-easy claim that he was “crazy.” Yes, he did something evil and stupid, as well as downright embarrassing. But his underlying motive — fear of white race replacement — is not irrational or insane; it is a healthy reaction to objective facts. All white people have innate ethnocentric tendencies, wired deep in our brains. We love our own and we fear strangers. As diversity increases, all of us will bear increased psychic costs, even those who pursue wealth and status by selling out their own people in favor of foreigners.

Balliet and people like him may be nothing more than canaries in a coal mine: the first to sense the presence of a threat to the survival of us all. Balliet may have just been abnormally sensitive to the terrible psychic consequences of losing control of our society to aliens: stress, alienation, anger, hatred, rage, etc. This heightened sensitivity might also go along with a whole suite of other abnormal traits. But we dismiss people like Balliet at our own risk. For in the end, all of us will feel the same effects — unless we heed the warning signs and turn back the rising tide of color.

Finally, Balliet’s “solution” to his rage and alienation — killing innocent people — just makes the racial situation worse rather than better. We will surely learn a lot more about his ideas and affiliations in the coming months. But based on what we know now, we can say that his actions certainly resemble those of racially-motivated spree killers like Brenton Tarrant (whom he was obviously imitating), John Earnest, Robert Bowers, Dylann Roof, Anders Behring Breivik, Wade Michael Page, and Frazier Glenn Miller, all of whom are products of what I call “Old Right” thinking.

By the “Old Right,” I mean classical Fascism and National Socialism and their contemporary imitators who believe that White Nationalism can be advanced through such means as one-party politics, terrorism, totalitarianism, imperialism, and genocide.

Today’s Old Right scene is rife with fantasies of race war, lone-wolf attacks on non-whites, and heroic last stands that end in a hail of police bullets. Intelligent and honorable people have emerged from this milieu. But there have been more than a few spree-killers as well.

This kind of violence is worse than a crime. It is a mistake. It does nothing to advance our cause and much to set us back.

Given that reason, science, and history are all on our side, and the greatest apparatus of coercion and brainwashing in human history is on the enemy’s side, doesn’t it make sense to attack the enemy at his weakest point rather than at his strongest? This is why the North American New Right pursues White Nationalism through intellectual and cultural means: we critique the hegemony of anti-white ideas and seek to establish a counter-hegemony of pro-white ideas.

Only a fool picks a battle he cannot win, and we cannot win with violence. Fortunately, we don’t have to. The Left lost the Cold War but won the peace through the establishment of intellectual and cultural hegemony. We can beat them the same way.

Furthermore, the only form of violence that even has a chance to be productive in halting multiculturalism and non-white immigration would target the people responsible for these policies, not random innocents.

Moreover, killing innocent people — even if they are racial invaders — has entirely predictable results. First, such violence creates sympathy for the victims. (Even I feel sympathy for them, yet I would deport them all tomorrow if I had the power.) Second, it plays into the establishment narrative of evil, crazy, intolerant whites whose freedom of speech and weapons must be taken away.

Beyond that, Balliet is in a special class of moronic white spree killers who end up killing only white people. Frasier Glenn Miller murdered three people in the vicinity of two Jewish buildings in Kansas, but he managed to kill only white people. Balliet’s victims were two Germans. With defenders like this, who needs enemies?

As I argue in my essay “Against White Nationalist Terrorism,” White Nationalists are making tremendous progress by means of propaganda. We are converting people to our worldview. The more people we convert, the sooner we regain control of our homelands. This is why our enemies are hell-bent on censoring and deplatforming us. They use every shooting spree like Tarrant’s or Balliet’s as a pretext to further clamp down on our freedom of speech, which restricts our ability to change minds and delays the implementation of sane, nationalist policies. And every day we are delayed is paid for in white lives.

Stephan Balliet killed two people in Halle, both of them likely white. But far more white people will die if his deeds lead to further erosions of freedom.

I wish I could erect a wall between myself and the kind of unstable, undisciplined people who go on killing sprees, but you can’t change the world from a bunker. Thus, responsible white advocates need to adopt the next best course of action: (1) we must be alert to the signs of mental instability and inclinations toward violence and rigorously screen out such people, (2) we need to draw clear, unambiguous intellectual lines between New Right and Old Right approaches, and (3) if anyone makes concrete threats of committing such acts in our circles, we need to be the ones to call the police.

My goal is to persuade our people that White Nationalism is the solution to ethnic conflict, not the cause of it. Spree killers and the people who celebrate them are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Aleister Crowley by Charles Krafft

382 words

Aleister Crowley was an English poet, novelist, painter, and mountaineer who is most famous as an occultist, ceremonial magician, and founder of the religion and philosophy of Thelema. But ironically Crowley’s supposed Satanism and Black Magic are far less frightening to most people than his politics. For Aleister Crowley was also a man of the Right.

Although surprising numbers of Crowley’s followers are conventional liberal humanists, those who actually grasp Crowley’s destruction of liberal humanism usually end up on the Right. Thus Crowley inspired such important 20th-century Rightists as novelist and essayist P. R. Stephensen and military strategist and historian J. F. C. Fuller — as well as some 21st-century Rightists who tag him in the pages of Counter-Currents. Crowley was also praised by none other than Julius Evola, who was every bit the political bad boy that Crowley was rumored to be.

For more information on Crowley’s life, work, and significance for the Right, I recommend the following pieces on this site:

• Kerry Bolton, “Aleister Crowley as Political Theorist,” Part 1, Part 2 (in Polish) — also included in More Artists of the Right
• Kerry Bolton, “The Influence of H. P. Lovecraft on Occultism“
• Julius Evola, “Aleister Crowley“
• Juleigh Howard-Hobson, “Crowley the Poet: A Different Look at Aleister Crowley on this, the Occasion of his 136th Birthday“
• James J. O’Meara, “Artist & Autist: Crowley in the Light of Neville,” Part 1, Part 2
• James J. O’Meara, “‘The Name is Crowley . . . Aleister Crowley’: Reflections on Enlightenment & Espionage“
• James J. O’Meara, “Put Down That Rifle & Read This Instead“
• James J. O’Meara, “The Unmaking of the Magus: Crowley and Political Animal“
• Dionýz Sokol, “The Ideological War for the Occult Scene“

Another important work on Crowley and the Right is Marco Pasi’s Aleister Crowley and the Temptation of Politics (New York: Routledge, 2014), reviewed here by James J. O’Meara.

The following articles reference Crowley in passing:

• Kerry Bolton, “P. R. Stephensen“
• Jonathan Bowden, “Wyndham Lewis’ Tarr: An Exercise in Right-Wing Psychology” (in Bulgarian)
• James J. O’Meara, “A Band Apart: Wulf Grimsson’s Loki’s Way“
• James J. O’Meara, “Battle of the Magicians: Baron Evola between the Dancer & the Druid“
• James J. O’Meara, “Lord Kek Commands! A Look at the Origins of Meme Magic“
• Christopher Pankhurst, “Giacinto Scelsi: A Soundtrack for Radical Traditionalism“
• Christopher Pankhurst, “Spengler: The Numinous Genesis of Culture“

76 words / 45:14

To listen in a player, click here. To download the mp3, right-click here and choose “save link as” or “save target as.”

This is the audio of Greg Johnson’s talk in Gothenburg, Sweden, on Sunday, September 22, on the occasion of the publication of the Swedish translation of The White Nationalist Manifesto. We wish to thank the publisher, the organizers of the event, and everyone who attended. We apologize for the technical problems with the recording.

Michelangelo, Unfinished Slave

2,115 words

Translations: French, Spanish

One of the perennial accusations against white colonial societies around the globe—in the Americas, Africa, and the Antipodes—is that they are morally illegitimate because other people were there first. This is what I call the “autochthony argument,” from the Greek “αὐτόχθων,” meaning “springing from the land,” i.e., indigenous.  According to this argument, the original inhabitants of a land are its rightful owners (“finders-keepers”), and it is a violation of these rights for other peoples to displace them. Thus all European colonial societies, which more or less involve the displacement of indigenous peoples, are illegitimate.

The first thing to note is that those who appeal to the autochthony argument to dispossess white colonists quietly ignore it when dealing with the colonization of Europe by non-whites. In this case, it is Europeans who are indigenous and non-whites who are depriving indigenous people of control over their homelands. I feel for indigenous peoples around the globe, because as a white man, I too know what it is like to be displaced from one’s home by aliens.

Of course some argue that European populations aren’t really indigenous, since Europeans have invaded and colonized one another’s societies for thousands of years. The indigenous people of England, for example, were invaded and colonized by Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, and Normans before the present waves of Africans and South Asians. So why should the descendants of Anglo-Saxons or Normans be considered any more “indigenous” than Jamaicans and Pakistanis?

The problem with this argument, of course, is that it still admits that some Europeans are indigenous. Moreover, since all European peoples are descended from the same racial stock, which is indigenous to Europe, when Europeans move from one part of Europe to another, they are not “displacing indigenous populations.” They are the indigenous population, which is merely reshuffling itself.

This is not to discount the sufferings that Europeans have inflicted upon each other. But as bad as it was, it was not the displacement of an indigenous race by an alien one. It is simply different branches of the indigenous population fighting with one another, much like African tribes or American Indian tribes fight among each other. If racial infighting deprives Europeans of the right to call themselves indigenous, why does this not apply to non-whites as well?

Some people claim that the non-white colonization of Europe is tit for tat, since Europeans colonized non-white countries. This argument might be plausible for England, France, and Spain, which had vast colonial empires, and for Holland, Belgium, and Portugal, which had smaller empires. It applies to a much lesser extent to Germany and Italy. Denmark and Sweden also had negligible overseas colonies.

But if European colonization was wrong, then so is non-white colonization of Europe. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Moreover, a punishment is a bad thing, and the advocates of diversity will never admit that non-white colonization is making Europe worse, although it obviously is. Finally, even if the historical injustice argument were valid, it would apply only to those European countries that had colonies, and it would grant rights of reverse colonization only to peoples that were once colonized, and only in the nations that once colonized them.

But the majority of European societies had no overseas empires: Ireland, Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Switzerland, Austria, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia, Albania, Macedonia, Greece, Luxembourg, Monaco, Lichtenstein, Andorra, San Marino, etc. Yet all are targets for non-white colonization. Furthermore, the colonial powers are targeted for colonization by peoples they never colonized. It makes no sense that countries like Germany, Sweden, and Denmark, which never had colonies in the Muslim world, are suffering primarily from Muslim colonization.

Since non-white colonization of Europe cannot be justified as punishment for historical injustices, it is sold as a good thing because it increases “diversity” and because Europeans have a moral obligation to open their borders to immigrants who are fleeing poverty and oppression. The trouble with these arguments, however, is that they also support bad old European colonization, which increased ethnic diversity and was driven by poor people seeking resources and oppressed people seeking freedom. And if Europeans have to sacrifice ethnic homogeneity, political sovereignty, wealth, and freedom to accommodate non-white colonists, then why, exactly, was it wrong for Europeans to impose these costs on non-whites around the globe?

As tempting as it is to use the autochthony argument to defend Europe from non-white colonization, it has several problems.

First, it presupposes that mere presence in a territory is morally meaningful. The autochthony argument states that the first inhabitants of a land have a clean title. They did not have to displace anyone else through violence and trickery. Later occupants are illegitimate if they displace the first occupants and usurp their territories.

But if mere first presence in a territory confers rights, then why is this confined to biologically modern humans? Other animals are merely present where they live as well. Didn’t Cro-Magnon man displace the Neanderthal? Didn’t mammals displace the dinosaurs? Aren’t practically all living things illegitimate interlopers in previously occupied ecological niches, until we get back to the original denizens of the primordial soup? But does it make sense to regard the entire history of life on this planet as a ghastly moral offense? So much for evolution, I guess.

A Darwinist, of course, would argue that one organism can displace another only by being better adapted for survival. Thus evolution is a process of improvement, rather than a fall from an original state of innocence. Social Darwinists argue that the conquest of the dark races by whites is evolution in action. And, if the darker races are now turning the table and conquering whites, that too is evolution in action. For Darwinists, success in the struggle for power is by definition the best outcome, no matter who ends up on top.

The autochthony argument holds, in essence, that the first organism on the scene is in the right, and all who follow are illegitimate interlopers. The Darwinist would argue that the last organism on the scene is in the right, simply because it is successful, and that all that came before have no legitimate claims, simply because they failed. Both arguments are equally morally absurd, because there is more to right than just being present at the beginning or the end of a struggle for power.

Second, the autochthony argument does not distinguish between occupying and appropriating territory. Just being on a piece of land does not necessarily make it one’s own. To appropriate land, one has to do something. One has to make something of it, and in doing so, one takes responsibility for it.

Third, the autochthony argument also ignores the distinction between nomadism and settled occupancy. Often times, the first people were merely passing through. Nomads don’t own land, they merely inhabit it, as do the buffalo. They do little to it, and they take little or no responsibility for it. Nomads are less tied to a piece of ground than settled people, and nomads can share the use of the same region, whereas settled ways of life require exclusive ownership. This is not to say that nomads have no interests and rights that more settled people need to respect. But to own land, is it sufficient merely to be on it, or does one have to do something with it—i.e., to improve it and take responsibility for it?

Fourth, the autochthony argument overlooks the fact that if one owns land, one can therefore disown it. If indigenous peoples actually own their homelands, then they can alienate them to newcomers. For instance, not all North American natives were dispossessed through wars of aggression. Many natives began by selling some of their lands to newcomers, and only later did conflicts arise. Moreover, American Indians were sometimes dispossessed after losing wars they had started. There is a huge moral difference between stealing land outright and securing one’s own people by dispossessing and banishing aggressive and implacable enemies. Sometimes indigenous peoples lose their lands fair and square.

Fifth, the autochthony argument presupposes that legitimate ownership derives solely from the past (first occupancy) rather than from the future (what one is likely to do with it). For instance, even if the American Indians were the first people on this continent, they weren’t doing much with it. It strikes me as a moralistic absurdity to declare that the farms, factories, highways, power plants, towns and cities of America, plus all of the cultural and technological achievements of Americans, from bluegrass music to the space program, are somehow illegitimate because there was a thin population of Stone Age people on the continent when our ancestors first arrived.

Even if we grant that first occupancy confers rights, doesn’t later use also confer rights? And what is more important: how our people acquired our homelands or what we made of them? Given that the first occupants of all lands are primitives, whereas later occupants are usually more socially and technologically advanced, doesn’t the autochthony argument contain a built-in bias against civilization, progress, and the races that can produce and sustain them? Why should whites, of all peoples, accept such a stacked moral deck? Encounters between radically different peoples almost always end up badly. But at least if one creates something great, the suffering and strife need not be in vain.

Sixth, the autochthony argument is usually offered in bad faith, as part of a swindle. In the United States, for instance, American Indians who did not suffer from the acts of white colonists in centuries past, demand apologies and favors from whites (including recent immigrants), who never did anything to harm an Indian.

The last thing these Indians want is for whites to take their guilt trip so seriously that they erase the wealth they created and leave the continent as their ancestors found it. Instead, Indians wish to increase their share in the bounty of white civilization through moral blackmail, which just happens to impeach the legitimacy of that civilization’s very foundations. The Indians are untroubled by the moral contradictions of their position, but their aim is not justice but unearned wealth.

In truth, indigenous peoples who present themselves as “historical” victims aren’t victims at all. They are actually swindlers. And the whites they accuse of “historical” crimes are not criminals at all but victims of a moral swindle. Giving in to such moral blackmail does not right old ethnic wrongs (the victims and perpetrators of which are long dead). Instead creates fresh ethnic wrongs: new victims and new perpetrators and new resentments to fester down through the centuries. This can only impede amicable and just relations from emerging in the future.

What should the New Right’s position be on colonialism and indigenous peoples? We are universal nationalists. We hold that the best way to secure peace and amicable relations between different peoples is to give every people a sovereign homeland. Where this is not possible — for instance with tribal relict populations in the Americas, Siberia, and elsewhere — the just solution is give these peoples ethnic reservations with maximum local autonomy.

But notice that our aim is to secure a homeland for every people, not to secure the indigenous homeland of every people. That would be nice, but sometimes it is just not possible, and sometimes autochthony should be overridden by the greater good of creating homelands for otherwise homeless peoples.

For instance, there is every reason to reverse the recent colonization of Europe and European diaspora societies by non-whites. There is every reason to reverse Chinese colonization of Tibet. In every case, the colonists have homelands to which they can return. In every case, there are living injustices that can be solved by repatriating invaders. There is, moreover, every reason to create an independent Kurdistan or white South Africa, for in both cases a people is suffering right now because it lacks a sovereign homeland.

But one cannot make an ethnonationalist case to restore the Byzantine Empire, for the Byzantines no longer need a homeland, but the Turks do. Nor can one make an ethnonationalist case for returning Israel to the Palestinians, because the world would be better off if Jews confined themselves to a Jewish homeland. So in the case of Israel and Palestine, the solution is to have two states. A similar solution would be desirable for Europe’s gypsy problem. (Perhaps next door to Birobidzhan.)

The focus of politics should always be the future. We cannot right all the wrongs of the past, but we can create an ethnonationalist world order that minimizes new wrongs in the future.

717 words

Friedrich Nietzsche was born this day in 1844 in the small town of Röcken, near Leipzig, Saxony, in the Kingdom of Prussia. He died in August 25, 1900, in Weimar, Saxony, in the Second German Reich. The outlines of Nietzsche’s life are readily available online.

Nietzsche is one of the most important philosophers of the North American New Right because of his contributions to the philosophy of history, culture, and religion.

If you are thinking of reading Nietzsche’s works, the best introductions are The Twilight of the Idols and The Anti-Christ, preferably in the R. J. Hollingdale translations. The next volume should be Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future, which Nietzsche described as the prose presentation of his entire worldview. I recommend the Judith Norman translation from Cambridge University Press.

Thus Spake Zarathustra is Nietzsche’s poetic presentation of his philosophy, but it should be saved for later. It is the worst possible introduction to Nietzsche. It has been many people’s first Nietzsche book, and for all too many it has been their last.

Such Nietzsche books as On the Genealogy of Morals, The Birth of Tragedy, Untimely Meditations, and The Gay Science are highly valuable, but should be saved till later. Daybreak: Thoughts on the Prejudices of Morality and Human, All Too Human: A Book for Free Spirits are products of a brief flirtation with certain Enlightenment ideas and are thus quite misleading as introductions. Ecce Homo, The Case of Wagner, and Nietzsche Contra Wagner should be saved for last. As a rule, the Cambridge University Press translations of Nietzsche should be preferred.

The introductory books on Nietzsche are mostly disappointing. I do recommend H. L. Mencken’s The Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. Julian Young’s Nietzsche’s Philosophy of Art and Nietzsche’s Philosophy of Religion are very clear and exciting books that examine the development of Nietzsche’s ideas throughout his career. Because of the importance of art and religion to Nietzsche, they serve as excellent overviews of his philosophy. Young has also published an important biography, Friedrich Nietzsche: A Philosophical Biography, which combines overviews of Nietzsche’s life and works in a single volume. Although it is a long book, it is well worth the investment of time. (I recommend it despite the fact that Young has been accused of plagiarizing another biography of Nietzsche. Young’s “crime” strikes me as simply an editorial mistake. It is certainly not plagiarism of the kind practiced by Alan Dershowitz or Martin Luther King.)

Nietzsche is probably the author most often tagged on this website.

Here are the main works we have published by and about Nietzsche:

By Nietzsche:

• “Nietzsche on the Code of Manu”
• “Nietzsche on Freedom”
• “Nietzsche’s Critique of Modernity”
• “Nietzsche on Conservatism”

About Nietzsche:

• Alain de Benoist, “Jünger, Heidegger, and Nihilism”
• Kerry Bolton, “Nietzsche and Spengler”
• Kerry Bolton, “Norman Lindsay,” Part 1, Part 2
• Jonathan Bowden, “Credo: A Nietzschean Testament” (Swedish translation here)
• Jonathan Bowden, “Paganism and Christianity, Nietzsche and Evola”
• Jonathan Bowden,”Theseus’ Minotaur: An Examination of Friedrich Nietzsche’s Thought”
• Jonathan Bowden, “The Uses and Abuses of Nietzsche”
• Jonathan Bowden, “Nietzsche’s On the Genealogy of Morals”
• Collin Cleary, “Evola’s Nietzschean Ethics: A Code of Conduct for the Higher Man in Kali Yuga”
• Collin Cleary, “What is the Metaphysics of the Left?,” Part 2
• Mark Dyal, “Nietzsche, Physiology, and Transvaluation”
• Mark Dyal, “Nietzsche’s Loneliness”
• Julius Evola, “Nietzsche for Today” (Translations: Czech, Portuguese)
• Julius Evola, “Nihilism and the Meaning of Life in Nietzsche”
• Julius Evola, “The Overcoming of the Superman”
• Guillaume Faye, “Guillaume Faye on Nietzsche” (Czech translation here)
• Greg Johnson, “Freedom, Determinism, and Destiny” (Spanish translation here)
• Greg Johnson, “Heidegger on Nietzsche, Metaphysics, and Nihilism” (Spanish translation here)
• Greg Johnson, “Historicizing the Historicists: Notes on Leo Strauss’ ‘The Living Issues of German Postwar Philosophy,'” Part 1, Part 2
• Greg Johnson, “Notes on Nihilism” (Translations: French, Spanish)
• Greg Johnson, “Ronald Beiner’s Dangerous Minds”
• Kurwenal, “Wagner, Nietzsche, and the New Suprahumanist Myth,” Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
• Anthony M. Ludovici, “Hitler and Nietzsche”
• James J. O’Meara, Review of Julian Young, Nietzsche’s Philosophy of Religion, Part One and Two
• Michael O’Meara, “Only a God Can Save Us” (French translation here)
• Sir Oswald Mosley, “Christ, Nietzsche, and Caesar” (Translations: French, Russian, Ukrainian)
• Ted Sallis, “The Overman High Culture: Future of the West” (Translations: French, Portuguese)
• Ted Sallis, Review of Abir Taha’s Nietzsche’s Coming God
• Oswald Spengler, “Nietzsche and His Century”

Philipp Foltz, Pericles’ Funeral Oration (1852)

1,560 words

When the story of the late 2020s is written, it will have to address the phenomenon of National Populism. Due to a combination of several long-term and deep-seated factors, the people of the West started gravitating towards charismatic leaders cultivating popular and populist movements aimed at restoring the societies of the West to their former greatness. From the communal dream-state of a Trump rally, to the chaotic battleground of a Yellow Vest protest, the old-stock populations of Western states arose to challenge the corrupt and uncaring elite.

For what it’s worth, I think that the first chapter of this story has been already written and documented — read all about it here. In his review of Eatwell and Goodwin’s surprisingly sober-minded work, our esteemed editor at Counter-Currents, Greg Johnson, counsels nationalists to put themselves out in front of the National Populist wave.

Now this is all well and good, and this National Populism thing looks like a winning combination (and we love winning, don’t we, folks?), and yet even in his counseling, Dr. Johnson anticipates a big obstacle in the way of our support of National Populism: namely, the elitism inherent in Dissident Right politics. Why should an avowed elitist, steeped in the tradition of Evola, Nietzsche, De Maistre, and Carlyle cavort with the unwashed masses, whose popular uprisings have been the bane of Western civilization, from the storming of the Bastille by a drunken mob to the blockading of central London by the Hermeneutic Order of the Broccoli Brain? Populism? Harrumph! I furrow my patrician brows with disdain and flare my chiseled nostrils as my luxuriant mustache is sent aflutter.

It’d do us good to check our premises.

First of all, what the storming of the Bastille, the blockading of central London by the Green nutter gang, the American Revolution, the rise of Labour in the UK, the October Revolution in Russia, the New Deal, Occupy Wall Street, and any other violent uprising in the dog’s breakfast of Leftist revolutions are bourgeois uprisings against the traditional order, or what’s left of it. Indeed, the common folk were often victims of these revolutions, as the monstrosities of the Jacobins in the Vendée attested. The common folk wanted throne and altar. The educated classes wanted their blood, even as they cried crocodile tears about the supposed iniquities the ancien régime had inflicted upon them. The common folk revered the Russian Tsar as the Little Father, an earthly representative of the Great Father in heaven, while the Bolsheviks disdained them as boorish, stupid, drunk, and smelly. And Lord knows what horrific slurs are bound to let loose from the pierced lips of the Extinction Rebellion lettuce-eaters about the rural bumpkins of the West Country, or those flatcap-wearing urban toughs oop norf. The revolutionary hates the peasant almost as much as he hates the King.

Secondly, if we take a closer look at the demands of the National Populists, we can see that they are not engaged in Leftism. Indeed, National Populism is a decidedly Rightist movement and can only be considered Leftist by cringeworthy cuckservatives who’ll have you believe that, uuuhhh, ekshully, Hitler was, like, literally a socialist.

We see a call for cleaning up corruption in the elites, where a Leftist mob would demand the abolition of elites as a phenomenon.

We see National Populists demand that measures be taken to secure an economic future for themselves and their posterity, whereas a Leftist mob would demand seizure of assets.

We see National Populists demanding that their voice be heard by the ruling elites, whereas a Leftist mob usually demands that power be given to them, under some clever euphemism like “democratic oversight.”

Crucially, we see National Populists demanding an end to replacement migration, whereas Leftist mobs are likely to act as accomplices of the elites effectuating this criminal policy (and indeed, this is what we see with the antifa phenomenon). Their admonitions against the elites are not the depredations of an upstart class seeking to install itself in power, nor a fantastical attempt to abolish the human pecking order.

The National Populists here are akin to the son demanding that his father renounce his alcoholism. He does not seek to upend the traditional power of the patriarch, but rather remind that patriarch of his rightful position, his responsibilities, and the family that depends on him. Even the much-maligned “socialism” of the National Populists is a call for a form of paternalism.

In a sense, these are common folk who recognize that they are common and are therefore crying out for their elite to treat them as commoners, which is to say, with paternal sentiment and noblesse oblige. In short, we do not see a movement of people who seek to seize power for their own designs, but a movement of people who seek to restore their country to good governance — the old-stock European people who wear red hats in America and yellow vests in France demand a reset, rather than a revolution.

Thirdly, notice that the National Populists gravitate around charismatic, alpha male leaders. In fact, the success of National Populism seems linked to the presence of just such a leader. The National Populists of the US, Brazil, Italy, and Hungary have coalesced around the personages of Donald Trump, Jair Bolsonaro, Matteo Salvini, and Viktor Orbán, whereas the National Populist movements of France and Germany, lacking such alpha male leaders, have not been able to push forward.

An interesting situation is visible in the UK, where National Populist energies and fortunes seem tied to the pin-striped person of Nigel Farage, who, while definitely charismatic and eloquent, seems to lack the will to be a leader. Hence, the UK has not elected a National Populist government and is instead saddled with bog-standard Tory cuckery, courtesy of Theresa the Traitor and Boris the Buffoon.

That the National Populists leaders are constrained by a hostile government (and non-government) apparatus known as the Deep State has led the National Populists to hope for more authoritarian government, so that their agenda may be pushed through. Because they are normal, everyday people with no designs on political power, they would welcome a dictator, or better yet, an absolute monarch. Hence the many fantasies of God-Emperor Trump.

The blind devotion to Trump exhibited by some Americans, particularly older conservatives, has earned them the monicker MAGApedes, and indeed, were I not accustomed to the astounding lack of will demonstrated by the average person, I would have found myself severely creeped out by these people’s complete submission to Trump. Such veneration exists for “Santo Matteo” as well and doubtless for other National Populist leaders.

An image arises of a movement not out for the blood of elites, but for their own well-being, and for sanity in government. We see a people raising their voices and calling for leadership. What can we — the elitist, illiberal Right — do about that?

Why, answer the call, of course.

I suspect that if you’re milling around Counter-Currents, you’re probably part of your nation’s cognitive elite. This gives you bragging rights, but also responsibilities. You’ve been gifted with a big brain, maybe even organizational capability, maybe even innate charisma. In any case, you probably have more will than the average person, certainly more courage — it takes balls to read crimethink in this age of thought control. Are you wasting these gifts on dead-end careers? Are you wasting them on video games? Or are you pouring your energies into the reclamation of your future? Our nations cry out for our guidance.

Seek out your local National Populist organization, make every effort to join them, and help their advance. Do not compromise your positions, which I hope are nationalist and illiberal, but rather gradually introduce them to your new friends. Do not be hostile, but rather be a leader. Calmly and clearly articulate what is necessary.

The National Populist movement is fertile ground for our ideas. You’re not there to barge in and violently take over the movement, but rather to rise to its top on the basis of your merits.

Since you’re reading this, you are a Dissident Rightist, and therefore one of your narrowest specialities is exposing the mainstream Right for the ineffective cucks they are. This is a uniquely useful skill for a National Populist movement, since such movements grow by plundering votes and influence from the mainstream Right, as discussed here.

Or maybe there’s another way to be useful. I’m sure you can meme with the best of them. Why not apply those skills to leaflet design?

Have you any specialized training? Put yourself in the service of the movement, and the rewards of dedicated labor will follow.

Above all, remember that if you want to lead, your life is not quite your own anymore, but rather, it belongs to your mission, which is to say to God. Among the common folk, you’ll know what it means to be a true aristocrat, a prince grounded in the blood and soil of his nation, his fate intertwined with his people who cry out for his guidance in both the physical and the spiritual realm. I suppose that sounds scary, and I think the dangers are indeed great, but then again, I can hear my nation calling.

In a noble heart, the shame of inaction stings more than the fear of battle.

1,254 words

I received this question from a Counter-Currents reader:

Andrew Marantz’s Antisocial tells the story of “Samantha,” who got involved with Identity Evropa and the Alt-Right, rose through the ranks, became disaffected, and then left the movement and talked to the enemy. In view of Samantha and other doxings by ex-scene groupies like Katie McHugh, should the movement simply ban women?

The short answer is: No.

First, what does it even mean to ban women from a largely anonymous online movement, which lacks any barriers to entry or standards of membership? We can’t ban women from the internet. We can’t ban women from reading our websites, listening to our podcasts, watching our YouTube videos, etc. We can’t ban women from writing for our websites, commenting on our websites, or donating to them if they simply use pen names. (For all I know, the person who sent in the question is a woman.)

Of course some parts of the movement can exclude women. I don’t think we should accept the essentially feminist assumption that all organizations and realms of society should admit women, much less aim for male/female parity. I also think that it is quite natural for radical politics to attract more men than women. And just as combat units and police forces function better without women, so might some White Nationalist political organizations.

But even if it were possible to entirely exclude women from White Nationalist politics, doing so would be dumb and self-defeating. If women want to contribute their money, ideas, time, and social capital to the movement, that makes us stronger, not weaker. Beyond that, we are never going to actually win unless we can convince a substantial percentage of the female population that we represent their real interests. And we will never do that if we allow the tone of the movement to be set by embittered misogynists, to say nothing of people who proclaim “White Sharia” and “Islam is Right About Women.”

Leftists love to dismiss realism about racial differences as racial hatred. But that’s not necessarily true. Feminists love to dismiss realism about sexual differences as misogyny, the hatred of women. But that’s not necessarily true either.

However, just as there really are people in our movement who hate other races, there are people in our movement who genuinely hate women.

Just as the goal of our movement should be to drain the swamp of diversity in which race-hate breeds, we should also try to address the underlying causes of hatred between the sexes.

And just as we will not achieve our goal in the racial sphere if we allow simple race hatred to define our movement, we will not achieve our goals in the sexual sphere by allowing misogynists to set the tone either.

White Nationalists are mature enough to recognize that hatred between the races and sexes is the inevitable product of the current system. We also need to be mature enough to recognize that indulging embittered haters will destroy any chance to rectify our problems.

Second, talking about excluding all women because of doxers like Katie McHugh makes no sense. Should the movement also exclude all men, because some men are doxers as well? That would put an end to 100% of doxings, but it would also put an end to the movement itself. Surely we can be a bit more surgical about excluding certain types of people to minimize such problems in the future.

Third, the very same people who want to blame women for problems in the movement also often deny that women exercise any moral agency. But if women have no agency, then they bear no responsibility either. But clearly somebody is to blame for these operational security and public relations disasters, and by their own logic, misogynists would have to blame men.

And in truth, men bear a lot of the blame. By all accounts, McHugh, Samantha, and another unnamed woman who doxed Coach Finstock were not ordinary women. They were Alt-Right scene groupies. Like rock groupies, they were attracted to an overwhelmingly misogynistic subculture. Women who are drawn to such environments are surely high in masochism and low in self-worth. They then worked their way through the scene, passing over nice guys until they ended up with manipulative sociopaths. But when they realized that masochistic self-indulgence was not making them happy, they bailed out.

Then, once they had become sufficiently embittered to feel justified in harming innocent people, they went to the enemy and started doxing people, including people who had only been kind to them. This is the sort of pure evil that makes people dream of the eternal fires of hell to restore justice to the world.

What makes such evil possible? I think a good part of it can be explained by bitterness. Bitterness takes root when someone is wronged and does not receive justice. Bitterness turns into a kind of neurosis. Embittered people vent their wrath not on the people who wronged them, but on people who didn’t wrong them but merely remind them of the people who did. And if such people have any pangs of conscience, bitterness easily silences them: “Why should I care about these people’s suffering? Where were they when I was suffering? Who cared about me?”

So how do we lessen the likelihood of such disasters in the future?

First, we really need to dispel the atmosphere of misogyny in the movement, which attracts damaged people of both sexes. Race realism–yes. Race hate–no. Sex realism–yes. Hatred between the sexes–no. Our movement will never win unless we treat such hatreds as social problems to be solved. And we cannot credibly promise to solve them in society as a whole if we allow them to run rampant in our own ranks.

Second, we need to exclude groupies. But we also need to exclude the kinds of sociopathic males they gravitate toward. If we stand for the restoration of Western civilization, then we stand for monogamy, not polygamy. We stand for fidelity, not adultery. We stand for healthy relationships, not pathological ones. Which means that playboys, sluts, adulterers, and abusers are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

If someone you know is playing the field, using and discarding movement groupies, he is playing with fire. He is putting his own short-term gratification ahead of the health of our cause. That’s a problem, and you need to say something.

Third, we need to drain the swamp where bitterness and wrath breed. We have to do something when people in our movement wrong one another. We need to have some sympathy for victims of injustice, even for victims who are not entirely innocent. And the best form of sympathy is to give them justice, which means there have to be punishments for wrongdoers. People who dox others are evil and deserve no sympathy today. But if they had received sympathy and justice when they were wronged, things may have worked out differently, and we would all be better off.

The Alt Right in America crashed and burned because it was run by a mafia of drunkards, druggies, sociopaths, and buffoons, as well as swarms of remora-like fanboys, sycophants, and enablers. I fear that we are going to be hearing a lot more such stories from Samantha and people like her for years to come. But the movement for white survival will not falter as long as we treat such disasters as opportunities to learn rather than excuses to quit.

707 words

“A slave is one who waits for someone else to free him.” — Ezra Pound

One of the ongoing projects of the North American New Right is the recovery of our tradition. One does not have to go too far back before one discovers that every great European thinker and artist is a “Right Wing extremist” by today’s standards.

What is even more remarkable is the number of great 20th century figures who belong in our camp as well. And among these figures, Ezra Loomis Pound is one of the most illustrious and one of the most radical.

Pound is lauded even by his enemies as one of the giants of modernist poetry. Speaking personally, however, Pound’s poetry long stood in the way of appreciating his genius as a critic, a translator, an essayist, an economist, and a political commentator.

I like a lot of modern literature, but to my ear Pound pushes its intellectualist and reflexive characteristics to the extreme and offers very little with immediate naive and sensuous appeal. For instance, as far as I have been able to determine, he never wrote anything in danger of being set to music by Andrew Lloyd Webber.

Appreciating Pound’s poetry presupposes a vast humanistic education of the sort long unavailable in American universities. Of course it doesn’t hurt to have such an education, even if one does not end up liking Pound. A good place to begin such an education is Pound himself, through reading his many volumes of essays and criticism, which I find absolutely compelling. Pound’s art is very long, and life very short. But you owe it to yourself to try. In the end, you have nothing to lose but your ignorance.

I suggest you begin where I did, with Impact: Essays on Ignorance and the Decline of American Civilization (Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1960), which brings together all of Pound’s central interests, cultural, historical, artistic, political, and economic. A similar overview is provided by Selected Prose 1909-1965 (New York: New Directions, 1973). After that, read his Guide to Kulchur (New York: New Directions, 1970).

For Pound’s political views, seek out Jefferson and/or Mussolini (1935) (New York: Liveright, 1970). Then read his WWII radio broadcasts: Ezra Pound Speaking: Radio Speeches of World War II (Contributions in American Studies) (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1978), a sample of which is printed below.

Finally, read his economic pamphlets, reprinted below, the ideas of which are ably summarized by Carolina Hartley in “Ezra Pound on Money.”

For Pound’s views on literature, see his Literary Essays of Ezra Pound, ed. T. S. Eliot (New York: New Directions, 1968), The Spirit of Romance (New York: New Directions, 1968), and ABC of Reading (1934) (New York: New Directions, 1960).

To tackle Pound’s poetry, all you need is two books: The Library of America’s massive volume Ezra Pound: Poems and Translation (New York: Library of America, 2003), which contains everything except Pound’s magnum opus The Cantos (New York: New Directions, 1971).

I also wish to draw your attention to works on this website:

By Pound:

• ABC of Economics
• “America, Roosevelt, and the Causes of the Present War”
• “An Introduction to the Economic Nature of the United States”
• “England,” Ezra’s Pound’s Radio Broadcast of March 15, 1942
• “The Four Steps”
• “Gold and Work”
• Jefferson and/or Mussolini
• Hugh Selwyn Mauberley, Part 1
• “Materialism,” Ezra Pound’s Radio Broadcast of June 26, 1943
• Pier Paolo Pasolini Interviews Ezra Pound
• “Religio or, The Child’s Guide to Knowledge”
• “Sestina: Altaforte”
• “Social Credit: An Impact”
• Two Cantos with Recordings of Pound’s Recitations
• “What is Money For?”

Poetic Tributes to Pound:

• Robinson Jeffers, “War-Guilt Trials”
• Leo Yankevich, “Ezra Pound Enters the Tent”

About Pound:

• Anonymous, “Ezra Pound and Vivaldi”
• Kerry Bolton, “Breaking the Bondage of Usury,” Part 2 and Part 3
• Kerry Bolton, “Ezra Pound” from Artists of the Right
• Jonathan Bowden, “Ezra Pound” (audio version)
• Alex Fontana, “Ezra Pound on Endless Trial”
• Adam Franz, “Ezra Pound’s Jefferson and/or Mussolini”
• Carolina Hartley, “Ezra Pound on Money”
• Carolina Hartley, “James Angleton and Ezra Pound”
• Beatrice Mott, “This Difficult Individual Eustace Mullins — and the Remarkable Ezra Pound”
• Michael Collins Piper, “What Did Ezra Pound Really Say?”
• Quintilian, “Ezra Pound’s Guide to Kulchur”
• Miguel Serrano, “The Death of Ezra Pound”
• Miguel Serrano, “Ezra Pound and the Angel”
• Stead Steadman, “Pagan Pound”

Pound is also frequently tagged in Counter-Currents articles dealing with art and economics.

1,023 words

English original here

Poniższy tekst to przemówienie, które wygłosiłem na londyńskim forum w dniu 3 października 2015 r. Chciałbym podziękować Jez Turner, London Forum Team i ich wiernym odbiorcom za umożliwienie mi tego.

Libertarianizm to polityka indywidualistyczna. Indywidualizm odnosi się do kwestii metafizycznych oraz etycznych.

Metafizyczny indywidualizm postuluje, że ​​istnieją tylko jednostki. Grupy są tylko zbiorami jednostek. Grupy nie mają odrębnego, niezależnego znaczenia.

Metafizyczny indywidualizm wiąże się z uniwersalizmem, czyli tezą, że istnieje tylko jedna rasa, ludzka, która jest tylko zbiorem jednostek.  Uniwersalizm orzeka, że ​​nie ma znaczącego rozróżnienia między “naszymi” a “tamtymi”, między nami a nimi.

Uniwersalizm ma dwie ważne implikacje.

Po pierwsze, polityka jest wynikiem, jak definiuje ją Carl Schmitt, rozróżnienia między nami a nimi, uniwersalizm oznacza, że ​​polityka jest jedynie zjawiskiem przejściowym, opartym na zanikającej iluzji znaczących różnic między grupami. Kiedy znikną te rozróżnienia, polityka też zniknie.

Po drugie, nacjonalizm, patriotyzm i każda inna forma stronniczości w stosunku do swojej grupy w stosunku do grupy zewnętrznej jest nie etyczna ponieważ tak naprawdę nie ma nas i ich, tylko ja i ty.  To prowadzi nas do moralnego wymiaru indywidualizmu. W jaki sposób ja i ty możemy się dogadać? Jeśli grupy są tylko zbiorami pojedynczych osób, nie ma wartości grupowych, a jedynie indywidualne wartości.  Dlatego celem instytucji społecznych jest ułatwienie osobom realizować własne cele.

Najważniejszym mechanizmem dla jednostek aby osiągały swoje cele jest kapitalizm.  Jeśli ty i ja mamy coś do zaoferowania, możemy handlować.  Jeśli nie mamy nic do zaoferowania, po prostu idziemy dalej.  Rynek wymaga jedynie minimalnego państwa „nocnego stróża”, aby chronił nas przed przemocą, oszustwem, naruszeniem umowy i tym podobne.

Etyka indywidualizmu wymaga od nas traktowania każdego jako jednostkę, a nie członka różnych moralnie nieistotnych grup przekazanych nam przez historię lub naturę.  Aby rywalizować, musimy być „ślepi”.  Musimy być „ślepi” na klasę.  Musimy być „ślepi” na płeć.  Musimy być „ślepi” na religię.  Musimy być „ślepi” na narodowość.  Musimy być „ślepi” na wszystkie rzeczy, które nas dzielą.  Jedyne, co musimy zobaczyć, to indywidualne zasługi.

“Gra” indywidualizmu jest bardzo korzystna dla wszystkich graczy.  Indywidualizm wspiera kreatywność w nauce, technologii i biznesie.  Paradoksalnie jednak największą korzyścią indywidualizmu to forma współpracy.  Każdy indywidualista uważa się za członka nawet globalnego społeczeństwa.  Oznacza to, że współpraca społeczna może również zostać rozszerzona do globalnego pułapu umożliwiając hurtową transformację świata, który nazywamy modernizmem.

Społeczeństwa kolektywistyczne są jednak trapione przez podziały na “in-grupy” i “out-grupy”. Jeśli ludzie zachowują się jak członkowie grup, zaufanie i współpraca ogranicza się do “in-grup”, co poważnie ogranicza rozmiar instytucji społecznych i psuje ich funkcjonowanie poprzez faworyzowanie “swoich” i dyskryminację w stosunku do “innych”.

W uczciwych pojedynkach strategia indywidualistyczna może pokonać strategie kolektywistyczną, dlatego indywidualistyczne społeczeństwa europejskie podbiły praktycznie cały świat za pomocą doskonałych technologii i form współpracy społecznej.

Jednak rywalizacja o globalną dominację rzadko jest uczciwa.  Kiedy więc zachodnie społeczeństwa indywidualistyczne podbiły i pochłonęły społeczeństwa kolektywistyczne, było kwestią czasu, zanim bardziej inteligentne plemiona nauczyły się oszukiwać.

Jak oszukać indywidualistę? Udawać indywidualistę, a działać jako członek grupy.  Żądasz, aby indywidualiści uczciwie i merytorycznie spojrzeli na każdą transakcją.  Ale jeśli to możliwe, dajesz przywileje członkom własnego plemienia, a oni  dają Tobie preferencję.

Wyobraź sobie grę w karty, w której przeciwnik może użyć dżokera, ale Ty nie możesz.  Tym dżokerem jest ich plemienne członkostwo.  Nie ma znaczenia, jak wielką przewagę możesz mieć nad nim pod względem żetonów na początku, ponieważ zasady dają mu systematyczną przewagę i dopóki będziesz grał, będziesz przegrywał. Ale indywidualiści bardzo trudno dostrzegają oszustwo, ponieważ są ślepi na grupy.

Ciekawe, że najważniejszym założycielem nowoczesnego, zaślepionego rasowo i narodowo indywidualizmu była Ayn Rand, urodzona Alissa Rosenbaum, a kierownictwo jej ruchu obiektywistycznego było w przeważającej części żydowskie, w tym kilku pierwszych kuzynów i małżeństw.  Jasne, że w rzeczywistości nie była to merytokracja. Jednak zwolennicy Rand byli ślepi na ten fakt ze względu na wyniosłe zasady moralne.

Nigdy nie będzie społeczeństwa libertariańskiego.  Ale ideologia libertariańska nadal pełni funkcję w ramach istniejącego systemu.  I choć libertarianizm jest powierzchownie przeciwny marksizmowi szkoły frankfurckiej, oba są żydowskimi ruchami intelektualnymi, które pełnią tę samą funkcję: obniżają odporność europejskiego społeczeństwa indywidualistycznego o wysokim poziomie zaufania wobec podstępnych grup plemiennych – co John Robb nazywa „plemionami pasożytów”  – przede wszystkim Żydów. Libertarianie głoszą indywidualizm, podczas gdy szkoła frankfurcka piętnuje tożsamość białych, wychwalając „inkluzywność” wobec „marginalizowanych” grup.  Ale wynik jest taki sam.  Obie doktryny promują żydowski awans społeczny i moc grupy, jednocześnie zaślepiając resztę społeczeństwa na to, co się dzieje.

Jakiego rodzaju ludzie głoszą ślepotę jako cnotę?  Ludzie, którzy nie robią nic dobrego.

Sumując, twierdzę, że indywidualizm jest produktem biologicznej i kulturowej ewolucji człowieka europejskiego.  Indywidualizm idzie w parze z niskim etnocentryzmem, tj. otwartością wobec obcych, uniwersalistyczną ideą, że ostatecznie istnieje tylko jedna grupa, ludzkość, do której wszyscy należymy.  Europejska psychika została pięknie określona w powiedzeniu Willa Rogersa: „Nieznajomy to tylko przyjaciel, którego jeszcze nie poznałeś”. Wątpię, czy takie same zdanie można znaleźć w języku hebrajskim lub arabskim.  Innymi słowy, zasadniczo nie ma nas i ich.  Jest tylko wiedza i ignorancja, znajomi, których znamy i przyjaciele, których nie znamy.

Ta otwartość jest bardzo korzystna, ponieważ pozwala nam zwiększyć liczbę osób, z którymi możliwe jest zaufanie i współpraca.  Ale otwarcie na obcych jest również ryzykowne, ponieważ mogą tego nie odwzajemnić. W ten sposób podejmowanie ryzyka towarzyskości – wyciągniecie przyjaznej dłoni – jest głęboko zakorzenione w naszym poczuciu moralnej wyższości.  Ale kiedy spotykamy ludzi, którzy nie odwzajemniają naszej otwartości, ale zamiast tego traktują ją jako słabość, którą należy wykorzystać, wówczas nasze cnoty nie są już korzystne, a jeśli nasze elity pozostają otwarte na takich wrogów, należy zwolnić ich od wszelkich uprawnień i obowiązków.

Indywidualizm oślepia swoich wyznawców w rozpoznaniu kolektywistycznych oszustów. Zatem jedynym sposobem na uratowanie indywidualizmu jest uświadomienie sobie znaczenia grup.  Ale to brzmi jak kolektywizm.  Uzyskując świadomość o plemionach pasożytów, musimy je wykluczyć.  Ale to brzmi jak etatyzm.  Jeśli indywidualizm jest ostatecznie etosem europejskim, to indywidualizm wymaga, abyśmy chronili społeczeństwa europejskie i wykluczali nie-Europejczyków, co brzmi jak nacjonalizm rasowy.

To jest obalenie libertarianizmu.  Jest to forma samozaprzeczenia.  Aby ocalić indywidualizm, musimy odrzucić uniwersalizm, i przywrócić rozróżnienie między nami a innymi. Indywidualizm działa wyłącznie jako strategia grupy złożonej z podobnie myślących ludzi, którzy muszą wykluczyć inne kolektywy, które nie działają według tych samych zasad.  W taki sposób niektórzy ludzie zaczynają jako libertariańscy indywidualiści, stają się rasistami, antysemitami i a ostatecznie faszystami.

877 words

Greg Johnson was scheduled to speak at the Scandza Forum conference in Oslo, Norway today. Over the last few days, the Norwegian antifa were on a social media campaign against Scandza and Greg in particular, claiming that he supports terrorism and was therefore a threat — ludicrous given Greg’s many diatribes against terrorism. Regardless, word about this apparently got to the Norwegian authorities, and he was arrested this morning before the conference on national security grounds. The police said that Greg was being deported, but he’s been held incommunicado since then, so we don’t know where he is now. Undoubtedly they will simply detain him until they can get him on a flight out of the country. This is the same routine that Jared Taylor and other thought criminals have been through before. The conference itself is proceeding and none of the other speakers or attendees were detained. Below is a statement that Greg wrote in connection with the accusations against him before his arrest.

Greg Johnson Responds to the Complaint

In connection with Scandza Forum’s conference in Oslo on November 2, 2019, Filter Nyheter is agitating to stop my entry to Norway. They have therefore put together a campaign of lies against me which they are now spreading on social media.

Filter Nyheter suggests that I promote violence as a political tool. The reality is quite the opposite. I have always consistently condemned violence and terrorism. In fact, I do not know of anyone else who has so clearly and unequivocally spoken against Right-wing terrorism as me. At the Scandza Forum in Sweden earlier this year, I gave an entire speech in which I addressed the evils of terror, and I have written numerous articles opposing it as well. I have never supported Breivik’s crimes. These stories take quotes from my writings out of context, from an article in which I in no way defended Breivik’s crimes. In fact, it was a text that discussed Breivik’s own rationale for the crime. At the moment, we are therefore looking at the possibility of taking legal action against Filter Nyheter.

The following are a selection of my statements that consistently condemn Right-wing terrorism:

Against Right-Wing Terrorism (speech at Scandza Forum in Stockholm, 2019), video below:

Against White Nationalist Terrorism
Understanding the El Paso Walmart Massacre
Understanding the Halle Synagogue & Kebab Shop Shootings
Author of The White Nationalist Manifesto Blames Trump for El Paso shooting
Understanding the New Zealand Mosque Massacre
Understanding the Sikh Temple Massacre
Understanding the Pittsburgh Synagogue Massacre
Understanding the Charleston Church Massacre
Understanding the Poway Synagogue Shooting
Understanding the Quebec Mosque Massacre
On the Necessity of a New Right

As a further reason as to why I should be banned from entering Norway, Filter Nyheter‘s “terrorist expert” claims that The Nordic Resistance Movement had published a link to the conference on their own website. But this group has not, and never has had, anything to do with the Scandza Forum, nor is the Scandza Forum’s organizer aware of the alleged “advertisement” that Filter Nyheter claims is there. Maybe if, without their knowledge, I publish a link to Filter Nyheter, then their own journalists will receive travel bans?

Greg Johnson, Ph.D. in philosophy and author

Norwegian version:

GREG JOHNSON SVARER PÅ ANKLAGENE

I forbindelse med Scandza Forum sin konferanse i Oslo nå 2. november 2019 så agiterer Filter Nyheter for å stoppe min innreise til Norge. De har derfor satt sammen en løgnaktig bakvaskelseskampanje som de nå sprer på sosiale medier.

Filter Nyheter antyder at jeg fremmer voldsbruk som politisk virkemiddel. Realiteten er stikk motsatt. Jeg har alltid konsekvent fordømt vold og terrorisme. Faktisk vet jeg ikke om noen andre som så klart og entydig har uttalt seg imot høyreorientert terror som meg. På Scandza Forum i Sverige tidligere i år, så holdt jeg en hel tale der jeg tok for meg terrorens ondskap, og jeg har skrevet talløse artikler IMOT høyreekstrem terror. Jeg har aldri støttet Breiviks forbrytelser. Ryktesprederne klipper og limer sitater ut av kontekst, fra en artikkel der jeg på ingen måte forsvarte Breiviks forbrytelser – det var en tekst som drøftet Breiviks egne PÅSKUDD for forbrytelsen. Akkurat nå ser vi derfor på mulighetene for å ta rettslige skritt mot Filter Nyheter.

24 words / 5:32

Yesterday, Frodi Midjord interviewed Greg Johnson’s Norwegian lawyer about Greg’s situation and the legal underpinnings — or rather lack thereof — of Greg’s arrest on Saturday.

1,487 words

We all know that there is nothing new or special about the use of state power to silence dissent. And if history has shown us anything, it is that those who decry such actions now rarely hesitate to engage in such activities later, once they have attained power.

This never-ending game makes hypocrites of us all – or does it? If we acknowledge that power is in and of itself a worthy goal – the necessary precondition for practical and enforceable codes of behavior, and indeed, the basis for the creation of an advanced society itself – then the game is not one of “hot potato” hypocrisies, but one of nature, like fighting over food or shelter.

White Nationalists fully intend to make use of state power to shape our countries as we see fit once we have attained power, so how do we reconcile the arrest of Greg Johnson and other political dissidents with this position? The desire to do so, to justify this superficial contradiction, is a holdover from ideas of fair play and honor that were only ever valued or useful between whites in the white world; they have little political value in a globalized world under conditions of neoliberal colonial subjectivity.

However, as White Nationalist discussions are, by definition, by and for whites – spaces in which the white world of fair play and honor can still exist – there is metapolitical value in providing analysis for the curious or the unconvinced. And the answer, in its crudest formulation, is power: We had it, they took it, and we are going to get it back.

Greg Johnson should be freed simply because he is one of us; he should be freed because Norway’s indigenous population would benefit immensely from his words, his presence, and the propagation of his ideas across their once great land. He should be freed because he is in Norway on what is effectively a rescue mission. Does the Norwegian state have a right to arrest him? Despite violating the liberal values they claim to hold and possibly their own laws, the answer, from our perspective, is “yes.” But we intend to peacefully and democratically hijack those values and laws in order to substitute a new moral and political culture in which those foreigners and unrepentant race traitors who would deny him the ability to speak are themselves marginalized to the point of abandoning, one way or another, their claims on Norwegian citizenship, participation in Norwegian culture, and any input into the future of Norway.

To accept the notion that we must ensure complete equality among all peoples in our future societies is to accept a universalist conception of world order, which is at odds with national sovereignty, respect for national and local traditions, and the primacy of race, each of which is a foundational concept within White Nationalist thought. By arresting and deporting Greg Johnson, Norway has accepted the first of these principles, merely substituting devolution for evolution, destruction for construction, and social chaos for harmony under the guise of national interest.

No objective person could believe that a mild-mannered, cultured doctor of philosophy who has consistently rejected violence poses a greater physical threat to Norway or any other historically white country than hordes of non-whites draining treasuries and taxing police forces, and yet the latter are met with open arms. The problem with this particular manifestation of Norwegian sovereignty is that it is not the will of the people, but rather the machinations of a hostile elite acting in contradiction to the interests of its citizens. Greg Johnson’s message, when it becomes well-known and understood without dishonest mediation, will be one of liberation and systemic disruption; i.e. vastly positive for the Norwegian nation. From a White Nationalist perspective, it is not the acts of arrest and deportation that are deplorable, but who did them – who exercised this power. It was not the Norwegian people who objected to his presence; the vast majority would likely agree with him on most things. Indeed, this is precisely what the government fears. No, he was arrested by a corrupt system: an octopus of unelected elites, social taboos, propaganda, and brainwashing.

In the long term, the ideas discussed by White Nationalists do indeed pose a threat; not to the Norwegian public, of course, but rather to the power of the Norwegian political, economic, academic, and media elite that is bent on maintaining Norway’s incorporation into the neoliberal world system, and which seeks to reduce the world’s actual human biological and cultural diversity to ashes – most especially as these pertain to whites, which is and always will be our primary concern. The value of Norwegians qua Norwegians is a White Nationalist value; it is emphatically not a neoliberal value. Indigenous peoples do not want to be destroyed anywhere on Earth; races do not want to be destroyed anywhere on Earth. But this is precisely what is happening in Europe and to whites everywhere, in part because our ideas – the ideas of men like Greg Johnson – are being suppressed as “hateful” and “terroristic.” This will not stop anytime soon. It would be ridiculous to suppose otherwise. It will not stop, because we are not in enough positions of power. But note that power can take many forms: A position of power does not necessarily mean a government job or head of a corporation; it can be any social location by which one can exert influence over large numbers of people, or influence a few people who in turn have power over other networks. It can be many different things. Never has social power been so easily available. Taking advantage of this is the nature of the metapolitical struggle: It is a contest for power which we can assuredly win, and from which political power will follow.

It is perfectly rational for the Norwegian government to arrest and deport White Nationalists. Again, they have a right to do so; we are a threat, albeit only to their system of lies and crime. By removing us from their borders, they are effectively acting in accordance with our belief in muscular border enforcement – which is a bit comical, really, and also, in this case, driving traffic to Counter-Currents and selling more copies of The White Nationalist Manifesto, which is even more comical. But it is equally rational for us to be indignant that one of our own was treated so poorly in a “civilized” white country for attempting to speak at a conference. Greg Johnson should not have had to deal with this treatment because he is one of us, because he is better than those who had him arrested, and better than any dirty rat who celebrated his arrest. We want him out and able to speak wherever he pleases, because the idea that this system – this putrid, capitalist, soul-crushing system – has any power over any of us makes our skin crawl. It is natural, healthy, and moral for us to feel this way.

One need not search the dusty shelves of libraries for old history books to understand that the story of humanity is one of power dynamics. One need only look around. Our enemies use their power against us daily, and have for many decades. The tactics change and the intensity shifts, but the war against white political solidarity rages on. They seek to prevent us from speaking, from making collective demands, from publishing books, from propagandizing online, from marching, from holding private conferences, from finding employment, from forming communities, and from taking any steps at all to either change or exit the anti-white system. This is why they need to preserve their power and why need to take it from them and make sure they never get it back. We are not concerned that Norway is doing something now that we plan on doing later. It doesn’t concern us in the slightest. We are not childish, weak-willed conservatives.

Up until recently, the colonizers thought that they would possess their power forever, but they are no longer quite as certain. (To any who might be reading this: Those nagging doubts are coming from the tiny smart part of your brain, struggling mightily to send sensible signals through the fat, blackened, evil parts; best to keep a metaphorical bag packed.) There is an electric hum in the white street; a restlessness, a growing indignation, a recognition that the game has been rigged for some time, and that the old rules no longer make sense in this global bazaar. We want the power to control our own future again – and we will get it. They will try and try, but they cannot arrest dissent; only the odd physical body here and there, and that just won’t cut it. They are fools and crooks to a man, clinging desperately to their fading power while ironically acknowledging the seriousness of the White Nationalist idea to the world, and thus the inevitability of their collapse.

554 words

I am writing this after 48 hours of detainment with little sleep and bad food (honestly, I would have preferred lutefisk). I want to let everyone know that I am in good health and in good spirits. I was treated with the utmost courtesy and professionalism by the Norwegian police, who were “just following orders” that were apparently cooked up in close collaboration with Communist or “antifa” smear-merchants.

I was cut off from the outside world for nearly 48 hours, until Monday morning. Except for a brief phone call to Frodi Midjord to help the police gather all my luggage, I was allowed only to communicate with the police and my lawyer’s assistant. I couldn’t read the news or contact people who were worried about me.

When I was finally given my phone back Monday morning, I actually knew less about my situation than many of my friends who were following the press. I did not know, for instance, that when I asked for a lawyer, the man who took the case was J. C. Elden, who is a celebrity in Norway. I will write out more detailed reports when I have a chance to read press coverage and confer with my lawyer.

I am very touched by the hundreds of messages of support that I received, and more than a little amused by the hate mail. I will answer all the supportive letters. I will read some of the hate mail out on my next podcast.

I have also been asked for interviews and comments from many news sources. I am going to say “yes” to most of the alternative news sites, but I am saying “no” to any mainstream news platform that uses the dishonest smear “white supremacist” to describe me. I have made it very clear why I reject this term (see here and here), and there have to be consequences for the journalists who are dishonest — or simply lazy — enough to use it.

I am now home. Originally, I was to have been deported, but I was also told that I was not banned from Norway and could return the very next day if I wanted. I was informed that a deportation flight had been booked for Monday morning. Then, on Sunday night, I was told that I was free to go at any time and could book a flight anywhere in the world. But apparently there was not enough time to do this, or this decision was overruled, because I was not given the opportunity to book such a flight. I was also told that if I wanted, I could simply stay in Norway to appeal my case.

Since I wanted to go home, and since the deportation flight was the quickest and cheapest option (it was paid for by the Norwegian government), I took the flight. I also thought it would be an interesting experience — and it was. I can highly recommend being deported from Norway. It is infinitely better than normal air travel, true V.I.P. treatment: no long lines at security, no crowded departure lounges, no endless queues, first on and off the plane, people driving you to and from the terminal, etc. But, as I understand it, I was not really deported in a legal sense.

If you wish to reach me, write to me at editor@counter-currents.com.

561 words

If you haven’t heard yet, Greg Johnson, my close friend and the editor of Counter-Currents, was arrested last weekend in Norway before giving a speech. The Norwegian police told the local media that they did not want Greg spreading his dangerous ideas — ideas that challenge the status quo and which come from what was once described as the “very dangerous mind” of Greg Johnson in the Chronicle for Higher Education.

Greg is not a terrorist. Like me, Greg regularly argues that there is much work that can be done to change our current situation — work that involves competent people striving diligently to bring about change. Here, Greg — and I’d like to think myself — are exhibiting a very low time preference. We realize the stakes are high, but want to build something that lasts for our people well beyond our years. If our predicament could be easily solved through random and dispersed acts of desperation, it would have been solved by now. The authorities knew Greg wasn’t planning violence; he’s doing something far more dangerous, which is changing people’s ideas of how things could be. I often say “things do not have to be this way” and “we shouldn’t have to live like this.” And we don’t and we shouldn’t. But do not despair; all of this is a historical aberration that can be corrected.

Some readers may know that last October I was pulled out of my Constitutional Law class (the beautiful irony) by six police in tactical gear and then searched, questioned, and harassed due to a false claim made against me by a very cowardly person who had run out of other ways to harass me. There are people all over social media who say far more outrageous things than Greg or myself, yet they do not get knocks on the door because they are not even close to being over the target, to changing anybody’s mind, or to understanding the issues we face. You only catch flak when you’re over the target, as they say. And this is no exception.

I was rather shaken up by my own incident. A lot of different thoughts and feelings course through you after something like that. I was upset at the entire system and society as a whole for becoming a place where somebody who only wants the best for his own people is being treated like a common criminal, a fact compounded by knowledge of current crime trends. The police were wasting their time with me — and now Greg — while true monsters, the truest scourge of God, roam the streets and prey on the weak. Greg and I wake up daily and battle these monsters.

Sure, they got one on me, and they just got one on Greg. If he’s anything like me, Greg will be annoyed, angry, and disappointed for some time. I’m going to help make sure that quality work is put out by doubling my own efforts in the coming months.

I appreciate each one of you for being here and supporting all of this. We’re making history, you know. The only thing that has ever changed history have been small bands of our people coming together in the face of what seemed to be impossible odds and standing firm, throwing off the shackles, and staving off the hordes — all so something greater than ourselves might endure.

3,034 words

The Scandza Forum is a nationalist metapolitical organization that has put on conferences in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. It was founded in 2017 and is led by Frodi Midjord.

Until recently, I had spoken at every Scandza Forum event. But on Saturday, October 12, 2019, I was prevented from speaking at The Scandza Forum’s second conference in Copenhagen by a raging mob of Communists (complete with the Soviet flag).

Then, on Saturday, November 2, I was prevented from speaking at the second Scandza conference in Norway by the Norwegian government itself, although it is clear that the state had been gaslighted into action by a false report written by antifa and acted upon by collaborators in the government.

Scandza’s inaugural event in Oslo, on July 1, 2017, was the first of its type in Norway, and our Norwegian friends were anxious for us to come back. The theme of the new conference was “Human Biodiversity,” i.e., the variations in genetic potential between the sexes and races. Human biodiversity undermines the bedrock assumption of modern egalitarianism, namely that differences in social outcomes between the races and sexes can be explained by mutable human ideas and institutions, so that by changing ideas and institutions, we can arrive at an egalitarian society. If, however, different social outcomes are based on biological differences, then they will persist even after all forms of unequal treatment are removed. Past that point, egalitarian social engineering projects are based on delusions and can only increase the miseries of the world.

The speakers included Dr. Kevin MacDonald, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at California State University, Long Beach, talking about his new book Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition; Dr. Helmuth Nyborg, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Aarhus and a prolific author of scientific books and articles; and Dr. Edward Dutton, editor of Mankind Quarterly and author of many books and articles.

My talk was entitled “The Very Idea of White Privilege.” I argue that the science of human biodiversity undermines the idea of white privilege as used by the Left, but I also argue that there is a sense of white privilege that is grounded in human biodiversity—namely, that whites naturally create societies that are more comfortable for whites than other races—but that this is inevitable, and there is nothing morally objectionable about it. (I will publish this speech on Counter-Currents.)

Jonas Skybakmoen

I arrived in Oslo on Thursday, October 31st. I then learned that Filter Nyheter, a Communist (“antifa”) blog, had published an article about me entitled “Hailed Breivik’s Rationale for the July 22 Terror—Now he is Going to Oslo to Speak for ‘White Nationalists’” (Hyllet Breiviks begrunnelse for 22. juli-terroren – nå skal han til Oslo for å tale for «hvite nasjonalister»), in which the authors Harald S. Kungtveit and Jonas Skybakmoen write:

Johnson has previously expressed support for how Anders Behring Breivik justified the July 22 attacks in 2011 in his trial, referred to the terror as “necessary,” and has described at length the killing of Labor Party politicians as a legitimate means to fight “non-white immigration.”

This is a complete inversion of the truth, as any honest person reading my statements on Breivik can see for himself:

• “Anders Behring Breivik: The Neoconservative Rambo”
• “Breivik: A Strange New Respect”

Harald S. Kungtveit

I did not “support” Breivik’s justification for terrorism. I carefully analyzed and criticized it. In referring to Breivik’s crimes as “necessary,” I am referring to Breivik’s views, not my own. The whole point of my article is to argue that killing Labor Party politicians—or any form of terrorism, for that matter—is not a legitimate means to fight non-white immigration.

The authors additionally claim “In the text, Johnson appears to be fine with much of Breivik’s reasoning,” which is laughable, given that my conclusion is that Breivik’s arguments do not establish a case for terrorism, and I also offer my own powerful arguments against terrorism.

Furthermore, the authors claim that “Johnson criticizes Breivik’s manifesto—not for the calls for more right-wing terrorist actions—but because the text was too long and unmanageable.” Actually, I criticize his manifesto for both reasons.

I was left wondering. Were Kungtveit and Skybakmoen dishonest or just very, very stupid? Dishonesty seems the most charitable and likely explanation.

Thomas Hegghammer

Later the same day, the same authors published another blog post, “Terrorist Researcher thinks Norway Should Deny Breivik Admirers Entry before Conference in Oslo” (“Terrorforsker mener Norge bør nekte Breivik-beundrer innreise før konferanse i Oslo”). Apparently the authors had shown their first lying article to an “expert” who did not bother to check the veracity of their claims, perhaps from incompetence, perhaps from complicity:

Now, the terrorist expert and senior researcher at the Defense Research Institute (FFI), Thomas Hegghammer, believes that Norway should consider the possibility of denying Johnson entry before the scheduled conference on Saturday—partly based on the statements above.

“Of course, we should not overuse these types of decisions or act as opinion police. But at the same time, I think there must be a limit somewhere. One indicator in this case is that the only neo-Nazi organization in Norway, the ‘Nordic Resistance Movement,’ is advertising the event—and that one of the speakers has given explicit support to Breivik. There is something very unmusical about bringing in an American Anders Behring Breivik sympathizer to Oslo, just where the terrorist attack happened on July 22,” says Hegghammer to Filter News.

First of all, as we have seen, I am not an “Anders Behring Breivik sympathizer” “who has given explicit support of Breivik.”

Second, it is entirely irrelevant that the Nordic Resistance Movement posted information about the event—if it actually did so. Nobody can control who links to or talks about one’s events. Moreover, if a group links one’s event, that does not imply that they endorse or agree with it, in whole or in part. And a fortiori it certainly does not imply that Scandza Forum—or the people speaking at it—endorse everyone who links to the event.

Of course, the quickest way to get Leftists to drop this silly idea that “Speaker X should be banned because the conference he is speaking at was promoted by a dissident site” is simply to post links to the next public appearances of Thomas Hegghammer, Harald S. Kungtveit, and Jonas Skybakmoen at Counter-Currents.

Naturally, I was a bit worried about this, for when Marxists lie, people die—many millions of people, actually.

So Frodi Midjord and I drafted a response to be translated into Norwegian and sent to the press. I did not want the response published immediately, however, because I hoped the blog post would not reach the mainstream press, and responding to it might draw more attention to it. I hoped that this would-be smear campaign would die in the weeds on an obscure Communist blog.

(The response was published on Saturday, November 2, after I had been arrested. The version that appeared was not, therefore, given a final edit by my hand. If I had given it a final once-over, the sentence “I have always consistently condemned violence and terrorism” would have simply read “I have always consistently condemned terrorism.” I have now corrected that sentence. Only pacifists “always” condemn violence. I think violence can sometimes be morally legitimate, for instance in cases of self-defense. But I have always condemned terrorism as a tool for white self-defense, for reasons outlined in many articles [listed here])

Friday came and went without much discussion of the Filter Nyheter posts. I spent the day working on Counter-Currents, putting the finishing touches on my talk for the next day, and then having dinner with the conference speakers and old friends.

On Saturday, I went on my own to the conference site, arriving at 10 a.m., well before the start. I was prevented from entering the Copenhagen Scandza Forum because when I showed up 30 minutes before the event was to start, the facility was already surrounded by a mob of Communists. I got to talk to some old friends and meet some new people. Then Frodi came over and told me that the police were coming to arrest me.

Welcome to Norway!

I grabbed my coat to go out to meet them, because I did not want them barging into the conference venue. Sure enough, there were two policemen at the door. I asked if I was going to be arrested. They said yes. I asked them what for, and they told me they could not tell me. Not knowing Norwegian law, I could not tell if this was irregular or not. It certainly seemed that way to me.

But these were not guys to be trifled with. I decided to comply so as not to cause a scene at the venue. The authorities always make it easier to comply with them (right up to the point when they shoot you in the back of the head). When I got in the car, I took out my phone to send a message to my friends. I was told I could not have a phone, so I handed it over. At that point, with one brief exception, the only people I talked to for the next 48 hours were police and my lawyer’s assistant.

I will describe in greater detail my experiences in custody in another article.

After several hours alone in a cell—without shoes, belt, or eyeglasses—I spoke to two plainclothes policemen who produced a document in Norwegian. They then called a woman who is a professional interpreter who rendered the text into English over a speakerphone. I was told that I had been detained and would be expelled under a provision of the Immigration Act, section 126, first paragraph, second sentence, “for the sake of basic national interests or foreign policy considerations . . .” because it was deemed that “the ideological message” I was to convey at The Scandza Forum could  “inspire the practice of politically motivated violence.” Obviously, the Filter Nyheter blog posts had found sympathetic ears somewhere in the Norwegian security service.

The whole thing struck me as idiotic.

First, the Norwegian authorities somehow divined that my talk could inspire political violence without knowing the contents or even the title of my talk—which was, again, “The Very Idea of White Privilege.”

Second, if the authorities had bothered to check the titles of my other Scandza Forum talks, they would have learned that the last talk I gave was entitled “Against Right-Wing Terrorism” (Stockholm, March 30, 2019). Indeed, I am the author of a long list of articles criticizing terrorism by White Nationalists. If I am the silver-tongued persuader the Norwegian state thinks I am, then I should be credited with reducing the amount of terrorism in the world. (The talk I gave at the first Scandza Forum in Oslo was a critique of irony as an ethos. Perhaps I will be blamed for an uptick in sincerity among Norwegian youth.)

Third, I was being detained and deported not for something I said or did, but for something that somebody else might do after hearing my speech. And remember that my speech was on white privilege, a topic that I feared was more likely to produce boredom than violence.

Fourth, one of Breivik’s arguments for resorting to terrorism was the Norwegian establishment’s suppression of freedom of speech about immigration and multiculturalism. My talk could not in any way be construed as a call for political violence. But suppressing my freedom of speech is precisely the kind of policy that encourages desperate people to commit acts of terrorism. As John F. Kennedy said, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” Breivik repeated this idea, almost word for word, during his trial. Will these people ever learn?

A related thought also occurred to me. Kungtveit and Skybakmoen were clearly trying to smear me by linking me to Breivik. But what if it has the opposite effect? What if the Breivik link does not decrease my credibility but instead increases Breivik’s? After all, I am an intelligent, educated, articulate guy. I have written eleven books and hundreds of articles. I have published sixty books. I run a highly successful webzine. I have cultivated a large circle of writers and donors. My readership is now in the neighborhood of 200,000 unique visitors per month. Putting the lie out there that I endorsed Breivik might actually make some people take him more seriously. This increases the chance that copy-cats might commit terrorist acts.

In short, the only possible way that my writings on Breivik could lead to terrorism is because of Kungtveit and Skybakmoen’s lies. I wonder if such a possibility ever occurred to them. If it did, would they have even cared? After all, the advocates of repression feed off Right-wing terrorism. It empowers them to oppress us, so why wouldn’t they promote it?

Finally, I knew that arresting and deporting me would bring enormous publicity, significantly increasing my audience.

I caught myself rubbing my hands together in glee.

I told the police that since the conference was over and it was no longer possible to give my talk, I wanted to leave Norway immediately. They seemed a bit surprised by this, probably because they are used to dealing with foreign freeloaders who will do anything to delay deportation.

I told them that I did not want to return to the United States. Instead, I wanted to go to Portugal, where I planned to attend an academic conference on immigration, multiculturalism, and the identitarian backlash. All I needed was my laptop to buy a ticket, my luggage, and a trip to the airport.

Unfortunately, as I was to learn, state deportation is far less efficient than self-deportation. I could have been on a plane that night. But they have rules. Following all those rules cost the Norwegian taxpayers a great deal of money and delayed my departure until the following Monday.

The letter they gave me also explained that I had the right to a state-appointed attorney. I told them I wanted to exercise that right to ensure that all my rights were respected and that I could be deported as quickly as possible.

I was returned to my cell and allowed to keep my glasses, so I could stare at a document in a language that I could not understand. The policemen went off to collect my baggage, both where I was staying and at the Scandza facility, a process that took many hours and multiple trips simply because I was not allowed to communicate with anyone.

After a couple of hours, I was summoned to speak to my attorney—or, as it turned out, the assistant to my attorney. I was introduced to a young woman who looked Persian or Kurdish. She told me she worked for Advocat Elden, which I assumed was the name of a law firm. I explained my desire to cooperate entirely and speed my departure. I also explained my desire to go to Portugal, not the United States. To my surprise, she seemed to indicate that her firm was already treating this as a free speech issue and that it was wrong to prevent me from speaking because of what other people might do. I didn’t know what to make of this. I was entirely focused on getting out of there. I would think about a legal appeal once I was outside of Norwegian airspace.

The next morning, I was visited in my cell by a young woman with another letter stating the current disposition of my case. Again, it was read in English by an interpreter over a speakerphone. The letter mentioned the name of the lawyer I had spoken with the day before. It indicated that my request to self-deport had been received, as well as my preference to go to Portugal rather than return home. The letter explained in greater detail the rationale for my expulsion, which seemed to indicate that they were responding to arguments made by my lawyers. The letter ended by saying I would be deported immediately (meaning the next day), that I was not barred from returning to Norway in the future, that I had a three-week period for appeal, and that I could request to stay during the appeal. It did not seem to compute that I wanted to leave even sooner than “immediately” as they defined it. By “deporting” me, they were actually forcing me to stay in Norway longer.

The young woman also allowed me to call Frodi Midjord to assist in gathering the last of my belongings. But when he started telling me about what happened after my arrest, we were cut off.

Sunday afternoon, I was driven to a deportation “camp” near Oslo airport. After the indignity of a strip search, I was given my first hot meal. (Well, it had been hot an hour before. It seemed like jambalaya and chow mein cooked in the same pot. For almost a day and a half, I had been subsisting on bread, processed cheese slices, and milk.) Whereas previously, I had been locked in a cell, in the new facility, I had a private room but access to a common area. There were about eight other people awaiting deportation, all of them apparently Muslims. Although I was allowed to make phone calls, the computer system for that was down, so it was impossible.

Around seven in the evening, I was finally allowed to call my lawyer on one of the phones used by the staff. She explained that the state had now decided that I was free to go at any time. I could book a plane anywhere in the world that very evening. Unfortunately, it seemed to be too late to communicate this decision to the staff at the deportation facility, so I ended up taking the deportation flight out the next morning after another sleepless night.

Only after arriving at the airport was I given my phone. Nearly 48 hours had passed. Hundreds of messages began flooding into my various apps and email accounts. It was only then that I got a clear sense of the amazing things that had happened since my arrest, which will be the topic of another article.

1,217 words

Today is Guillaume Faye’s first birthday since his death earlier this year after a battle with cancer. Faye had been sick for some time, but he was so focused on writing what will now be his last book that he postponed seeing a doctor until it was complete. When he finally sought medical attention, he was diagnosed with stage four cancer. There is no stage five. Guillaume Faye gave his life for his work, and his work for Europe.

Faye, like New Rightists and White Nationalists in European societies around the globe, was motivated by a sense of danger: the reigning system — liberal, democratic, capitalist, egalitarian, globalist — has set the white race in all of its homelands on the path to extinction through declining birthrates and race replacement through immigration and miscegenation. If we are to survive, we must understand this system, critique it, and frame an alternative that will secure the survival and flourishing of our race. Then we need to figure out how we can actually implement these ideas.

I like Faye’s approach for a number of reasons.

First, Faye thinks big. He wants to take all of Europe back for Europeans. I completely agree with this aim. Furthermore, to secure the existence of Europe against the other races and power blocs, Faye envisions the creation of a vast “Eurosiberian” Imperium, stretching from Iceland to the Pacific, with a federated system of government and an autarkic economy. He believes that only such an imperium will be equal to the challenges posed by the other races in a world of burgeoning populations and shrinking resources. As I argue in my essay “Grandiose Nationalism,” I think that such ideas are neither necessary nor practical and they entail dangers of their own. But nobody can fault them for visionary boldness.

Second, Faye thinks racially. His answer to the question “Who are we?” is ultimately racial, not cultural, religious, or subracial: white people are a vast, extended family descending from the original inhabitants of Europe after the last Ice Age. There are, of course, cultural and subracial identities that are also worth preserving within a federated imperium, but not at the expense of the greater racial whole.

Third, Faye is not a Luddite, primitivist, or Hobbit. He values our heritage, but he is attracted less to external social and cultural forms than to the vital drives that created them and express themselves in them. He also wishes to do justice to European man’s Faustian drive toward exploration, adventure, science, and technology. His “archeofuturism” seeks to fuse vital, archaic, biologically-based values with modern science and technology.

Fourth, Faye turns the idea of collapse into something more than a deus ex machina, a kind of Rapture for racists. We know a priori that an unsustainable system cannot be sustained forever and that some sort of collapse is inevitable. But Faye provides a detailed and systematic and crushingly convincing analysis of how the present system may well expire from a convergence of catastrophes. Of course, we need to be ready when the collapse comes. We need a clear metapolitical framework and an organized, racially conscious community to step into the breach, or when the present system collapses, it will simply be replaced with a rebranded form of the same ethnocidal regime.

Fifth, Faye is a strong critic of Christianity as the primary fount of the moral universalism, egalitarianism, and individualism that are at the root of our decline.

The only really fundamental disagreement I have with Faye was on the Jewish question. His views are closer to those of Jared Taylor, whereas mine are closer to those of Kevin MacDonald.

I only met Faye once, at the 2006 American Renaissance conference, where we had a couple of enjoyable conversations. We corresponded occasionally before and after that meeting. One of my treasured possessions is a copy of Faye’s first book, Le Système à tuer les peuples (Copernic, 1981), which he had given to Savitri Devi. Unfortunately, he was never able to locate his brief correspondence with Savitri. Perhaps it will come to light in his papers, which should be carefully preserved. If European man has a future, it will be due in no small part to Faye’s works. He belongs to history now, and future European generations will look dimly upon us if we fail to conserve and carry on his legacy.

I wish to draw your attention to many pieces by and about Faye at Counter-Currents.

By Guillaume Faye:

• “Call to Young Europeans,” trans. Greg Johnson (Translations: Czech, Greek, Portuguese, Spanish)
• “The Cause of the Peoples?,” trans. Michael O’Meara
• “The Conquest of Europe Begins,” trans. Guillaume Durocher
• “Cosmopolis: The West as Nowhere,” trans. Greg Johnson
• “From Dusk to Dawn,” trans. Michael O’Meara
• “The Essence of Archaism,” trans. Irmin Vinson
• “The Geopolitics of Ethnopolitics: The Concept of Eurosiberia,” trans. Greg Johnson
• “Guillaume Faye on Nietzsche,” trans. Greg Johnson (Czech translation here)
• “The Intentional Genocide of European Peoples?,” trans. Greg Johnson (Spanish trans. here)
• Interview on Dominique Venner, trans. Greg Johnson (Spanish trans.)
• Interview with Guillaume Faye
• “The Islamic Conquest of Europe,” trans. Irmin Vinson
• “Islamism is Less Dangerous than Islam,” trans. Greg Johnson
• “Jihadist Carnage in Paris,” Part 1 (Spanish trans.), Part 2, trans. Greg Johnson
• “The Lesson of Carl Schmitt,” with Robert Steuckers, trans. Greg Johnson
• “Macron: Artifact and Puppet,” trans. Guillaume Durocher
• “Mars and Hephaestus: The Return of History,” trans. Greg Johnson (Russian translation here)
• “The Migratory Invasion,” Part 1 (Spanish trans.), Part 2 (Spanish trans.), Part 3 (Spanish trans,), trans. Greg Johnson
• “On the Essence of War,” trans. Greg Johnson
• “On the Russian Annexation of Crimea,” trans. Greg Johnson (Czech trans.)
• “People” (from Why We Fight)
• “State and Society,” trans. Greg Johnson
• “Ten Untimely Ideas,” trans. Michael O’Meara
• “Traditionalism: This is the Enemy!,” trans. Greg Johnson
• “Tribute to Dominique Venner,” trans. Greg Johnson (Translations Czech, Greek, Spanish)
• “Trump: Revolution or Simulacrum?” Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, trans. Guillaume Durocher
• “Ukraine: Understanding the Russian Position,” trans. Greg Johnson

About Guillaume Faye:

• Francis Alexander, “Toward Euro-Siberia” (Portuguese translation here)
• F. Roger Devlin, “The Rectification of Names: Guillaume Faye’s Why We Fight”
• F. Roger Devlin, “A Serious Case: Guillaume Faye’s Archeofuturism”
• Jack Donovan, “‘Corporatism’ or Mercantilism?”
• Ricardo Duchesne, “The European New Right and its Animus Against Western Civ”
• Georges Feltin-Tracol, “Back to the Future: Guillaume Faye’s Archeofuturism”
• Andrew Hamilton, “Pan-Nationalism”
• Thomas Jackson, “Life After the Collapse: Guillaume Faye’s Archeofuturism”
• Greg Johnson, “Grandiose Nationalism” (Translations: French, German, Russian, Spanish)
• Greg Johnson, “Project Septentrion: The Last Line of Defense” (French originals here)
• Greg Johnson, “Review of Michael O’Meara’s Guillaume Faye and the Battle of Europe” (Czech translation here)
• Greg Johnson, “Theory and Practice” (Translations: French, Polish)
• Julian Langness, “Desired Storms: Guillaume Faye’s The Colonisation of Europe”
• Robert Lind, “A Field Day for the Titanic Pessimist: A Review of Guillaume Faye’s Archeofuturism 2.0”
• Michael O’Meara, “Europe’s Enemy: Islam or America? Guillaume Faye’s Le coup d’Etat mondial”
• Michael O’Meara, Foreword to Guillaume Faye’s Archeofuturism
• Michael O’Meara, “Guillaume Faye and the Jews”
• Michael O’Meara, “The New Jewish Question of Guillaume Faye”
• Michael O’Meara, “Preparing for World War III: Guillaume Faye’s Avant-Guerre”
• Michael O’Meara, “Sex and Derailment: Guillaume Faye’s Sexe et Devoiement”
• Michael O’Meara, “The Transitional Program: Guillaume Faye’s Mon Programme”
• Michael O’Meara, “The Widening Gyre: Guillaume Corvus’ La convergence des catastrophes”
• Christopher Pankhurst, “Guillaume Faye’s Archeofuturism 2.0”
• Christopher Pankhurst, “Guillaume Faye’s Sex and Deviance”
• Michael Walker, “Guillaume Faye’s Archeofuturism”

702 words

No doubt, you’ve heard of Dr. Greg Johnson’s recent arrest and deportation from Norway that occurred prior to his scheduled speech at this year’s Scandza Forum in Oslo. The outcome was far better than we feared. Johnson was not banned from Schengen. He was not even banned from Norway. Moreover, significant questions have arisen regarding the actual legal circumstances under which Johnson was arrested. While it’s plainly obvious that this arrest was political, not much attention has been paid to the murky mechanisms by which Johnson was actually placed into custody.

News broke of Johnson’s arrest almost immediately after it occurred on Norwegian news outlets, specifying that police arrested him under Section 106 of the Norwegian Immigration Act. Confusion over what actually happened begins here: 106 only details the reasons for which a foreign national may be expelled on the grounds that they have deliberately provided false information or otherwise evaded the normal process of entering the country. Johnson did none of those things: He did not arrive in Norway with a fake passport, having committed a crime, or having attempted to dodge a connection elsewhere inside of an airport. This detail – which is being mostly overlooked by those glancing at one of the many news articles on the incident and satisfied by seeing some kind of legal statute pertaining to this incident referenced – was mentioned by Johnson’s lawyer, John Christian Elden.

In an interview with Scandza organizer Fróði Midjord, Elden stated that Johnson was taken into custody by police under Section 126 of the same act. This particular statute makes allowances for the government of Norway to order the removal of any person for “fundamental national interests” and “foreign policy considerations” as they relate to a particular individual’s visit to Norway. In Johnson’s case, this statute was invoked on account of the false allegation that he expressed support for Anders Behring Breivik’s terrorist attacks in 2011.

Because of this, Johnson was not truly “arrested” in the sense of the word we usually understand in the West. He was taken into custody immediately outside the Scandza Forum venue under rules that pertain to immigration, not criminal offenses. It’s curious that he wasn’t stopped at the airport, where such things generally take place. Officially, Dr. Johnson was placed under “detention, pending removal,” which the government has argued does not actually qualify as arrest or deportation – despite the fact that Johnson was being held inside a detention facility and forced to either accept a flight out of the country on behalf of the government or purchase one himself. The government also argues that he was not actually jailed, since the facility that Johnson was held inside is administered by the police, and not corrections officers, per the regulations set forth in the statute he was arrested under. Because of this, the Norwegian government almost explicitly admits that Johnson’s presence in Norway was not a crime, nor was the means by which he entered the country.

While Johnson is an obvious target for persecution, the rest of us would do well to observe a few rules while traveling internationally in order to avoid troubling situations like this one, especially within Europe and Anglophone North America:

• Generally speaking, signing out of your social media accounts on your cell phone and encrypting your computer’s hard drive, if you are carrying one, will make it more difficult for governments to deny you entry on the basis of national security or claim that you are attempting to radicalize their populations.
• Avoid carrying sensitive materials, such as literature or propaganda, in your luggage.
• Always be forthcoming, but not overly explanatory, about your itinerary and intentions in the countries you visit. A simple “I’m on holiday” to customs and immigration officers works wonders.
• You’ll often be asked with whom you are staying on your first night. Beyond that, however, avoid mentioning the names or locations of those you are visiting.
• As always, be vigilant in public.
• In the event you are detained or otherwise held up at a border, your country’s consulate will most likely be helpful in your endeavors, sometimes to a surprising degree, even if it is to assist you in your return home or to retrieve documents like passports from other authorities.

2,640 words

English original here

Když Jeffrey Epstein 10. srpna 2019 zemřel, kvůli lidem, které mohl kvůli zapojení do jeho zločinů potopit, byl jedním z nejdůležitějších vězňů světa.

Epstein byl obviněn z mnohonásobného kuplířství a spiknutí za účelem nabízet nezletilé k sexu. Nebyl to ale žádný obyčejný zvrhlík ani pasák. Epstein vládl nesmírným majetkem záhadného původu. Přestože byl označován za finančníka, měl jediného známého klienta, Lese Wexnera, vlastníka Victoria’s Secret a dalších společností.

Epstein svého bohatství využil k proniknutí do vrchních pater americko-anglo-židovské politické a finanční elity. Jeho černý zápisníček obsahoval kontaktní informace lidí jako Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, královna Alžběta II., princ Andrew, saúdskoarabský král Salmán, Alan Dershowitz, Ehud Barak, Henry Kissinger, Michael Bloomberg a mnoho dalších oligarchů a celebrit.

Epstein měl podle všeho slabost pro nezletilá děvčata. Ta samozřejmě podle zákona nemohou svolit s pohlavním stykem, takže se Jeffrey Epstein dopustil mnohonásobného znásilnění. Svými spády se nijak netajil a svému soukromému tryskáči říkal Lolita Express. V roce 2006 ho FBI začal vyšetřovat. Agenti postupně vypátrali více než stovku žen, řadu z nich nezletilých, které za sexuální úsluhy pro Epsteina či jeho bohaté a mocné přátele převzaly peníze.

V roce 2007 však Epstein uzavřel dohodu s prokurátorem Alexem Acostou, díky níž se vyhnul federálnímu stíhání i pobytu za mřížemi. Epstein v jejím rámci souhlasil, že přizná před státním (tj. nikoliv federálním) soudem vinu za dvě obvinění z prostituce. Výměnou za to i se svými komplici získal imunitu před federálními obviněními z kuplířství, které ho mohly poslat za mříže na doživotí. Epstein si „odseděl“ 13 měsíců v soukromém křídle okresní věznice (county jail). Podle vyjednaných podmínek však směl šest dní v týdnu na 16 hodin denně vězení opustit. V podstatě tam tak jenom přespával. Jeho údajní spolupachatelé se pak stíhání vyhnuli úplně. Dohoda podléhala utajení, a tak se veřejnost o plném rozsahu a povaze jeho zločinů nikdy nedověděla. Epsteinův spis byl počátkem letošního roku odtajněn díky vytrvalosti novinářky Julie Brownové, následkem čehož došlo k jeho zatčení a posléze i jeho smrti.

Acosta se stal ministrem práce v Trumpově kabinetu. Jistému zaměstnanci Bílého domu, který tuto informaci předal novinářce Vicky Wardové, měl údajně říct, že s dohodou o zastavení Epsteinova stíhání souhlasil hlavně proto, že dostal pokyn „držet se od něj dál“. „Řekli mi, že Epstein ‚je u rozvědky‘ a že to mám nechat být.“ Pokud je to skutečně pravda, vnucuje se otázka: pro vyzvědače kterého státu Epstein vlastně pracoval? A kdo Acostovi nařídil, aby se držel zpátky?

Podle Philipa Giraldiho je nejpravděpodobnějším kandidátem Izrael. Epstein byl Žid, stejně jako jeho jediný známý klient Les Wexner. Jeho někdejší přítelkyně, důvěrnice a údajná spolupachatelka při kuplířství byla Ghislaine Maxwellová, dcera Roberta Maxwella (který se ovšem narodil na československé Zakarpatské Ukrajině jako Abraham Leib Hoch /později používal Ján Ludvík Hoch/), zámožného židovského podnikatele a podvodníka, který podobně jako Epstein zahynul za podezřelých okolností. Giraldi píše: „Když (Maxwell) zemřel, dostalo se mu izraelského státního pohřbu, na němž hned šest aktivních i bývalých šéfů izraelských zpravodajských služeb naslouchalo smuteční řeči expremiéra Jicchaka Šamira: „Pro Izrael udělal mnohem více, než si dnes kdo dovede představit.“

Nabízejí se další nepohodlné otázky. Snažil se Epstein zlákat své bohaté a vlivné přátele ke spáchání pohlavního zneužití nezletilého? Shromažďoval o nich kromě toho také další více či méně kompromitující informace, aby je mohl finančně a snad i politicky vydírat? Tak se alespoň jeví mně.

Domnívám se, že Epstein nesjpíš byl izraelský agent, který pracoval pod krycí identitou bohatého finančníka s konexemi. Dodával nezletilé dívky bohatým a mocným zvrhlíkům, aby po nich mohl vyděračsky požadovat peníze a službičky v podnikání nebo politice. Tato teorie je nejlépe slučitelná se známými fakty, má schopnost predikce a další vyšetřování ji může ověřit či vyvrátit. Jestliže je to pravda, pak měl nejeden mocný člověk dobré důvody postarat se o to, aby Epstein nikdy nestanul před soudem nebo nedostal šanci domluvit se se státním zástupcem.

Jestliže jsem to, že Epstein je velmi pravděpodobným terčem úkladné vraždy, snadno dovodil já a nespočet dalších, muselo to být jasné i trestním orgánům a vedení newyorské federální věznice Metropolitan Correctional Center. Všichni ostatně měli vědět, že Epstein má na čele obří terč hned od svého zatčení 6. července 2019. A ti, kdo by to snad napoprvé přehlédli, rozhodně ztratili veškeré možné omluvy 23. července, kdy byl Epstein nalezen ve své celé zraněný a jen napůl při vědomí. Na krku měl stopy ukazující buď na pokus o sebevraždu, nebo vraždu. Co hůř, Epstein i jeho spoluvězeň o tom, co se stalo, zarytě mlčeli.

Když tak jen o pár dní později Jeffreyho Epsteina nalezli mrtvého se stopami na krku, jež ukazují na vraždu či sebevraždu, všichni s IQ vyšším než pokojová teplota a alespoň základním povědomím o jeho případu rychle museli dospět k závěru, že jeho smrt nebyla jen tak nějaká obyčejná sebevražda.

Pojďme to promyslet trochu důkladněji. Jeffrey Epstein byl zavražděn, nebo spáchal sebevraždu. Nikdo nepřišel s myšlenkou, že by zemřel z přirozených příčin. Trochu mě ale popravdě překvapuje, že nikdo nepřišel s hypotézou autoerotické asfyxie coby příčiny smrti, vzhledem k tomu, jaký zvrhlík to byl.

Protože Metropolitan Correctional Center disponovalo prostředky, jak Epsteinovi ve spáchání sebevraždy zabránit, byla-li to skutečně sebevražda, pak Epsteinovi dovolili zabít se. Mohlo se jednat buď o úmysl, nebo nedbalost.

Jestliže byla Epsteinovi sebevražda umožněna záměrně, byl motiv velmi pravděpodobně totožný jako v případě vraždy, tedy zabránit mu vypovídat.

Pokud se Epstein mohl zabít v důsledku nedbalosti, znamená to, že americká vláda, především pak ve městě New York, přestala být seriózní institucí a svým fungováním se řadí někam mezi latinskoamerickou banánovou republiku a zhroucený africký stát. Zejména se pak nabízí závěr, že lidé ve vedení newyorského Metropolitan Correctional Center se zachovali bud nedbale nebo zločinně – případně s nějakou kombinací obojího.

Kdokoliv se špetkou rozumu navíc všechno výše uvedené dokázal odvodit ještě předtím, než k nám začaly pronikat zprávy o záhadně nefunkčních bezpečnostních kamerách, záhadně přerušeném sledování vězně, který si pokusil vzít život a záhadně nepřítomných dozorcích.

Vražda nebo sebevražda – Epsteinova smrt je největším skandálem desetiletí. Bez ohledu na to, zda šlo o vraždu nebo sebevraždu a zda se někdy dozvíme pravdu nebo ne, Epsteinův případ nemůže než dále rozložit už tak dost otřesenou víru průměrného Američana v politický systém a mainstreamová média. A to jsou dobré zprávy pro populistické disidenty jako já, neboť rozklad důvěry v establishment je živnou půdou populismu.

Pokud budou na jedné straně debaty o Epsteinovi stát ti, podle nichž je systém dostatečně zlý na to, aby ho zavraždil, a na druhé lidé, podle kterých je dostatečně neschopný, aby ho nechal spáchat sebevraždu, systém nemůže zvítězit a my v disentu nemůžeme prohrát. Ať už se stalo cokoliv, pravda jim škodí a nám pomáhá.

Co když se ale pravdu nikdy nedovíme? Pak se debata povede mezi lidmi, podle nichž je systém dostatečně prohnilý, aby pravdu záměrně skryl na jedné straně a těmi, podle kterých je natolik neschopný, že ji nedokáže najít. Když padne hlava, disidenti vyhrávají, když orel, establishment prohrává.

A hra s takto rozdanými kartami se mi zamlouvá.

10. srpna navíc nezemřel jen Jeffrey Epstein, ale také něco dalšího, potenciálně mnohem většího než on: slovní spojení „konspirační teorie“ pozbylo svou moc potlačit kritické uvažování o konsenzu vyrobeném a vynucovaném politickým a mediálním establishmentem.

V rukou elit se „konspirační teorie“ stává prostě jen dalším pejorativním výrazem maskujícím se za objektivní kategorii. „Konspirační teorie“ v jejich řeči znamená odlišný názor ohrožující její mocenské postavení.

Na konspiračních teoriích ale není nic špatného. „Teorie“ je jednoduše vysvětlení spojující pozorované jevy pomocí souboru základních příčin, jako např. evoluční nebo atomová teorie. „Konspirační teorie“ označuje vysvětlení, jež také spojuje pozorované jevy jejich základními příčinami, v tomto případě lidským plánováním. Latinský základ slova „konspirace“, conspirare, ostatně znamená „společně šeptat“.

Konspirace má coby forma lidského plánování a akce dvě zásadní charakteristiky. V prvé řadě jsou k ní potřeba přinejmenším dva lidé. Myšlenka zosnovaná a uskutečněná osamělým činitelem může být intrikou nebo zločinem, ale konspirace to není. Druhou nutnou podmínkou je utajení, jelikož o věcech, jež jsou předmětem konspirace, nelze hovořit otevřeně bez ohrožení celého plánu.

Konspirace jsou často, byť ne nezbytně kriminální. Někdy je nutné uchýlit se ke konspiraci i v případě dokonale legálních počinů, jelikož jejich otevřené plánování a uskutečnění by odkrylo karty protivníkům. Když se tak fotbalisté baví v hloučku, konspirují. Když podnikatelé připravují nové produkty, konspirují. Když vlády plánují špionáž a válečné scénáře, konspirují. Když politické strany a kandidáti promýšlejí volební kampaně, konspirují. A když disidenti pořádají setkání nebo jiné akce, konspirují. Osobně konspiruji každý den, od rána do večera.

Dějiny lidstva se z nemalé části odvíjejí od plánů a činů zosnovaných v utajení. Chceme-li tak odsoudit konspirační teorie jako celek, budeme muset zahodit všechna možná kriminální vyšetřování. Totéž platí i o většině novinařiny i historiografie, které se velmi často snaží svázat různá vlákna pozorované reality do jednotícího plánu. Zbavit bychom se museli také nejednoho z těch nejlepších literárních a filmových kousků o politice, špionech a zločinu. Dovedete si představit bondovku, kde by stačilo prohodit „konspirační teorie“, aby to zmrazilo veškeré myšlení a akci?

Krom toho se titíž lidé, kteří „konspirační teorie“ ostouzejí, v tomtéž uvažování sami vyžívají. Jen o nich nehovoří jako o teoriích, ale vydávají je za fakta. Vezměte si třeba následující lapsus Julie Ebnerové, která svou esej „Stop the Online Conspiracy Theories Before They Break Democracy” (Zastavme konspirační teorie na internetu, než zničí demokracii) začíná slovy: „Organizované sítě vyznavačů konspiračních teorií vedou masivní informační válku po celé Evropě.“ „Organizovaná síť“ samozřejmě není nic jiného než neobratně vyjádřená „konspirace“.

Na levici nejsou ruské spiknutí, patriarchát nebo bělošská privilegovanost konspirační teorie, ale fakta. Z toho plyne, že „konspirační teorie“ označuje především něco, čemu podle establishmentu v žádném případě nemáte věřit. Místo „konspirační teorie“ by se tak slušelo použít spíše „nesouhlasná myšlenka“ a esej Ebnerové by se měla jmenovat „Zastavte opoziční smýšlení na internetu, než zničí demokracii“.

Vsadím se, že jste měli za to, že jedním z hlavních prvků demokracie je ochrana oponujících myšlenek. Za tímto účelem byl nepochybně sepsán i první dodatek americké ústavy. Svoboda slova musí být ústavním právem, aby se díky ní lidé mohli odchýlit od mínění mocných, kteří by jinak mohli nesouhlasné hlasy umlčovat a trestat.

Stejně jako v případě „diskriminace“ a „zobecňování“, jimiž establishment také nasazuje psí hlavu odpůrcům, je spiklenecké teoretizování – a teorie obecně – prostě jen jedním z projevů inteligence. Právě k vytváření teorií se totiž uchylují chytří lidé, jsou-li postaveni před matoucí a složité fenomény. Když tak establishment vynáší do nebes důvěřivost a stupiditu, očividně má za lubem něco nekalého.

Výpad proti konspiračním teoriím jako takovým ostatně neklamně zavání prohlubujícím se zoufalstvím. Je-li pravda skutečně na vaší straně, vypořádat se s protichůdnými výklady by pro vás měla být hračka. Jediným důvodem k obecnému vyloučení všech nesouhlasných postojů tak je neschopnost jednotlivé opoziční postoje vyvrátit. Přesně to lze ale čekat od systému vystavěného na lžích; zvlášť nepravdě tak bizarní a protimluvné, jako je postulát, že všichni lidé jsou si rovni a rozdíly mezi nimi jsou vždy zdrojem síly.

Konspiračnímu myšlení se v poslední době daří stále více s tím, jak důvěra v establishment upadá – a ten se brání. Už před Epsteinovou smrtí jsme proto zaznamenali velice znepokojivý trend, kdy se nařčení z šíření „konspiračních teorií“ stalo záminkou k umlčování disidentů.

Tak byl 6. srpna 2018 odstraněn veškerý obsah konspirátora Alexe Jonese a jeho webu InfoWars z platforem Facebook, iTunes od Apple, YouTube a Spotify. Co působí jako věrohodnější vysvětlení skutečnosti, že kvartet technologických gigantů vymazal Jonesův obsah v tentýž den: komplot nebo náhoda?

V lednu 2019 YouTube vyhlásil, že upraví své algoritmy tak, aby navrhovaly divákům méně videí šířících „konspirační teorie“. Fantasmagorie o ruských zásazích pochopitelně pro YouTube konspirační teorií nejsou, Velká výměna a bělošská genocida ovšem ano.

Letos v srpnu pak Yahoo! News informovaly o interním oběžníku z FBI z útvaru ve Phoenixu, datovaném 30. května 2019, kde byly „konspirační teorie“ jako Pizzagate a QAnon zařazeny mezi domácí teroristické hrozby

Po Epsteinově úmrtí se však už „konspirační teorie“ nemusejí krčit někde v koutku. Vstoupily předním vchodem do hlavního proudu.

Donald Trump retweetnul spekulace, že za smrtí finančníka stál Bill Clinton. Demokraté si zase pohrávají s teorií, že za jeho koncem byl Trump. Trump i Clinton jsou známí sukničkáři a s Epsteinem se znali.

Bývalý newyorský starosta a státní zástupce Rudolph Giuliani označil příběh Epsteinovy sebevraždy za „neuvěřitelný“ a dodal, že ho napadá „alespoň 50 velice důležitých lidí s motivem zabít ho“.

Úřadující starosta New Yorku Bill De Blasio s ním souhlasil. Espteinova smrt byla „až moc příhodná“ a těžko ji lze připsat na vrub „klasickému selhání lidského faktoru“. De Blasio v podstatě prohlásil: „Konspiračním teoriím sice nevěřím, ale…“ Jak však dodal, „někdy narazíte na sled událostí, jež se vzpírají normálním vysvětlením a žádají si vyšetřování v plném rozsahu“ – což je de facto v kostce i postoj konspiračních teoretiků k této otázce.

Pokusy médií umlčet spekulace nálepkou „konspirační teorie“ jsou od nalezení Epsteinova těla spíše rozpačité a nejvlažnější úsilí podle všeho vyvinuly hlásné trouby s největší autoritou. BBC tak kupříkladu nesouhlasně zvedá prst, když píše, že „jen několik hodin poté, co byl známý finančník Jeffrey Epstein v sobotu nalezen mrtvý, se na webu začaly ve velkém šířit nepodložené teorie o jeho úmrtí“.

Epsteinova smrt je každému myslícímu člověku podezřelá na první pohled. Proto lidé pochopitelně okamžitě začali spekulovat o alternativních vysvětleních. Napadat je jako „nepodložené“ je ovšem směšné. Samozřejmě jsou nepodložené, vždyť dosud nebyl čas je něčím podložit. Každá teorie je nepodložená, dokud není prověřena. Proto je musíme prověřovat. Neměli by se právě do toho pustit ti nejlepší investigativci z BBC? Lidé v BBC by však zdá se upřednostnili, kdybyste v Epsteinově případě odložili kritické myšlení stranou a jednoduše uvěřili tomu, co vám předkládají.

Po Epsteinovi jsou z nás všech konspirační teoretici. Hranice mezi okrajovými „konspiračními teoriemi“ a „fakty“ hlavního proudu se zhroutila. Jediné smysluplné dělení tak nyní je to na dobré a špatné konspirační teorie, kterými se hodlám zabývat v budoucí eseji. Považuji to za nezbytnou práci, jelikož se mi osobně značně příčí špatné konspirační teorie, jež až příliš často vycházejí z nesprávných metafyzických předpokladů a nezřídka zavání šílenstvím.

Konspirační teorie jsou navíc přirozeně spojeny s populismem. Jeho ústřední zásadní zní, že jedině taková vláda, která vládne v zájmu obecného blaha, je legitimní. Různé frakce a zvláštní zájmy jsou podle populistů nepřítelem dobrého vládnutí. Tento proces by podle nich měl co možná nejtransparentnější, aby se tak snáz dalo čelit subverzi zájmových skupin, jež už z podstaty věci proti obecnému blahu pletichaří ve stínech.

Jak jsem popsal výše, Epsteinova smrt by měla populistům pomoci bez ohledu na to, jak celý případ dopadne. Jeho podivné úmrtí v prvé řadě zbavilo označení „konspirační teorie“ jeho schopnosti odsouvat na okraj, stigmatizovat a paralyzovat kritické myšlení. Zadruhé systém prohrává bez ohledu na to, na kterou stranu debaty o Epsteinově případu se postavíte: Pokud byl zavražděn nebo mu záměrně umožnili spáchat sebevraždu, je systém zlý. Jestliže padá jeho smrt vlastní rukou na vrub nedbalosti, je systém silně nekompetentní. A pokud se pravdu o jeho smrti nikdy nedozvíme, pak bude diskuse vedena mezi lidmi, podle nichž je systém dostatečně zlý na to, aby záměrně ututlal pravdu na jedné straně a zastánci pozice, že je příliš neschopný, než aby ji dokázal odhalit.

Všimněte si, že tyto zisky pro zisky pro populisty nejsou nijak závislé na odhalení pravdy o Epsteinově smrti. Systém už stihl tyto ztráty odepsat a pohnout se dál, takže bychom je měli plně využít. Nejlepší možný scénář pro systém znamená katastrofální ránu důvěře veřejnosti v něj, jeho prestiže i kontroly nad narativem.

Skoro to vypadá, jako by za Epsteinovou smrtí stáli lidé, kteří nemají zájem na dlouhodobější životaschopnosti amerického systému. Snad Amerika není jejich zemí. Nebo se obávají ještě mnohem horších eventualit

Proto se musím ptát: co by se stalo, kdyby se vyplnila ta pro systém nejčernější alternativa, tedy odhalení kompletní pravdy o Jeffrey Epsteinovi a jeho přátelích? Přihlédneme-li k ochabující síle konspirační nálepky a roli, již při pohnání Epsteina před spravedlnost sehráli opravdoví investigativní novináři, nacházíme jisté důvody k opatrnému optimismu. Neměli bychom však čekat na tento ideální vývoj a raději se usilovně snažit využít všechny zisky, které nám Epsteinův případ už nyní nabídnul.

Source: https://deliandiver.org/2019/08/smrt-jeffreyho-epsteina-konspiracni-teorie.html

3,137 words

English original here

Teroristické akty bělošských nacionalistů – jako bylo vražedné řádění Brentona Tarranta na Novém Zélandu nebo podobné zločiny Roberta Bowerse a Dylanna Roofa — bělošskému nacionalismu škodí a naopak pomáhají našim nepřátelům, a to dokonce přinejmenším čtvero způsoby.

• Zaprvé – bělošský nacionalismus má za cíl přesvědčit bělochy, že se nám bude žít lépe odděleně od nebělochů. Teroristické útoky však u řady bělochů vyvolávají sympatie k nebělošským obětem útoků. U bílých liberálů budí touhu barevné ostentativně objímat, oblékat se jako oni a všemožně se jim přizpůsobovat – zatímco naše cíle jsou přesně opačné. Proto je násilí zjevně ke škodě naší věci.
• Zadruhé je také naším úkolem přesvědčit svět, že bělošský nacionalismus je řešení, nikoliv příčinou mezietnických konfliktů. Teroristé, kteří se identifikují jako bělošští nacionalisté však toto poselství svými činy podkopávají.
• Zatřetí vlévá etnonacionalistický terorismus energii do žil levice. Nabízí ji příležitost k okázalým projevům vlastní morálnosti, vytváření mučednických kultů a vyvolávání morální paniky. Naše šance postavit se levici budou tudíž jednoznačně lepší, zůstane-li levice letargická a demoralizovaná, nikoliv plná energie a poháněna rozhořčením.
• Začtvrté slouží tyto vlny morální hysterie s oblibou jako záminka pro další represi bělošských nacionalistů, konkrétně pak omezování naší svobody slova i práva nosit zbraň. I zde jsou tak důsledky očividně kontraproduktivní.

Každý rozvážný člověk si předtím, než se pustí do boje, v duchu vyhodnotí a srovná své silné a slabé stránky a přednosti i slabiny protivníka. Pojďme tedy i my učinit takovouto krátkou rozvahu.

Rasově uvědomělých bělochů je málo. Tvoříme vlastně jen celkem nepočetnou menšinu. Chybějí nám peníze, kompetentní vedení i organizace. Nemáme institucionální moc ani vliv. Na oplátku však na své straně máme pravdu, morálnost i praktická řešení. Chápeme, že rasová a etnická rozmanitost uvnitř jedné společnosti vedou k odcizení, napětí, nenávisti a násilí. Jako jediní také předkládáme proveditelnou alternativu: Nejprve zastavit další navyšování diverzity a následně obnovit nebo nově vytvořit rasově a etnicky stejnorodé domoviny pro všechny skupiny, jež o ně stojí.

Naše silné i slabé stránky jsou zrcadlovým obrazem slabin a předností našich protivníků. Zastánci globalizace a multikulturalismu se mohou opřít o masovou podporu. Povedlo se jim přesvědčit dokonce i velkou většinu našich vlastních lidí, tedy prvních obětí diverzity, aby se postavili na stranu svých tyranů a uzurpátorů. K dispozici mají neomezené finanční prostředky: v případě nouze si peníze mohou jednoduše vytisknout (narážka na FED – pozn. DP). Mají odhodlané vedení a všichni političtí předáci napříč spektrem pracují pro ně. My žádné politiky, kteří by nás skutečně zastupovali, nemáme. V rukou pak naši protivníci drží také vládu nad vedoucími společenskými institucemi: akademickou sférou, církvemi, ekonomikou i vládou (včetně ozbrojených složek).

Postoje systému však mají i významné slabiny. Především se celé pojetí globalizace a multikulturalismu zakládá na pomýlených představách o podstatě dobré společnosti a systému falešné morálky, který dává bělochům vinu za to, co jsme nespáchali a na druhé straně vymýšlí nebělochům nekonečné výmluvy a důvody pro jejich selhání a přestupky. Tito odporní pokrytci káží ostatním diverzitu, ale sami se jí vyhýbají. Jelikož jsou zodpovědní za politiku nesoucí katastrofické plody, musejí lhát, aby zamaskovali jimi způsobené kalamity a svalili vinu na nevinné. A aby toho nebylo málo, jsou tito lidé morálně zkažení, hysteričtí, zvrhlí a pošetilí.

Kde bychom tedy s přihlédnutím k těmto slabinám a přednostem – našich i protistrany – měli na naše nepřátele útočit? Měli bychom podnikat výpady proti jejich nejsilnějším pozicím, nebo naopak těm nejzranitelnějším? A jak náš útok vést? Tím, v čem jsme silní, nebo tam, kde nám síly scházejí? Nejmoudřejší strategií je útočit na slabá místa nepřítele tím, čím jsme silní. A naopak nejhloupější strategií by byl výpad pro nejmocnějším baštám protivníka našimi nejslabšími zbraněmi.

V demokratickém soupeření je porazit nedokážeme. Lépe by se nám nevedlo ani v ozbrojeném střetnutí nebo válce peněženek. Můžeme se jim však více než rovnat kvalitou svých argumentů a memů. Dokážeme je opakovaně ostouzet, zesměšňovat a pokořovat. Pravda a morálka jsou totiž na naší straně. Na intelektuální a kulturní frontě tohoto střetnutí vládneme ohromnou převahou a proto bychom měli na jejich slabá místa útočit právě z těchto pevných pozic.

Vynikajícím příkladem takového aktivismu je tzv. alternativní pravice, povětšinou anonymní online síť bělošských nacionalistů a národních populistů, která se v letech 2015 a 2016 stala postrachem systémových konzervativců a nejenergičtějším segmentem příznivců Donalda Trumpa. Na vrcholku její dráhy byl na alternativní pravici vpravdě ohromný pohled: byla ztělesněním účinné metapolitiky v akci. Dařilo se jí skutečně postupovat kupředu a měnit smýšlení lidí. Vždyť to byla také hlavní příčina volání levičáků po tvrdší kontrole sociálních sítí a rušení účtů našich lidí: nebavilo je prohrávat s námi jednu výměnu za druhou.

Některým to však příliš stouplo do hlavy a pokusili se přenést memy z virtuálního do skutečného světa. Jak jsme ale zjistili po fiasku „Hailgate“, anonymní webové memy – zvlášť ty národně socialistického střihu – ve skutečném světě příliš nefungují. V roce 2017 jsme po smršti veřejných demonstrací a projevů zjistili, že bělošští nacionalisté nedokáží bez následků obstát proti organizované levici. I často ze zločinců složené bojůvky Antify se totiž mohou spolehnout na shovívavost a dokonce pokradmou podporu systému. Všichni z krajně levicových aktivistů, kteří během Trumpovy inaugurace demolovali Washington, D. C., nakonec vyvázli bez trestu. Naopak na lidi pravicové orientace, kteří se jen bránili „antifašistické“ agresi, dopadla mocná ruka zákona plnou vahou. Naše organizace jen s problémy čelí právní ofenzivě a některé z nich jsou nuceny vyhlásit bankrot, protože jednoduše nemáme dostatečné prostředky k tomu, abychom dokázali vrátit úder.

V letech 2015 a 2016 jsme dobyli ohromných vítězství výpady proti nejslabším místům nepřítele našimi nejmocnějšími zbraněmi. V roce 2017 jsme utrpěli tvrdé porážky, protože jsme sami sebe přesvědčili, že s protivníkem můžeme svést vyrovnaný boj tam, kde je nejsilnější a my nejslabší. Tyto prohry sice byly poměrně jasně předvídatelné, bohužel však v pozicích činit rozhodnutí nebyli ti správní lidé.

Od té doby došlo ke shodě na návratu k tomu, co fungovalo: metapolitika, tj. budování společenství a online propaganda, a aktivismus ve stylu identitářů, kteří usilují o vyvážení co nejvyššího dopadu na veřejné povědomí s co nejmenšími riziky a náklady pro své aktivisty. Sice nemáme tolik zbraní a peněz jako protistrana, máme však lepší argumenty. Umíme být vtipnější, chytřejší a „víc cool“ než oni. Je v našich silách změnit smýšlení lidí a establishment to nedokáže zvrátit.

Bělošští nacionalisté vyjdou vítězně z každé slušné debaty, a čím déle proto budeme moci zůstat ve veřejné sféře, tím více lidí si získáme na svou stranu. S jejich počty roste také pravděpodobnost obnovení bělošských domovin.

Každý teroristický čin nějakého bělošského nacionalisty – vlka samotáře – se však okamžitě stává záminkou k dalšímu utužení cenzury, rušení účtů i internetových stránek a represi všech bělošských nacionalistů, včetně těch, kteří s podobnými zločiny nemají vůbec společného.

Naštěstí jsem pevně přesvědčen, že naše poselství není hned ze dvou zásadních důvodů možné úplně potlačit a umlčet.

• Zaprvé – systém se snaží všechny okolo i sám sebe přesvědčit, že jedinou překážkou v dosažení celosvětové multikulturní utopie jsou skeptici jako my, kteří se s využitím svobody slova snaží lidem ukázat, že multikulturalismus a globalizace jsou něco špatného. Ve skutečnosti jsou ale hlavní hybnou silou vzestupu bělošské politiky identity katastrofické důsledky samotné globalizace a multikulturalismu. I kdyby se tak elitám zcela podařilo nás umlčet, konec bělošské politiky identity by to nebyl. Ať už se totiž my, bělošští nacionalisté, snažíme burcovat naše lidi sebevíc, náš podíl na jejich narůstajícím povědomí je jen nepatrným zlomkem v porovnání se „zásluhami“ systému a jeho agresivního prosazování multikulturalismu a globalizace. Přesto je zásadní, aby naše hlasy byly i nadále slyšet, a my tak mohli našim lidem pomáhat v dosažení hlubšího porozumění problémů a nabídnout jim schůdné alternativy ke stávajícímu systému.
• Zadruhé by nás systém mohl zcela a kompletně umlčet jedině tehdy, pokud by „vytáhnul internet ze zásuvky“. Nic takového však kvůli závislosti světové ekonomiky na počítačové síti není možné. Přestože nás tak ale cenzura nemůže zastavit, nepochybně je v jejích silách nás zpomalit a každý den zpoždění znamená další bělochy, kteří budou muset trpět nebo zemřít – nebo se nikdy nenarodit – kvůli tomu, že nemáme své vlastní země. Proto Brenton Tarrant v březnu 2019 nezabil jen těch více než 50 muslimů na Novém Zélandu. Usmrtil i nespočet bělochů oddálením dne, kdy získáme zpátky své domoviny.

Někdo mě na tomto místě jistě nařkne z víry v iluzi, že se z této krize dostaneme skrz volební urny. Má odpověď je prostá: K vytvoření bělošských domovin vedou mnohé cesty, včetně vyhraných voleb. Ať už naše domovina vznikne jakýmkoliv způsobem, bude k tomu potřeba podstatně více bělošských nacionalistů. Kde je vzít? Konverzí, tj. změnou jejich smýšlení. Obloukem se tak vracíme zpět k metapolitice.

I v případě, že jediná možná cesta k bělošskému státu podle vás vede přes revoluci, musí být prvním krokem propaganda. Budete lidem muset vysvětlit, co je to bělošský nacionalismus a proč je ve stávající situaci potřeba. Právě to musí všichni bělošští nacionalisté, ať už si stezku vinoucí se ke konečnému vítězství představují jakkoliv, dnes dělat. Krom toho budete lidi muset také přesvědčit, že právě revoluce je tou ideální cestou k dosažení cíle. Ani to však ještě nestačí – bude třeba přeměnit ochotné posluchače v revolucionáře – a protože šance revoluce na úspěch rostou, pokud s vaší věcí více lidí sympatizuje a méně se staví proti ní, budete muset přesvědčit i je.

Proto mé doporučení hlasatelům revoluce zní jasně: pusťte se do přesvědčování lidí.

Zkuste se zamyslet nad tím, co je hlavní překážkou úspěšného oslovení a získání „veřejného mínění“. Nepochybně cenzura a umlčování (deplatforming). Zamyslete se znovu, jaké jsou nejběžnější záminky cenzury a umlčování našich myšlenek. Jednoznačně násilné činy jako Tarrantovo vražedné řádění. Zastánci revoluce – pokud to myslí vážně – by tak měli vystupovat proti terorismu uvnitř hnutí stejně rezolutně jako my ostatní.

Jak bychom mohli terorismus bělošských nacionalistů zastavit? Napadají mě čtyři užitečná doporučení.

• Zaprvé musíme rozebrat intelektuální zdůvodnění a ospravedlňování terorismu, o což se pokouším mj. i tímto esejem.
• Zadruhé musíme zahrnout posměchem a ostouzením všechny neřesti a hloupé chování, jež k terorismu přispívají. Na mysli mám mj. ovzduší antiintelektualismu, nevážnosti, dětinského larpování a tvrdohlavosti, nihilismu, machistická gesta, paranoiu, pesimismus a mentalitu apokalypticky binárního absolutismu.
• Zatřetí musíme vyloučit každého, kdo na našich webech, setkáních nebo uvnitř organizací vyzývá k násilí.
• Začtvrté, když snad narazíme na někoho, kdo věrohodně vyhrožuje spácháním teroristického činu, musíme to být my, kdo uvědomí policii.

Poslední bod vyvolává jistou míru kontroverze: policie se při interakcích s nacionalisty nemůže pochlubit pověstí neposkvrněné poctivosti. I když si ale snad policie nezasluhuje naši spolupráci, neznamená to, že bychom snad byli povinováni mlčením lidem jako Brenton Tarrant či Robert Bowers. Ti koneckonců našim snahám objektivně škodí: vždyť sám Tarrant se nijak netajil tím, že jedním z jeho dílčích cílů bylo vyprovokovat zásah proti bělošským aktivistům, aby nám nezbyl jiný prostředek k působení na veřejný diskurz než terorismus.

Tarrant poslal peníze rakouským identitářům právě proto, aby je „spojil“ s terorismem a poskytnul tím státu ideální záminku došlápnout si na ně. V mých očích se proto zásadně neliší od Antify. A nikdo se přece nemůže dovolávat nějakých závazků nepřátelským infiltrátorům uvnitř našeho hnutí. Jejich odhalení by nebyl práskání (doxing) ani zrada kamarádů. Totéž pak platí o člověku Tarrantova nebo Bowersova střihu. Nepatří k nám a raději bych se od nich distancoval na policii před atentátem, než se o to marně pokoušel po jejich dokonaném činu v médiích.

Když navíc dáte otevřeně na vědomí, že na lidi vyhrožující terorismem zavoláte policii, razantně snížíte četnost případů, kdy budou podobná témata ve vaší společnosti probírána, a vy tak získáte jistý odstup jak od opravdových magorů, tak i agentů-provokatérů Systému.

Terorismus je taktika, ze které čpí neklamný odér zoufalství. Zoufalé časy po zoufalých opatřeních skutečně volají. Rád bych však chtěl ukázat, že naše časy přece jen nejsou tak zoufalé, jak si mnozí z nás myslí. Ano, jak ostatně stojí v mé knize The White Nationalist Manifesto, dlouhodobé demografické trendy bělošské populace opravdu jsou značným důvodem ke znepokojení. Pokud se nám je nepodaří zastavit a zvrátit, ztratíme nejprve postupně kontrolu nad všemi svými zeměmi a poté se coby rasa jednoduše zařadíme mezi vyhynulé druhy.

I v těch nejhorších scénářích je však náš zánik vzdálen několik století a dokonce i v těch částech bělošského světa, kde už narozené bílé děti nějakou dobu tvoří menšinu, ještě nějaký ten čas potrvá, než budou mladí neběloši moci volit a politicky uplatnit svou demografickou převahu. A až ta doba nastane, není ostatně nikde psáno, že mnozí z našich lidí konečně nebudou ochotni a připraveni omezit volební právo nebo se s volebními urnami rozžehnat nadobro. Proto máme na nápravu desítky let: 20, 30 nebo 50, v závislosti na stavu země, kde žijeme. Proto máme víc než dost času pečlivě se zamyslet nad správnou cestou ke znovu uchopení kontroly nad směřováním vlastních zemí. Situace zatím není tak zoufalá, aby se lidé museli uchylovat k násilí.

Krom toho také platí, že navzdory znepokojivosti dlouhodobých demografických trendů lze vysledovat celou řadu střednědobých sociálních a politických trendů, jež se vyvíjejí v náš prospěch. Rád bych svým čtenářům doporučil knihu dvojice britských politologů Rogera Eatwella a Matthewa Goodwina National Populism. Národní populismus podle nich živí zejména čtveřice trendů.

• Tím prvním je rostoucí nedůvěra lidu vůči systému ve všech bělošských zemích. Jsem přesvědčen, že ve Velké Británii musí dnes být míra nedůvěry blízko historickým maximům, když je nyní zcela zjevné, že elity žádný Brexit nepřipustí, bez ohledu na přání lidu. Tato nedůvěra v systém by se měla přetavit v otevřenost lidí k radikálním alternativám jako bělošský nacionalismus.
• Druhým je destrukce, konkrétně destrukce identity multikulturalismem a imigrací. Eatwell a Goodwin dokonce připouštějí, že není nic morálně špatného na tom, když chce národ zachovat etnickou a kulturní skladbu své země. Není nic ohavného chtít svým dětem předat zemi v podobném stavu, jako když jste se narodili. Proto stále více lidí podporuje národní populisty, jejichž politika směřuje k zastavení multikulturalismu a imigrace.
• Třetím, autory pozorovaným, trendem je strádání, konkrétněji likvidace životní úrovně dělnické a střední třídy globalizací. I to žene lidi do náruče populismu, jelikož populisté slibují protekcionismus a reindustrializaci. A na to lidé, kteří mají stále neobytnější pocit, že na jejich děti a vnoučata čeká tvrdší a chudší život, velice ochotně slyší.
• Tím posledním trendem je obecné politické přeskupení: s tím jak bude stále více voličů požadovat národně populistickou politiku, zpřetrhají své často dlouholeté spojení s tradičními středovými politickými stranami.

Eatwell s Goodwinem píší, že všechny tyto trendy mají hlubší kořeny a nelze tak čekat, že by v blízké budoucnosti ustoupily nebo vymizely. Jsou dokonce přesvědčeni že, politický establishment může vzedmutou vlnu populismu zneutralizovat jedině zapracováním některých z programových bodů populistů. Nastává tak konec hegemonie globalismu a národní populismus se začíná hlasitě ucházet o své místo na slunci. Bělošský nacionalismus lze pak považovat jen za nejradikálnější a vnitřně nejsourodější formu národního populismu. Jak bude stále více lidí ochotných naslouchat tomu, co říkáme, otevřou se také příležitosti nasměrovat politické dění našim směrem na celá desetiletí dopředu. Rozhodně tedy nyní není vhodná chvíle na to poddat se lidem, kteří káží kontraproduktivní postup a úplnou marginalizaci našich myšlenek.

I když ale třeba věříte, že na inteligentní akci nezbývá dost času, něco hloupého a kontraproduktivního nás tak jako tak nespasí. Proto byste se i tak měli snažit udělat tu správnou věc – a doufat, že se ohledně časového harmonogramu mýlíte a vše nakonec přece jen dobře dopadne.

Rád bych se stručně vyjádřil i k morální argumentaci na obranu Tarranta a dalších teroristů hlásících se k našim myšlenkám či hnutí, s nimiž jsem se setkal.

Nemají lidé individuální i kolektivní právo na sebeobranu? Jistěže máme. Když vás někdo napadne, měli byste adekvátně zareagovat.

Terorismus ale jako sebeobrana nepůsobí – působí jako akt agrese vůči nevinným lidem. Možná s tím budete nesouhlasit, možná je podle vás třeba dívat se na podobné činy jako na sebeobranu. Znovu se ale oklikou vracíme k problému smýšlení veřejnosti a nutnosti jeho proměny.

Mezi činem a jeho smyslem však může být nemalý rozdíl. Pro dosažení skutečné politické změny je pak jeho smysl podstatně důležitější než čin samotný. Momentálně se naši protivníci nacházejí v pozici, kdy mohou našim lidem diktovat, jaký význam ten který teroristický čin má. Z toho plyne, že jedinými hmatatelnými politickými změnami, které od aktů terorismu spáchanými bělošskými nacionalisty můžeme očekávat, je další zesílení represe a cenzury rasově smýšlejících bělochů.

Někdo mi položil upřímně míněný dotaz: „V čem se od sebe liší a Brenton Tarrant a Karel Martel?” Odpověď je velice prostá. Karel Martel byl právoplatný vůdce svého oddaného lidu, zatímco Tarrant osamělý střelec, všeobecně morálně odsuzovaný jako nemorální zrůda. Po jeho útocích s našimi myšlenkami sympatizuje méně lidí než před nimi. Jestli se vám to nelíbí, co s tím hodláte udělat? Pochopitelně se budete muset pokusit změnit smýšlení lidí.

Podle jiných jsou zas naše elity i vlády natolik zkorumpované a plné se zločinci a vetřelci spolupracujících zrádců, že máme plné právo postavit se jim na odpor se zbraní v ruce. Nemá člověk právo postavit se sám proti nespravedlnosti? Svrhnout tyrany revolucí? Samozřejmě, bez stínu pochybností: vláda, která nevládne v zájmu svého lidu, je nelegitimní a my pak nemáme jen právo, ale dokonce povinnost se jí postavit.

Zbývá si ovšem zodpovědět otázku, odkud se do toho pustit. Jaký je nejrozumnější přístup ke změně režimu? I v tomto případě byste se měli nejprve podívat na vaše i protivníkovy přednosti a slabiny a z tohoto hodnocení následně vyjít. Tarrant se rozhodl špatně. Jeho plánem bylo vyprovokovat omezení svobody projevu a práv spojených s držením zbraní. To mělo podle něj vyvolat v lidech takový odpor, že – a to i beze zbraní nebo účinné možnosti vzájemné komunikace – měli nějak spojit síly a zahájit lidovou revoluci. Ano, jeho plán byl takto stupidní.

Takže ano, lidé i národy mají právo na sebeobranu, stejně jako na to vzít spravedlnost do svých rukou tam, kde je stát zklamal. Ano, lidé mají právo svrhnout nespravedlivé režimy. Rozdíl mezi úspěchem a nezdarem při těchto nebezpečných podnicích obvykle spočívá v tom, zda máte podporu veřejného mínění nebo ne. Proto musíme v každém z těchto scénářů začít od úspěšné proměny smýšlení, tedy dosažení metapolitických předpokladů a podmínek politického úspěchu.

Někteří lidé to zcela absurdně karikují jako výzvu „nedělat nic“. Jejich výtky samozřejmě nejsou o mnoho víc než slova v kyberprostoru. Pokud tedy „nedělám nic“ já, platí totéž i o mých kriticích. Pravdou ovšem je, že všichni z nás „něco dělají“, a to dokonce něco velmi důležitého. Diskutujeme o tom, jak lze dospět k vítězství – což je ve zkratce metapolitika.

Sun-c‘ kdysi řekl: „Vítězný válečník nejprve zvítězí – a teprve pak odchází do války, zatímco poražený nejprve jde do války a teprve pak se snaží zvítězit. „Nejprve zvítězit“ znamená připravit si nezbytné podmínky ještě předtím, než se pustíme do bitvy. Totéž platí i pro metapolitiku. Teroristé jako Tarrant se však po hlavě vrhají do bitvy v naději, že jejich triumf už nějak zajistí někdo další. Tato pošetilost je jistou cestou k porážce.

Nemohu si pomoci – tato strategická tupost je podle mě alespoň z části způsobena v alternativně-pravicovém prostředí všudypřítomným ovzduším ironie a lehkovážnosti. Pokud mám pravdu, je nejvyšší čas vymazat velice rychle tento domýšlivý „alt-right“ škleb z tváře hnutí dobře míněnou i mířenou ranou. Dokud se z nás totiž nestanou mnohem serióznější lidé, těžko se budeme moci postavit nejzávažnější krizi v dějinách naší rasy.

Source: https://deliandiver.org/2019/08/belossky-nacionalismus-argumenty-proti-terorismu.html