CullodenOn April 16th, 1746, the last battle fought on British soil occurred. It was a confrontation between the supporters of two different dynastic houses, but it was more than just some familial feud. This was the Battle of Culloden and it was the last battle in a conflict that was political, religious and ethnic. It is the subject of John Prebble’s Culloden, but his book is more than just a re-telling of that battle. It is also the story of Scottish Highlanders and in particular what happened to them in the aftermath of Culloden. Prebble’s book is also, to a lesser extent, the story of the Lowlands and of the men who fought on behalf of the ruling Hanoverian dynasty against the rebellious Jacobites.

John Prebble is perhaps best known for having written the screenplay for the great 1964 film Zulu. He also helped in creating a documentary based off of this book. Prebble was for most of his life a communist and yet he was arguably a Scottish nationalist as well. Though he is clearly very critical of aspects of Scottish culture and traditional feelings of nostalgia for Jacobitism, from reading Culloden one generally comes back with the feeling that this was in fact the work of a patriot.

The Jacobite Rebellion of 1745 was the second attempt by the Scottish Stuart dynasty to retake the thrones of England, Scotland (which since 1701 were united together) and Ireland. The first rebellion had occurred in 1715 and had also begun in Scotland, although there was a failed attempt at initiating one in Cornwall as well. James II was the last Stuart to rule over the British Isles. He was overthrown during the so-called ‘Glorious Revolution’ in 1688 after the largely Anglican political establishment decided they had had enough of a Catholic king whose wife had just recently given birth to a son – the ‘Old Pretender’ aka James III to Jacobites. James II tried to regain his lands in 1689, when he landed in Ireland to help the largely Catholic Irish resist the Protestant forces of Great Britain, the Netherlands (where his replacement William III hailed from) and Ulster. This attempt failed. So did his son’s aforementioned attempt in 1715. After the failure of the 1715 rebellion, the ‘Old Pretender’ essentially resigned himself to live out the rest of his days in exile in France, but his son, Charles Edward (aka the ‘Bonnie Prince Charlie’ or the ‘Young Pretender’) was not so easily subdued. He landed in Scotland in 1745 to take back the British Isles for his father.

Bonnie Prince Charlie by John Pettie

John Pettie – Bonnie Prince Charlie

As stated earlier this war was more than just two (closely related as it turns out) families fighting for power. The Jacobites represented the old order as they wanted the monarch to rule over parliament. As Catholics, James II and his son and grandson naturally wanted to give equal rights to Catholics, but they also claimed to want to give similar rights to those Protestants that weren’t Anglicans. There is a long running controversy about whether James II had truly meant to give such rights to low-church Protestants or if he wanted to force Catholicism upon the populace, which is the view generally held by liberals. The enemies of James and his prodigy were indeed liberal. They were Whigs, the forerunners of the modern variants of liberalism and its offshoots (including cultural marxism). They believed in ‘progress’ and the power of the parliament over the monarch who was to be as powerless as possible. They also supported the continued amalgamation of all regions of the British Isles and political centralization. In contrast, a good many Jacobites wanted the Act of Union repealed. The Hanoverian dynasty, like William III before them, were not fully behind Whiggism, but there was nothing they could do. They owed their title and power to parliament and thus were beholden to it.

Personally I’ve never been impressed with James II or the Stuart dynasty as a whole (going back to when they were still only kings of Scotland). Similarly, the Highlanders weren’t particularly predisposed towards James or his family either and in fact the most powerful of Highland leaders, the Lord of the Isles, had on several occasions gone to war against the Stuart kings during the 15th century. However, the cause which was born from the Stuart’s overthrow is obviously bigger than one man. Moreover, the Bonnie Prince was a man who was able to inspire loyalty through his charisma and daring. He gave them the will and desire to march as far as Derby and, had his generals been less cautious, perhaps it would have been this Italian-born and seemingly foppish aristocrat who would have taken London and brought the Stuarts back to power.

Prebble does not give much background to the Jacobite Rebellion that Culloden was the final, bloody battle of. In this way it is as if he had written this book with the belief that his readership would be well versed in the history of the rebellion, which is uncharacteristic of this book as a whole, because Prebble often relates information which even those of us with knowledge of the rebellion aren’t aware of. That said, Prebble does occasionally go back to mention previous events concerning the conflict.

Prebble does give some context to this conflict with regards to the way of life of the Highlanders who made up the bulk of the Prince’s army (although Irish, English and others fought for the Prince).[1] Many of course were Catholic, but a great many were Protestants. Prebble notes that many fought because they had been forced to by their clan chieftains. The Highlands were a largely poor and underdeveloped region, quite unlike the Lowlands or England, with the small city of Inverness being the only gateway to the continent that the region had. Many Highlanders lived in little more than hovels and were essentially living a feudal life.

Land used to be owned collectively in the Highlands, but this had changed in the 18th century when it became solely owned by the chief. However, he owned all the land on behalf of his people and parceled out land to his subjects. The mensal was land purely for the chief’s use but some land was given to families of the clan officials (which included the bard and piper, which were hereditary positions) and the rest held by tenants under lease. Tenants could then lease parts to still others. Such men would owe tenants allegiance and all owed allegiance to the chief.

Chiefs were often more cultured and worldly than we imagine. They spoke English and Gaelic and many spoke French and Latin as well, being graduates of universities in the Lowlands or the continent (page 36). Many had a taste for foreign fashion and cuisine. I’d say its fair to say most were good rulers, however, there were exceptions – for example, Sir Alexander MacDonald of Sleat sold hundreds of his people into indentured servitude in the Americas (page 37). The chief’s power was based on the size of his cattle herds as it had been for the Gaels since antiquity. And as with the ancient Gaels, the Highlanders of the modern era engaged in cattle raids against rival clans. In the eyes of his people, the chief’s primary duty was to be a conquering warrior (page 39). His bards and pipers composed poetry and songs, respectively, to commemorate his battlefield glories and those of his ancestors.

The chief controlled all aspects of his people’s life and so when he chose to fight for the Prince or the government (as some clans like the Campbells did) then his subjects had to support him. Evidently those who refused had homes burned, cattle killed and were themselves beaten (page 52). During their trials after the rebellion had ended, many told such stories to the court, but this wasn’t enough for a pardon as the English didn’t understand the Highland honour culture; they stated that the Highlanders should have run away, but where would they go? What kind of a man are you if you betray your chief and clan?

Prebble describes the battle from beginning to end noting what a terrible waste of men it was for the Jacobites. A truly sad and grim affair. The relentless gunfire from the government lines, the desperate charge of the Highlanders, the last ditch attempt by the non-Highland battalions to hold off the government cavalry and let the Highlanders make good their escape; all is told here in great and gory detail. Prebble goes into detail describing some of the leaders and supporters of the Prince, including, among others, ‘Colonel Anne’, the Lady Mackintosh. She didn’t lead any troops into battle but her story is told here because of how intriguing it is. Her husband had gone south to raise a militia force for the government, but when he left she then raised his clan for the Prince (page 68)! He also notes how Catholic priests had not only gone throughout the Highlands preaching rebellion, but many fought as well (page 50).

Prebble notes how the Jacobite cavalry was seriously depleted at Culloden and indeed most were on foot. The artillery had always been a weak point for the Jacobites, but at Culloden it was just down right terrible. Most pieces had been lost and most gunners had deserted so the few guns at Culloden were largely manned by untrained men. Moreover, Charles had left one John Hay in charge of supplies for the army, but Hay proved to be incompetent: he left them at Inverness. It was the aged Irish general O’Sullivan who demanded a fight at Drummossie Moor and is responsible for the poor deployment prior to battle (page 55).[2] Prior to the fateful battle, a night attack attempted at Nairn where the government forces were stationed, but it never went anywhere as the soldiers got lost in the dark. The army was thus dispirited, tired and hungry by the time of the engagement (page 56). Some were so tired they slept straight through the battle and only awoke when enemy dragoons fell upon them after it was all over (page 58). A Jacobite feigned surrender just before the battle so he could assassinate the Duke of Cumberland – who lead the government army. He shot at the wrong target (Lord Bury) but missed, and was himself shot (page 32). Most Jacobite deaths were caused by the artillery barrage at the beginning of the battle. This lasted 30 minutes before they decided to charge, although O’Sullivan had wanted them to remain standing there and continue to endure the barrage (page 82).[3]

David Morier - An Incident In The Rebellion Of 1745

David Morier – An Incident in the Rebellion of 1745

Two major tasks this book sets out to deal with are: ending certain myths surrounding the rebellion and to tell the often forgotten bloody aftermath. In fact, most of the book’s pages are devoted to this last task. In terms of dealing with myths, we have already seen how Prebble describes the authoritarian nature of the clans which meant the Jacobite army was not one entirely made of volunteers. Another myth is that the Prince was a coward, but in fact Charles had to be led off the field of battle when he attempted to lead a last desperate hurrah against the enemy even though it would certainly have meant death (page 108). Prebble mentions how the Duke had spies within the rebel army and even the Prince’s entourage, feeding the government information on the Prince’s whereabouts after he went underground. Again, he sets out to show that loyalty to the Jacobite cause was not total. Truly Charles was a tragic figure, but Prebble speaks of him with much scorn as if he were some silly man-child. I wouldn’t go this far and in fact quite admire the man. His last years were, however, depressing ones of solitary life and alcoholism in French exile.

In terms of the battle’s aftermath, almost immediately the civilian populace experienced the wrath of the Duke of Cumberland, who has since gone down in history as ‘The Butcher’ by the Scots (and also the Tories, who were largely Jacobites at this time). Commoners including women and children who had been watching the battle, even those doing so from their homes, were shot at and attacked by government forces after the battle (page 113). Prebble suggests that the troopers killed those they thought were coming to loot the dead and he notes how one Michael Hughes wrote they could not always tell rebel from civilian. However, Prebble also notes that it is clear many were killed in cold blood and not for the reasons stated above (page 118). Farmers who were simply ploughing their fields and their families were slaughtered by government forces in cold blood, for example (page 119). Meanwhile, the dying Jacobites were left on the battlefield for two days before the victorious government soldiers went around killing them (page 125). Someone forged an addendum to Lord Murray’s orders (when they were found) saying he ordered for their to be no quarter. This was told to the parties sent out to find Rebels and they used it as an excuse to kill rebels, suspected rebels and their sympathizers (page 126).

Prisoners of War were treated terribly and essentially left to rot in prisons, the holds of ships, cellars and any other dank and crowded place they could be forced into. Jacobite doctors were not allowed to keep the instruments necessary to treat their injured (page 150). The following is an example, in Prebble’s typical descriptive fashion, of the POW experience,

Some prisoners, from whom the guards expected violence or escape, were manacled, and were not released to eat, seep or relieve themselves. Two officers of the Duke of Perth’s regiment, Major James Stewart and Major Alexander MacLachlan, were handcuffed for ten days, and MacLachlan so tightly that ‘his hands swell’d so that the irons could not be seen.’ Their daily and dignified request for larger irons were daily and obscenely refused. In the same prison, the Tolbooth, Farquharson said that he tended to a dying Frenchman who lay to his waist in excreta. There was little the Highland blooder could do but put a stone beneath the man’s head for a pillow. The dead were not taken from the prisons immediately, they were left until there were a dozen or more, enough to make the employment of the beggars worth the few pence paid. Until then, the living endured the rotting company of the corpses.  (page 154).

Surrendering rebels were at mercy of officers of men they surrendered to. Often they’d be killed anyways. Similarly, troops often burned down the property of suspected rebels during their searches (page 181). Of the POWs, 936 were made indentured servants, 222 were simply banished, 88 died in prison, 120 were executed, 58 escaped, 76 were given pardons, 1287 were released or exchanged and 684 fell in the category of “disposal unknown.” (page 233). Such individuals were more than likely the victims of mortal abuse at the hands of their captors. Some 58 camp women were also imprisoned and 27 were sent to the colonies. Many had infants with them (page 234).

The trials for the POWs were all of them short and so similar that as Prebble says, to read one trial is to read them all. Stalin once said that one death is a tragedy but many is a mere statistic, in other words that we are moved more by individual cases of suffering as we can personalise it and make it seem more real to us. For this reason, I believe, Prebble decided to focus his attention on a handful of those were were executed in order to give the reader a better idea of what they all went through. Most were common people and we hear of some, like the English Catholic Francis Towneley, who were stoic and bravely faced death and of others who were anything but. Some like one Donald Macdonald were happy and festive during their imprisonment, treating the whole thing as a joke while others were naturally very gloomy and depressed about the whole experience and the doom it was all leading to. It is interesting that he chose to focus more on the members of the English Manchester Regiment. I suppose this was partly done because every single member was executed, partly perhaps because they had not actually fought at all (having been captured without a fight at Carlisle) and partly perhaps because he wanted to give some space for the non-Highland members of the Jacobite army.

The aftermath of Culloden also brought out anti-Catholic tendencies in the people of London and Edinburgh who, upon hearing of Cumberland’s victory, took to the streets to attack Catholics and their places of worship (page 141). However, the treatment of civilians in the Highlands was far worse. Government clans used aftermath of Culloden as excuse to launch raids into rival territory (page 165). Though ultimately the destruction of Highland culture was the goal of the Duke he allowed it to persist for a little while longer so long as it could be used for his purposes of punishing Jacobite clans. Cattle herds confiscated and soldiers given part of the earnings their officers made in selling the cattle. The main goal, however, was to starve the clans and break their economy (page 182). And starve the people of the Highlands did. Starving and often leaderless now that their chiefs were dead, in prison or exile, the people were broken and there were to be no serious attempts at maintaining rebellion.

Prebble gives many examples of the killings, rape and wanton destruction wrought upon Highlanders regardless of their political or religious affiliations. In some cases, they were a response to the few acts of resistance, although the impression given is that these were often desperate acts by cold and starving men to get some clothes, bedding and food. Soldiers, angered at not being able to get at their attackers taking their frustrations out on others. For example, after a group of clansmen robbed the baggage train of Lord George Sackille, he set his men loose upon the nearest hamlet allowing them to rape the women who were “then held to watch the shooting and bayoneting of their husbands, fathers, brothers and sons.” (page 199).

The Duke was essentially given a blank cheque when it came to governing Scotland. I suspect the power went to his head, but also that he was determined to secure the fruits of his victory at Culloden and to ensure that never again could his cousin’s family threaten the dominance of his own. There was also the very real fear of continued French meddling in Scottish affairs (as it was the French who equipped the Prince and gave him passage to Scotland) if the clans weren’t subjugated. Plus, destruction of the clan system allowed the state to further extend centralized power. Would the same fate have befallen the Highlands even with no Rising? I suspect so but this simply hastened the process. This raises the question, though, as to whether the clan system would have survived had Charles succeeded in getting his father the British crown. Would the Stuart dynasty have left the Highlands in peace as a reward for their service or would they have followed the same path as demanded by the Whigs and many Lowlanders? Or could they simply have ignored the demands of such men? How much did the pro-Jacobite Tories care for the Highland way of life? The pacification of the Highlands, after all, was more than the Hanoverians simply getting vengeance.

After Culloden, singing rebel songs, having drunk to the Prince’s health or being a rebel sympathiser was enough for one to be jailed and at first these pronouncements were followed through, but as we shall see the soldiers eventually gave up. The tartan and kilt were for a time banned because they were seen to make the Highlanders too mobile and so made them a threat should they choose to become guerrillas. It was also another way to destroy clan system and culture (page 310). When the land system changed in the Highlands it went from lords owning land on behalf of all to the lord owning everything for himself. Parental feelings were destroyed and thus the path was set for the Highland clearances. Many lords took part in the clearing of their own people as profit triumphed over tribal and familial loyalties (page 315). The end of Jacobite Rising saw the beginning of the end of the last vestiges of a maritime Gaelic culture.


Lingustic situation in Ireland and Scotland over 200 years prior to Culloden. Gaelic languages were still predominant at that point, however, they began a rapid decline thereafter. The repression in the Scottish Highlands after Culloden and the Highland Clearances effectively reduced the Scottish variant to a few fringe areas. A similar process of conquest and emigration (along with the infamous famine of 1845) greatly reduced the Irish variant as well

Culloden is also the story of the government soldiers; their travails, camp women, boredom and general life in the army. He mentions how they fully took to plundering even though it was forbidden to them, because they needed the money and Prebble claims the harsh actions of their officers led them to treat others harshly too. A soldier’s life was hard and full of abuse. He got almost no pay and was bound to wind up a beggar after service. London didn’t give enough supplies (including clothes and bedding) to the troops so they stole what they could. Even going into the Lowlands. Indeed, it sounds as if the Lowlanders were often viewed with the same suspicions as Highlanders by English officers. Perhaps because of this, in Edinburgh that December, people began wearing the white cockade of the Jacobite army, signing rebel songs and holding balls in honour of the Jacobite cause (page 296). All of this would have been a clear act of defiance against the government which was treating the Lowlanders as if they were an occupied enemy populace. The soldiers treated such orders with disdain and even laughed along with those they were meant to arrest (page 297). Thus is the beginning of the romance surrounding the rebellion in the Lowlands, a place which largely ignored the Prince’s call to arms. A romance which Prebble is very much against.

For classical liberals I suppose it must seem strange that Prebble, who was for much of his life a communist, would condemn one form of interdependent socio-economic system whilst being an admirer of another form, but this would be from their failure to see the differences between the varied systems of collective existence. Collectivism has a positive natural expression, but also an inorganic one that has come out of a marxist reaction to classical liberals; the clan system, for all its faults, would be an example of the former. It gave people a sense of community and a common goal. Moreover, it united them with their ancestors. Though Prebble is no traditionalist or Jacobite it is possible for those who are, to read it and not feel it overly cringe-worthy. The same could also be said of more modernist right-wing Scottish nationalists, and Highlanders in particular.










[1]Interestingly enough the Prince’s army did not use corporal punishment and it is suggested that this was a factor in government soldiers switching sides (page 122), although not many actually went turncoat. Some the deserters found among the Rebel POWs had deserted in Flanders and either because they wanted to go home, needed the money or were truly Jacobites, joined the French companies that left for Scotland in 1745 (page 146).

[2]Another important advisor to the Bonnie Prince was Sheridan, yet another aged Irishman. Charles’ most able general seems to have been Lord George Murray who had earlier defeated government forces at Falkirk. He also was against a battle being fought at Culloden. However, he had also counseled against continuing the Jacobite advance from Derby to London, perhaps had the Jacobites actually done so they could have won.

[3]This has raised the question as to whether the battle could have gone the Prince’s way if the Highlanders had been allowed to charge earlier? Although perhaps not given how devastating the musket fire from the government lines was and also the new technique of bayonetting which had been developed precisely to deal with a Highland charge.

Posted in Books, History, United Kingdom | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Rotten Daffodils

Also published at Identity Forum




There is a tendency among the Welsh to show great pride in the deeds of past ancestors who fought against English conquest; of men who wanted to force the English back, the championing of a distinct Welsh identity, the preservation of the nation’s culture, it’s heritage and it’s language. However, as with so many of the Scots and Irish, such fervour doesn’t appear to extend to the current and even greater invasion coming from third worlds. In fact, it would seem that the political leaders of modern Wales are, in a complete volte-face from those of popular heroes like Owain Glyndwr, actually making it easier for foreigners to undermine and displace the Welsh people in their own homeland.

Medieval Welsh poetry and prose lament of Wales and Cornwall as the last refuges of the Brythonic people in the British Isles, having been driven west or assimilated1 by Germanic invaders.2 Today, it would seem that Welsh politicians are helping to ensure that this refuge is taken from them.

Recently, as Jack Montgomery reports, politicians in Wales have been feverishly working to turn their country into the world’s first ‘nation of sanctuary’ for so-called refugees from the third world. Labour politician John Griffiths has promoted this idea which, it appears, has been in the works since 2012. Of course, it comes to no surprise that the Labour party would be pushing for such an idea, given how they have admitted to opening Britain’s borders as a way of forever screwing over their ‘tory’ rivals. One of the many other high-level supporters of this plan is none other than the leader of the nationalist Plaid Cymru (Party of Wales), Leanne Wood.


Saunders Lewis

Saunders Lewis, the founder of Plaid Cymru, must be turning in his grave.

At first, this all seems quite confusing. Why would a supposed nationalist party support such a measure? However, the Party of Wales like the SNP in Scotland and nationalist movements in Catalonia and elsewhere, is not actually a nationalist organization. Leanne Wood is actually just a run-of-the-mill socialist, a self-declared feminist, a republican, an ardent supporter of the EU. She also cites the 19th century miner Lewsyn yr Heliwr – one of the leaders of the Merthyr Rising, a workers strike, where red flag was flown for the first time – as a hero. All in all, she holds all the views one would expect from someone in any standard social democratic party. Wood and other such ‘nationalists’ have proven that they are in league with the other globalist shills. The only factor which distinguishes them from their mainstream rivals is that they want to impose such policies on a smaller scale. ‘Independence’ means saying goodbye to the United Kingdom, while gleefully embracing micro-bloc status within the gargantuan, bureaucratic, and dwindling European Union.

Nationalism, as we know it, grew out of liberalism and there are many early examples of nationalists like Vasil Levski who rejected ethnic, racial or religious nationalisms in favour of an all-encompassing civic variety. In Levski’s case, he chose to reject the ethnic definition of Bulgaria in favour of a geographical expression. Meaning he saw anyone living in the territory known as Bulgaria as Bulgarian, regardless of their faith, language, culture, blood, et al. However, it must be said that even these liberal nationalists of the 19th century were never as insane as Leanne Wood and her ilk, as they never envisioned turning their lands into massive dumping grounds for the flotsam and jetsam of the world. It should, of course, be noted that many were ethnocentrists and racialists (as was the norm in saner times), regardless of their liberal ideals of democracy and free trade. Even the early socialists look clear minded and level headed when compared to Leanne Wood. One wonders what her hero, Lewis Lewis, would make of such an assault on the native working class.

In Wales just as in Scotland and elsewhere, rightist politics are associated with that European nation which has dominated them and, more specifically, the neoliberal policies of The Conservative Party. Founded upon separatist principles, the politics of such nationalist movements have been established upon reactive contrarianism, finally blossoming into a hodgepodge of inconsistent and incompatible liberal-leftist agendas. Not only will they claim to champion workers’ rights, but also mass migration, housing developments and environmentalism. None of these policies mesh. In the case of Wales, such a small country being turned into a massive ‘refugee’ camp will mean that its agricultural land and areas of conservation will have to be sacrificed. Moreover, it would in no way help the maintenance and growth of its endangered culture and language. In championing the cause of open borders and mass migration they will sacrifice other supposedly cherished causes, including the one they are supposed to hold higher than all others: the survival of the Welsh people, their identity, culture and language included. If successful, they would bring about something far worse than anything England could ever have accomplished.

Ultimately, the European nations of the world are meant to destroy themselves in the name of deracinated ideals. Ideals which, for the most part, are shared by Europeans and Europeans alone. It doesn’t much matter if the countries in question were ever subjected or occupated; They are still White, and thus still in need of ‘deconstruction’ along with those few European countries which did succeed in overseas imperial projects.

So much for indigenous rights.

Famously, when Henry II of England was campaigning in Wales he came across a Welshman who told him that,

“This nation, O King, may now as in former times be harassed, and in a great measure weakened and destroyed by your and other powers, and it will often prevail by its own exertions; but it can never be totally subdued through the wrath of man, unless the wrath of God shall concur. Nor do I think that any other nation than this of Wales, or any other language, whatever hereafter may come to pass, shall, on the day of severe examination before the Supreme Judge, answer for this corner of the earth.”3

It remains to be seen if this will be so. Clearly, the ‘nationalist’ party has shown itself to be one of those powers hell-bent on Wales’ destruction that this man spoke of, interests of their voting base be damned!

Is this what Welsh voted for? Based on the 2014 poll cited in Montgomery’s article it would appear the majority did not. 68% believed immigration controls should be tighter (5% believed they should be relaxed). 41% also believed that immigration has damaged Wales, with 18% saying the damage has been “very bad”. This compares with 22 per cent who said immigration has benefited Wales, with just 5 per saying the effects have been “very good”. These numbers aren’t good enough, but I suppose they are the best one can hope for given the endless multiracial, one world propaganda that has been imposed on the Welsh (and European peoples in general) via the media, government, corporations, education system and judiciary.

It should also be noted that the majority of Welsh voted for Brexit and that during the last general election, The Conservatives took second place, while UKIP came third in the popular vote (without out winning any seats). UKIP by far had the largest growth. To me, this suggests that the Welsh are not fully on board with leftist social engineering. Unfortunately, for the moment, such sentiments can only be expressed by voting for parties that are either rightist in name only (like the tories) or are a rather mixed bag (like UKIP). I’m happy to say that the social media accounts of traitors like John Griffiths and Leanne Wood are filled with angry comments concerning their globalist agenda.4

Democracy is supposed to mean that it is the will of the voters that decides which policies a state will enact. The will of the people, however, can always be subverted. Those elected can always avoid following up on their promises, deliberately choosing to forgo delivering in the interests of their electorate. At worst, this may include enacting or supporting something that their voters specifically voted against. And even when individuals come along with anti-establishment views, there is no telling how effective they will be when up against the seemingly impenetrable wall of opposition from the ruling puppeteers. As with Trump, who now appears to be caving into the endless opposition from multiple corners over his previously touted anti-interventionist policies, nothing is guaranteed or all it may seem. Ultimately, democracy will not solve the problems facing the Occident. Once again, many of us are left asking, How much will the farce continue?



1It is important to note that assimilation was the greater force at work here as the majority of English can trace their ancestry back to the indigenous inhabitants of Britain, just like the Welsh and Cornish.

2The Irish also invaded Britain around the same time, but with the exception of (the formerly Brythonic) Isle of Mann and the Pictish regions of Scotland, they were not as successful.

3Wynford Vaughn-Thomas, Wales A History. Michael Joseph Ltd., London. 1985.Page 98

4Sadly, a major issue with Welsh politics – and politics in the West in general – is people voting for a party out of loyalty, as it is the one they or their family have always voted for. The eternal urbanite is yet another issue.

Posted in Immigration, Politics, United Kingdom | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Trainspotting 2

T2_–_Trainspotting_poster.jpgThere is a trend for, instead of producing new material, the film industry to simply makes endless remakes of hit-films or sequels to hit-films. Recently, I’ve noticed that sequels are being made 5, 10 or even 20 years after the original. Such was the case with the most recent film I’ve watched, Trainspotting 2 which is a sequel to the 1996 cult classic.

T2 takes place 20 years after the events of the first film with Mark “Rent boy” Renton (Ewan McGregor) coming back to Edinburgh from the Netherlands to find his old friends Daniel “Spud” Murphy (Ewen Bremer) has relapsed; Simon “Sick boy” (Johnny Lee Miller) works with a Bulgarian prostitute, Veronika (Anjela Nedyalkova), blackmailing degenerate men who like being sodomized by strap-ons, when not running his dead aunt’s failing pub; and the psychotic Francis “Franco” Begbie (Robert Carlyle) is in jail.

Its been years since I saw the first film but I remember it being quite dark. It had its humorous moments to be sure but T2 didn’t seem particularly dark to me. The first movie was a film about the effects of post-war, post-industrial society (and I suspect the neoliberal policies of Thatcher more specifically) on wrecking the working class in Edinburgh, as it was about a group of drug addicts. Although there are some references to the continued destruction of these old working class neighborhoods, the sequel seems to be more about the four main characters and their strained relationship. Even Renton’s love interest from the first film (played by Kelly Macdonald) had her role reduced to one level above a cameo, which is surprising given that Kelly Macdonald has had some success in high-profile American movies and TV shows. I went in to T2 expecting for her to have an even greater role than the first film, rekindling her relationship with Mark. I wonder if we will see any critiques of this film (or if they’ve been made already and I’ve just not come across it yet) for not having more screen time for the female characters or for not having enough non-White characters. There were a few black and East Asian faces but they were very minor characters or background characters only seen for a fleetingly short amount of screen time.

This film wasn’t without its political commentary, mind you. Mark Renton has makes a rant at one point to Veronika which includes jabs against consumerism and our fragmented, impersonal society of individuals who spend more time on social media than meeting people in real life, but of course it is more of a pseudo-edgy leftist rant because Mark then moves into feminism. He makes reference to rape jokes, slut shaming and revenge porn. Funny that to the left jokes about rape are seen as a bigger problem than the actual rape cultures of Pakistanis and other immigrant groups now existing in the Occident. Slut shaming is necessary because it is harmful to society for women to be loose, overly sexual entities. They need to fulfill their natural role as mothers and home-makers. As for revenge porn, I don’t know how big a problem that is but I agree that it is improper behaviour which should be discouraged. However, it – and indeed all these issues Mark brings up – are the consequence of our overly sexual society; a society ruined by feminism and the destruction of natural gender roles.

Mark also takes shots at those who notice Jewish power and influence by connecting awareness of this issue with half-baked conspiracy theories when he makes a crack about 9/11 conspiracy theorists and anti-Semitism. Of course, in doing so connecting all critiques of Jewish power with ridiculous and out-there views.

The most interesting scene in this movie revolved around Mark and Sick boy visiting a Loyalist pub. During the 19th century quite a large number of Irish Catholics moved into the industrial areas of Lowland Scotland and pretty soon sectarian conflict developed between them and the Protestant natives, although it was never as violent as the one between Irish Catholics and Protestant Ulster Scots back in Ireland. Mark makes a great statement about how Protestant Lowlanders have been abandoned by the political class but still they hold tightly to their identity as loyal Protestant subjects to the Crown. However, this identity is then condemned as being purely based on bigotry and is shown as a stale and un-dynamic one, as the pub is full of nothing but middle-aged and elderly individuals. They are also shown to be a foolish people.

I should note that the main characters are fans of the Hibernian football team, because this was one of several teams started by Irish Catholic immigrants to Scotland in the 19th century. Their supporters were originally Irish immigrants and the descendants of these immigrants while their rival clubs were founded by natives. The most notorious football rivalry in Scotland, however, is between the Glaswegian teams Celtic (founded by Irish Catholics) and Rangers (founded by local Protestants). The sectarian conflict in Scotland is not as relevant now as it used to be and many fans of the old Irish teams are not in fact Irish or are more Lowlander in ancestry, but it is still there.

Mark Renton and his mates don’t seem to have any identity and while the anti-Catholicism and often crass triumphalism of the Lowlanders and their kin across the North Channel doesn’t sit well with me, at least they have an identity that they are proud of. Irish  – and those Scots who reject or were never part of this culture or Catholics of other White ethnic backgrounds – who see this film will no doubt take much glee at watching these people being made fun of and getting robbed, but they need to realise that they have been abandoned too.

All Whites have been abandoned by their ruling elite. Even those groups, like the Welsh, who are receiving government money to help revitalise their native languages are under threat by mass migration, destruction of the family, religion and all ties of community. While I am no pan-Europeanist, the tribal conflicts such as those in the Lowlands and Ulster are infuriating when there are greater problems that all parties need to deal with. Falling demographics, cultural marxism, globalism et al., are all of far more importance than constantly re-living 1690.

Members of the Orange Order one of the most obvious symbols of the Protestant Ulster Scots (and Lowlander) culture. I've never much cared for it

Members of the Orange Order, one of the most obvious symbols of Ulster Scots culture though it is also present in the Lowlands (and elsewhere). I’ve never much cared for it




Post Script: I wonder how many of those in the audience (most of whom looked between 40-60, like the leading actors) with me cared about such issues? Do they see the film as confirming their prefabricated egalitarian notions? I can only assume so. They, the makers of this film and most of the actors are boomers. Deracinated Whites who have completely bought into the liberal worldview and aggressively promote it every chance they get.

Posted in Films/TV | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

London Attack: Another Bout of Road Rage?

On March 22, 2017 an act of Islamic terror occurred near Westminster in London, England. There was some initial confusion over the exact identity of the attacker but we now know it was one Khlaid Masood, but even before we knew who exactly did the killing it was obvious it was an Islamic attack. It was just so similar to earlier attacks by Muslims at Ohio State University, Nice, Berlin and even in Quebec in that the attacker used an automobile as a weapon. Masood drove into a crowd of people before getting out and stabbing a policeman to death. So far the toll stands at 4 dead and 41 injured.


Perhaps the most iconic photo taken after the attack. Muslim woman walks on by as if nothing has happened. I suppose from a Muslim prespective she is right.jpg

Perhaps the most iconic photo taken in the aftermath of the London attack. A Muslim woman walks on by as if nothing has happened. And I suppose from her perspective nothing has; just some kafirs getting killed in jihad.

As usual people took to social media to talk about how much they loved Muslims and this has nothing to do with Islam. I expect Muslims to lie like this because it is in their interests, but of course a great many were non-Muslims, particularly Whites from liberal Christian or irreligious backgrounds. Many were choosing to ignore it and bring up a few incidences of violence in recent years coming from Whites (but never blacks) in the US or elsewhere. Anything to obfuscate and make others believe that Islam doesn’t have a particular problem with violence. When it became clear without a doubt that it was indeed what everyone knew, a Muslim attack, then we saw the usual “pray for everybody”, “I love everybody including Muslims”, “not all muslims”, and other such crap coming from people who would rather live in a liberal fantasy than in reality. Or they just stayed quiet and moved on to something else.

Every. Time.

People have been so horribly infected by the media and also the education system. Their entire lives have been under the influence of these two bastions of propaganda that it is no wonder so many actually believe in equality. They are desperate to believe in it and to ignore the obvious negative consequences of ‘diversity’ and demographic displacement.

In the Anglosphere, many are completely unaware of what has been going on in continental Europe because it is rarely discussed in English-language media. What ones have come through are quickly forgotten. Even attacks which have happened in the Anglosphere have been largely forgotten – with the obvious exception of truly massive attacks like 9/11 or 7/7. Watch this one get swept under the carpet soon as well.

I doubt this attack will change anything. None of the preceding ones ever did even when they were more deadly. What will it take? Does London need to be obliterated? Actually, given its history as a bastion of liberalism that may not be such a bad idea.

London’s mayor, Sadiq Khan, was right about terrorism: it is part of big city living. Well, at least in cities with a substantial number of his coreligionists. Although, in fairness to Muslims, blacks of any religious background are also incredibly destructive. We North Americans need look no further than Toronto, Detroit, Baltimore or St. Louis for evidence of this. And people seem more than willing to cling to their liberal fantasy and grin and bear the crime ‘diversity’ causes.




Post Script: Originally thought to have been a Caribbean convert named Abu Izzadeen, but we now know it was…. a different type of convert. The killer of Lee Rigby, by the way, was a black convert. I can’t say I am surprised that blacks and other foreigners would convert to Islam, because they don’t fit in with the majority culture. They must have a major crisis of identity. Nor am I surprised that Whites have converted, because Whites aren’t allowed to have any sense of community or culture. Their cultures are destroyed and so they, like the second and third generation non-Whites, take on Islam to fill the void. Truly, this leveling and destruction of cultures and promotion of nihilism, is one of the most sickening aspects of liberalism.

Posted in Cultural Struggle, United Kingdom | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Arrogant, Brazen Turks


Also published at Identity Forum



Throughout its history, Turkey has been the scene of many an invasion and migration of peoples moving west-east and vice versa. The Ottomans absorbed many cultural aspects of the various regions they conquered, often added new dimensions to them. As such, the Turks are predominantly a mix of West Mediterranean, West Asian (Semitic) and even Central Asian ethnic backgrounds; all since unified by a common tongue and faith.

The historian Andrew Mango, noted for his biographical work on the Turkish Republic’s founder, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, describes the Turkish nation as such:

“The Turkish nation took shape in the centuries of Seljuk and Ottoman power. The nomadic Turkish conquerors did not displace the original local inhabitants: Hellenized Anatolians (or simply Greeks), Armenians, people of Caucasian origins, Kurds, Assyrians and—in the Balkans—Slavs, Albanians and others. They intermarried with them, while many local people converted to Islam and ‘turned Turk’. They were joined by Muslims from the lands north of the Black Sea and the Caucasus, by Persian craftsmen and Arab scholars, and by European adventurers and converts, known in the West as renegades. As a result, the Turks today exhibit a wide variety of ethnic types. Some have delicate Far Eastern, others heavy local Anatolian features, some, who are descended from Slavs, Albanians or Circassians, have light complexions, others are dark-skinned, many look Mediterranean, others Central Asian, many appear Persian. A numerically small, but commercially and intellectually important, group is descended from converts from Judaism. One can hear Turks describe some of their fellow countrymen as ‘hatchet-nosed Lazes’ (a people on the Black Sea coast), ‘dark Arabs’ (a term which includes descendants of black slaves), or even ‘fellahs’. But they are all Turks.”

Prior to Ottoman defeat in WWI, giving way to language reforms initiated by Atatürk, the Turkish language was heavily influenced by both Arabic and Persian. Turkey’s largest religion, Islam, is in many ways an expression of Arab culture. Indeed, Atatürk, a secularist, claimed it was a form of Arab nationalism. Atatürk tried to eradicate the old Arab-Persian cultural dominance and Islam in favour of a renewed Turkish language, culture, and French-style laïcité secularism. It didn’t work.

On the language front, it would seem Atatürk was successful. Yet on matters of faith, Islam has essentially won out. Turkey’s current president and former prime minister, Erdoğan, has done much not only to revive political Islam in Turkey but also aspects of the old Ottoman culture. For years he has been criticised by the global press for being a new sultan, and indeed, he has been increasing his hold on power. In the aftermath of the failed coup attempt this past July (2016), he has since called for a referendum which, if passed, would give him an even greater degree of power. In preparation for the upcoming referendum in April, Erdoğan has begun campaigning in Europe.

Some of the campaign stops for the pro- Erdoğan vote are in Germany, which has around 1.5 million Turks eligible to vote in the referendum, and the Netherlands, where there are at least 400,000 Turks who are also eligible to vote. Of course, these numbers do not include the millions of other Turks inhabiting these countries without that ability.

turksThis isn’t the first time that Erdoğan has pulled such a stunt, as he gone to Europe in search of votes a number of times before. However, there is greater scrutiny of his actions this time around. At the beginning of this month, a row brewed between Germany and Turkey after the German government cancelled a number of planned rallies, citing security concerns. There are also strains between Ankara and Berlin concerning the treatment of journalists in Turkey, and Germany’s recognition of the Armenian genocide. In response to the recent cancelling of rallies, Erdoğan has called Germany “nazi” and “fascist” which has only added further strain.

And now rioting has occurred in Rotterdam in response to the Dutch government’s refusal to allow Turkish politicians to use their country as a political stage.

“The Dutch government had banned Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu from attending a rally on Saturday in Rotterdam but he said he would fly there anyway, saying Europe must be rid of its “boss-like attitude”. Cavusoglu, who was barred from a similar meeting in Hamburg last week but spoke instead from the Turkish consulate, accused the Dutch of treating the many Turkish citizens in the country like hostages, cutting them off from Ankara. “If my going will increase tensions, let it be … I am a foreign minister and I can go wherever I want,” he added hours before his planned flight to Rotterdam was banned. Cavusoglu threatened harsh economic and political sanctions if the Dutch refused him entry, and those threats proved decisive for the Netherlands government. It cited public order and security concerns in withdrawing landing rights for Cavusoglu’s flight and said the threat of sanctions made the search for a reasonable solution impossible. “This decision is a scandal and unacceptable in every way. It does not abide by diplomatic practices,” Cavusoglu told reporters in Istanbul on Saturday evening.”

Turkey’s family minister, Betül Sayan Kaya, has also been banned. In response, she took to twitter to call the Netherlands “oppressive” and has tried to use her status as a woman in a failed attempt at shaming the Netherlands into giving into Turkish demands.

Once again, Erdoğan, ironically, has taken to throwing out leftist buzzwords in an attempt at shaming. Many ordinary Turks followed his lead and took to social media to throw out “racist”, “fascist” and other such liberal-left favourites, whilst being Nationalists and staunch Muslims themselves. And like Cavusoglu, Erdoğan has also taken to threats, stating:

“Listen Netherlands, you’ll jump once, you’ll jump twice, but my people will thwart your game,” he said. “You can cancel our foreign minister’s flight as much as you want, but let’s see how your flights will come to Turkey now.”

The responses to Dutch actions are enlightening. The Turks clearly do not care one iota about the sovereignty of others even fellow NATO members. Leading Turkish politicians are threatening the Netherlands and ordinary Turks living in the Netherlands have risen up against the Dutch government, which is supposedly their government. Clearly, holding a Dutch passport and/or living in the Netherlands is not enough to make one Dutch.

These events aren’t completely negative, however. Indeed, they may be quite a positive development. On March 15th the Netherlands is to have a general election and the events of this month could very well work in the favour of Geert Wilders. People have seen inhabitants of their country of Turkish descent showing solidarity with a foreign government, flashing Grey Wolves salutes, waving Islamic flags and just generally showing how unassimilated and incapable of assimilation they are. Indeed, prominent Turkish politicians including Erdoğan have made it clear in the past that they are against Turks assimilating into host populations (even if that were possible). Immigration scepticism will only continue to grow.

Granted, Wilders is a strange character of the Classical Liberal or Right-Libertarian variety, holding a number of views that many of us find strongly disagreeable (such as support of gay marriage and Zionism). There are other smaller populist right-wing parties critical of immigration that may also do well now as a result of Rotterdam. Given the Netherlands’ system of governance which almost always relies on the formation of coalition governments, the potential rise of these other smaller parties would be beneficial in the long run, potentially helping each other and Wilders out.

Another positive aspect of this whole situation is the continued breaking down of Turkish-EU and Turkish-NATO relations. Turkey’s move towards authoritarianism and continued refusal to bow to EU demands for a “free press” make EU membership less likely. In January, a member of the ruling Justice and Development Party, Şamil Tayyar, called NATO a threat to Turkey, going so far as to call it a terrorist organisation. There are also conflicts between Turkey and NATO-backed Kurds in Syria, with NATO members being condemned and even threatened.

The Turks seem rather hell-bent on both going and getting their own way. Such an attitude can only survive for so long in multinational organisations which supposedly work for collective interests as opposed to just one nation. I suppose given their history as a mixing ground of disparate peoples, forged together by a common faith and language, it is only right and natural that the Turk should strike out on their own. However, they are hindered by an ongoing personality split which causes them to move at once westwards and eastwards thinking they somehow belong in both spheres.

Personally, I could care less if Turkey moves towards an authoritarian state, especially if it means a greater likelihood of it staying out of the EU and perhaps leaving NATO. The current matter at hand has also given further proof that the Turks are neither Europeans nor allies of European states. Let’s hope that future developments continue to serve as a reminder that Europeans should keep Turkey firmly at arm’s length, prompting further criticism over the impact of Turkish immigration on European countries.


Posted in Europe, Politics, Turkey | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Failure of Multiculturalism in Polish Ukraine

Also posted at The Occidental Observer



Mykola Pymonenko – To War!

We are often told today that multiculturalism, that is to say a state made up of a diversity of peoples, is a great strength. No, it is in fact our greatest strength! To state any concerns or criticisms, no matter how mild, is seen as sacrilegious.

However, the opposite is true and throughout history where there are many examples of diverse and multicultural societies falling into discord and strife. The focus of this piece will be on a place that has been praised in hindsight for its liberalism and tolerance: the Commonwealth of Poland-Lithuania.

Poland-Lithuania came into being after the 1569 Treaty of Lublin when the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania were unified and made into one country. Prior to this, in the 1385 Union of Krewo, the two were linked in a personal union under the reigning Lithuanian monarch. Before 1569 what are now Belarus and the bulk of Ukraine[i] were also part of the Grand Duchy, which was the largest European country at the time. As per the 1569 treaty, however, Ukraine was handed over to Poland, thus setting the stage for a violent future of ethnic conflict.

The Polish nobility or szlachta was used to a high degree of autonomy which only became greater after the old Lithuanian Jagellonian dynasty died out. After this occurred, the monarchy was elected and became increasingly subservient to the nobles. The szlachta, it should be noted, was not entirely ethnically Polish. It would come to include Lithuanian, Ukrainian and other non-Polish noble houses that Polonized to such an extent that they may as well have been ethnically Polish. Examples of the power to which the nobility held include their ability to bring back serfdom (so-called neo-serfdom) and a 1518 law which stated that the king could not accept in his royal courts complaints of subjects on noble land, giving the nobility a free hand. Nobles eventually gave themselves power to introduce corvée labour, seize peasant land and the peasants working it.[ii]

Yet all was not well with the nobility during the years leading up to the tumultuous seventeenth and eighteenth centuries,

 Perceptive foreigners… saw, for instance, that the much vaunted freedom of the szlachta, which gave Poland the reputation of being one of the freest states in the world, rested on the complete deprivation of rights and enslavement of all the other classes of the population, that along with the unlimited freedom of the nobles, the burgesses were deprived of all participation in political life, hampered in their economic development, and shut within the walls of the towns. Parliamentarianism was flourishing in Poland, but alongside it, the executive was powerless to function. … The royal power was rigidly limited, and all decisions were made by the powerful ruling classes of nobles. This class, moreover, was degenerating. The Polish nobles had lost their former chivalrous and fighting spirit. They were corrupted by wealth and had lost their former energy which could now be aroused only to fight for privileges against real or imaginary attacks by the royal power.[iii]

Not only were they corrupted by vice and power, but the szlachta had ceased to see themselves as having any relation to the people they ruled over. The nobility had developed, from the sixteenth century on, an ideology known as Sarmatianism, which erroneously said szlachta were the descendants of Sarmatians, a steppe people originating in what is now southern Russia. Importantly, szlachta saw themselves as ethnically distinct from even the Polish peasants.[iv] It also came to view Roman Catholicism as the only true form of Christianity. Such an ideology was bound to create sharp social divisions but especially with their Ukrainian subjects. This was to have a great and terrible impact on the Commonwealth in the mid-late seventeenth century.

Poland-Lithuania was by the standards of the time, incredibly tolerant and liberal towards religious matters. However, in practice Orthodox Christianity was generally not afforded the same rights and privileges as other Christian sects or even the Jews, who of course, are not a purely religious group but an ethnic one as well. For example, Jesuits managed to push through an Act of Union in 1596 which made the Orthodox church (which was almost exclusively the church of Ukrainians) part of the Catholic Church, thus creating the Uniate Church. However, most Orthodox priests refused to adhere to this.[v] It was only in 1632 that Orthodoxy was legally recognized, but by then the Ukrainian population had been split between Uniate and Orthodox and a great number had fled to Russia.

The role of Jewry in society was an important factor in the mass violence of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries so it is worth briefly explaining their situation in society.

Jews first came en masse into Poland at the behest of king Bolesław III in the 1090s. Jews were given the freedom to form their own self-government as well as privileges concerning religious festivals, restrictions, et al. Poland was for centuries the home to the largest Jewish community in Europe and was even called a Jewish Paradise —paradisus Iudaeorum. Much economic competition existed between them and Christians, but competition also existed between native Christians and foreign Christians who had also been allowed to settle in Poland-Lithuania. The countryside was largely homogenous but the towns and cities hosted a bewildering array of nationalities from as far afield as Scotland to the west and Armenia to the east.

The city dwellers, divided amongst themselves and politically impotent, were the major bearers of anti-Jewish animus. However, as long as there were also a bewildering variety of other national groups pursuing occupations similar to those of the Jews, this animus was somewhat diffused.[vi]

Multiculturalism, then as now, diluted any major outbreaks of anti-Semitism. However, conflicts did arise as a result of economic competition and attempts were made by individual townships to restrict Jews. But on the whole Poland-Lithuania was incredibly welcoming to and tolerant of Jews and this remained so even after the nobles had usurped all powers from the monarchy. In fact, they were to enhance Jewish power and privilege in Polish Ukraine.

Landowners wanted to exploit resources, but had little interest in administrating their lands or developing commercial skills. Instead they preferred to “cultivate their luxurious habits and cultural pursuits.”[vii] Thus they turned to Jews who had both the money and experience. The Jews acted as intermediaries and agents on the vast estates of the nobility and they rented and leased flour mills, breweries, markets, inns and ferries (among other services), “exacting heavy duties, and exhibiting great ingenuity in inventing ever-new methods of squeezing fresh tolls and taxes out of the population.”[viii] Not only were Jews looked upon with contempt for their professions but for how they acted in these professions; they readily exploited the masses for their own gain as much as for the aloof szlachta.

There was one group, however, that sided with the Ukrainian masses. This group were the Cossacks. Cossacks were people who had a semi-nomadic lifestyle and were ruled by a Sich or commune of elected elders. They responded to Tatar and Turkish raids with raiding of their own; including naval assaults upon Anatolia.



Jozef Brandt – Cossack Wedding

The Polish nobles detested the Cossacks who answered only to the king and therefore wished to curb the power of the Cossacks, to make them as readily pliable as serfs. The Ukrainians were ruled over by an elite that was foreign to the masses; they had their religion attacked; had their defenders, the Cossacks, condemned; and of course had to put up with a nepotistic ethno-religious group that eagerly exploited them with full support of the nobility. It was only a matter of time before violence erupted.

In 1648 Bohdan Khmelnytsky, a leading Cossack, had his estate plundered, his son killed and his mistress abducted by a neighbouring noble. This event led to Khmelnytsky and his fellow Cossacks to launch a rebellion against the Poles. Khmelnytsky is not believed to have wanted independence, but that is clearly how many Ukrainians saw the rebellion. The revolt was highly popular throughout Ukraine — for example, “the whole of the province of Kyiv rose to a man.”[ix] The revolt quickly led to ethnic cleansing, as the largely Ukrainian peasantry burned down the landowners’ manors and plundered their possessions, killing them and those associated with them; of course the nobles weren’t Ukrainian; they were all Poles or Ukrainians who were so Polonized that they may as well have been Poles. Catholic clergy were also killed and so too were Jews.

The Jews in particular were targeted by the rebels who finally felt able to release their pent-up hatred and frustration at Jewish oppression. It is believed that upwards to one million people were killed or forced to flee the region because of the violence. Thousands of them were Jews.


 It is believed that the Jews provoked the special hatred of the population by their petty, mean exploitation as collectors of all sorts of tolls and taxes, and as dishonest vendors of necessities at exorbitant prices.[x]


Khmelnytsky’s Revolt lasted for nine years and was a major reason for the so-called Deluge period of Polish history. Khmelnytsky’s memory is a mixed one in the minds Ukrainians who have both lauded him as a hero and condemned him as a traitor. He is known to have allied with the Crimean Tatars and given them free reign over much of the Ukraine in search of slaves to sell in the Turkish market. Perhaps more importantly, he brought Moscow into Ukrainian affairs after the signing of the Pereyaslav treaty in 1654, which the Russians interpreted as meaning the Cossacks were swearing allegiance to them. In the end, the revolt saw the splitting of Cossack territory between Poland and Moscow, which had used the uprising as a chance to intercede in Polish affairs.

In what remained of Polish Ukraine it was not long before life went back to how it had been prior to 1648. This included the system of governance. Poles resurrected their old system of governance in Ukraine, except this time the number of noble families with true power was limited to a small handful who had survived the trials of the Deluge and were now engaged in internal power struggles.[xi] The flight of Ukrainians eastwards and the end of Cossack influence made it easier to impose Catholicism[xii] and for the nobles to once again act with impunity. This meant, yet again, that Jews were brought in as tax-farmers, agents on noble land, etc., much to the consternation of the locals.

During the eighteenth century another rebellion occurred as a result of the actions of the Polish elite and Jews — the Haidamak rebellion. This rebellion, however, was generally more of a low-level guerrilla-style conflict, although major battles did occur such as the Siege of Uman in 1768, which resulted in the massacre of Poles and Jews by the victorious Haidamaky Cossacks. The Haidamaky used Russian territory as a base of operations to conduct their attacks and this inevitably resulted in a diplomatic row. The Haidamak revolt was put down in 1769 when a group of Haidamaky had raided Ottoman territory. The Turks threatened war with Russia over this, so the Russians decided not only to stop assisting the rebels, but to help the Poles crush them. The reason the Haidamaky had crossed into Turkey? They were chasing a group of Jews.[xiii]

After 1795, Poland-Lithuania ceased to exist, having been partitioned for the third and final time by Prussia, Austria and Russia. Its Ukrainian territories were split between the Russians and the Austrians. Life remained the same as it had for centuries. However, there were to be no major outbreaks of violence involving ethnic cleansing in either Austrian or Russian Ukraine. The reasons for this are as follows:

In the Austrian zone the szlachta’s powers were broken and they were brought under royal control (although Polish nobility continued to rule the area). In 1781 Austrian Emperor Joseph II ended serfdom, although aspects of it were brought back by his successor and peasantry continued to live in poverty, this was seen as a great accomplishment by the peasants.[xiv] The monarchy was shown to be an effective force that could intervene on the behalf of Ukrainians. After 1848 the monarchy even went so far as to actively promote Ukrainian national consciousness as a way of countering Polish nationalism. It helped, too, that most Ukrainians in Austria were Uniate and Joseph II gave Uniate church the same rights as mainstream Catholicism which even the Poles had not done.[xv] However, a short-lived bout of violence did occur in 1846 but it was more akin to the earlier Cossack and Haidamak uprisings in that it largely targeted Poles and not the Austrian government (which reacted to the rebellion by finally abolishing serfdom).

As for the hated Jews, Joseph II wanted to fully assimilate Jewry and so he made them liable for military service, got rid of their separate system of governance, made them pay the same taxes as everyone else and use German instead of Yiddish. Restrictions on movement and ability to serve in certain professions remained, however.[xvi] Thus, it appeared the Jewish problem was being solved by a liberal policy of integration combined with mechanisms to lower competition with Jews.

In the Russian zone the shared Orthodoxy of Russians and Ukrainians greatly helped and so did the destruction of the szlachta system. However, serfdom remained in force until the 1860s and the power of the Cossacks in Russia was destroyed in the Great Northern War (1700–1721). The Russians relied on autocracy to keep everyone in line and increasingly on Russification. Though this caused resentment, it did not lead to outright rebellion. No doubt it helped that the Russians, too, appeared to be solving the Jewish problem. As in Austria, the Jews lost much of their previous power and their separate system of governance. There were also restrictions on where Jews could settle. Under Russian rule, Jewry were largely kept under control at first but eventually the same problems erupted although in a far less violent or dramatic way. The so-called Pale of Settlement (i.e., the area where the vast majority of Jews could legally live) was largely in Ukraine and it was here that the highly exaggerated pogroms of the late nineteenth century would occur.

In both cases it should be noted that foreign rule was tolerated but it was not fully accepted. As soon as the empires began to crumble, Ukrainians were quick to declare independence. Even in the Hapsburg lands where, as explained earlier, there was greater cultural autonomy.

Multiculturalism failed in Poland-Lithuania, just as it did later on in Austria-Hungary and indeed has throughout history. The Polish case is especially interesting as it is often held up today as an example of a great multicultural state where the various disparate groups lived in peace and harmony. Reality, on the other hand, is much different, especially when it comes to the Ukrainian portions.

It is interesting to note the behaviour of the non-Jewish elites. Then, as now, they looked only at what would benefit themselves and completely cut any ties they had with the masses. The major difference between Polish Ukraine and the situation in the Occident today is that the elites were a foreign ethnie. Generally speaking, our (non-Jewish) elites are ethnically the same as the majority.

We can see similar connections today, again to the detriment of the majority. It is also interesting to note that multiculturalism failed for a people who today are its most prominent supporters: Jewry.

Another point to note is how there could be so much slaughter and violence between not only Ukrainians and Jews but Ukrainians and Poles. Both are Slavs, both are White, both are Christian. Advocates of multiracial states are incredibly short-sighted as they ignore the many incidences of intra-racial violence yet expect inter-racial societies to work out just fine.

[i]Crimea and the southern portions of Ukraine were at this time under control of the Turks and Tatars. The Russians eventually wrested these lands away from the Muslims in the 18th century.[ii]Paul Robert Magocsi, A History of Ukraine. University of Toronto Press, Toronto. 1996. Page 143

[iii]Dmytro Doroshenko, A Survey of Ukrainian History. Trident Press Limited. Winnipeg. 1975. Page 214

[iv]Adam Zamoyski, A History of Poland.  HarperPress, London. 2009. Page 94

[v]Ibid. 139

[vi]Gershon Hundert, “The Implications of Jewish Economic Activities for Christian-Jewish Relations in the Polish Commonwealth,” The Jews in Poland ed. By Chimen Abramsky, Maciej Jachimczyck and Anthony Polansky. Page 62

[vii]Paul Robert Magocsi, A History of Ukraine. University of Toronto Press, Toronto. 1996. Page 147

[viii]Dmytro Doroshenko. 216

[ix]Ibid. 221

[x]Ibid. 223

[xi]Ibid. 486

[xii]Paul Robert Magocsi. 293

[xiii]Doroshenko. 498

[xiv]Magocsi. 391

[xv]Ibid. 398

[xvi]Ibid. 394

Posted in Europe, History, Ukraine | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Danes Lead the Way?

Also posted at Identity Forum


Dannebrog falling from the sky during the battle of Lyndanisse, Christian August Lorentzen


Sweden has become rather notorious in right-wing circles of late. Their quest to become the progressive jewel in the crown of the EU has led them to become a joke in the eyes of many, with the ‘Captain Sweden and ‘Sweden Yes’ memes being good examples. It is a shame that a country which could produce men like Gustav II Adolf could become a nation ruled by people who become upset when they realise they can only play host to so many Somali and Arab migrants. Sweden is much like Canada or Germany in this regard. Although, in all fairness, the dynamics are quite different. Germany is in a stranglehold, supposedly indebted, endlessly apologetic, and crumbling under the weight of the greatest guilt complex in Europe. Canada, meanwhile, anxious to atone for its own colonial origins, finds solace in PR campaigns designed to promote itself as niceness and humility incarnate. Indeed, Justin Trudeau, a man with maple syrup for blood, makes the job a fair bit easier. Sweden carries a much lighter load. Pure as its own driven snow, this is a nation at the bottom of the list for finger pointers, and yet it insists on outdoing everyone else in the competition of self-destructive tolerance.

In Norway, another nation subject to only a small measure historical grievances, constitutional monarch Harald V recently decided to (perhaps, under duress) declare his support for the usual policies of multiculturalism, endless mass immigration, feminism, LGBT pandering, so on and so forth.

However, not everything is so bleak in Scandinavia, as Sweden’s historical rival and Norway’s former master, Denmark, appear to have taken some positive steps forward.

Unlike her Norwegian counterpart, Queen Margrethe of Denmark has made attempts to stand against the tide with an air of skepticism. Among other comments, she has stated that not all immigrants are capable of integration, that attitudes regarding integration had been naive, and that merely living in Denmark does not make one a Dane. Despite the factual nature of these of statements, such views are nonetheless considered radical in the current political-cultural climate. And now, this past week, the Danish parliament has done something that neighbouring nations would consider blasphemous. The Folketing (Denmark’s unicameral parliament) has just passed a resolution against the prospect of Danes becoming minorities in their own neighbourhoods.


Proposal to adopt

The Parliament notes with concern that today there are areas in Denmark, where the proportion of immigrants and descendants from non-Western countries is over 50 per cent. The Folketing believes that Danes should not become a minority in their neighbourhoods.

The government and parliament have implemented a number of austerity measures that have limited asylum flows significantly, and which prevents parallel societies.

Parliament calls on the government to proceed with a political objective to reduce the number of asylum seekers and the number of family reunification, coming to Denmark.

Adopted 55 votes for the proposal (DF, V, LA, KF) 54 votes against the proposal (S, EL, ALT, RV, SF) 0 votes either for or against the proposal.

Denmark, much like Sweden and its other neighbours, has borne the brunt of the failed multiracial and multicultural project. Back in 2010, over half of all rape convictions in the country were handed to individuals of foreign origin (immigrants or the descendants of), with Iraqis, Iranians, Turks and Somalis represented in high numbers. Denmark has also claimed a podium alongside Sweden as one of Europe’s top rape capitals. A recent Copenhagen police report show that out of 2,633 criminals who went before a judge, 2,049 were foreign (roughly four-fifths). Another 2016 report indicates that where welfare is concerned, 84% of all claimants were reported to be migrants of “non-Western origin”, representing around 8% of the population and claiming one-third of all benefits).

This recent declaration, of course, should be seen as rather mundane. That is, something to be expected. However, given our current situation, such a resolution becomes radical. We are told that there are no differences between native and foreigner and that anyone can be a Dane, a German, or a European in general, regardless of one’s racial, cultural and religious backgrounds. Humanity is just one mass of fungible elements. Indeed, this resolution has proven controversial with leftists and liberals in Denmark who detest the thought of a distinction being made between those whose ancestors have been in Denmark for thousands of years and recent arrivals from half a world away.

The word ‘nation’ comes from the Latin, meaning “… birth, origin; breed, stock, kind, species; race of people, tribe…”, and it is high time we remembered this definition. There is much more in belong to a particular nation than legal status, language spoken, transient cultural and political attitudes, or a mere declaration of membership. By definition, the most unifying and obligatory of all factors is that of common ancestry. Of course, while blood inheritance is not an attribute that can be acquired, some outgroups may be able to adapt and operate with relative harmony depending on racial, cultural and religious backgrounds. However, this is not what our liberal-left overseers believe. It’s more than apparent that such truth evokes the worst of their hostilities, as such a thought threatens the very essence of their ideology. Many other ethnic groups receive respect and recognition as indigenous peoples, and such a status grants them a right to protect and conserve both themselves and their specific interests. Europeans, however, are not included under such a term.

One can only hope that Denmark, the same country that enraged both Muslims and Jews (not to mention terminally confused leftists) by banning Halal and Kosher slaughter, will succeed in many more pro-Danish endeavours. The Danes have made a small but vital step in the right direction. Perhaps they can serve as an example to the rest of us.

Posted in Denmark, Immigration | Tagged , , | Leave a comment


This past month I decided to see a film in theaters. I think the last time I did this was when I went to see Spectre. This time around I watched a far better film: Martin Scorsese’s Silence. I left the theater with much to contemplate and have been inspired by reviews from Counter Currents and E. Michael Jones to write this piece.

Some mainstream reviewers were critical of pacing and length but I do not fully agree. The movie did seem a little long and I feel would have been just as powerful if it had been cut down by maybe 10-20 minutes. For the most part, however, the pacing was fine. I certainly have no issues with the cinematography or writing. The acting, too, was mostly without fault. I still question the casting of Adam Driver but Andrew Garfield actually did a great job. I was skeptical at first of having him in this film but he pulled off his role.

Driver and Garfield play two 17th century Portuguese Jesuit priests (Francisco Garupe and Sebastião Rodrigues, respectively) who go to Japan in order to discover what happened to their mentor Cristóvão Ferreira (played by Liam Neeson). Ferreira had previously been sending secret reports concerning the persecution of Japanese Christians and his fellow Jesuits by the Japanese authorities.

This movie is in many ways quite a depressing one – although that hardly makes it a bad film, in fact I quite enjoyed it – and is not about reaffirming faith, Catholic or otherwise. I don’t think it is meant to be anti-Christian but unlike Johnson I wouldn’t call it pro-Christian either. I suppose it could be called Zen in that it just is. I don’t know much about Scorsese’s political beliefs but I don’t think this movie was meant to be overly political. Although his film The Last Temptation of Christ could be considered an anti-Christian movie (although Jones suggests this decision was largely done to get back in the graces of Hollywood which as everyone knows is overwhelmingly Jewish) I feel as if Scorsese is grappling with his true feelings towards Christianity and belief in general with Silence and ultimately goes for a heterodox spiritualist way of looking at belief and Christianity more specifically.

One wonders what a perennialist like Coomaraswamy or Eliade or Guénon would have thought of this film?

E. Michael Jones has a lot of interesting things to say concerning the context of the film and the novel it was based on. The novel was written by Shūsaku Endō, a Japanese Catholic and it was written in 1966, after Vatican II when the Church was facing a spiritual crisis and this impacted missionary work as well. As Jones states, “is there any logos here [outside the Occident]?…. is Christ basically a European phenomenon? Is he the White man’s god?” This is more or less what was going through the author’s mind when writing the novel. Was Scorsese thinking the same when making his film version?

An interesting question Silence brings up in relation to missionary work, is the issue of how missionaries view themselves. Rodrigues at one point looks at his reflection and sees instead an image of Christ and later when talking to Ferreira, Rodrigues is told of how the suffering of the converts is due to his greed and ambition. One wonders, then, to what extent many missionaries are truly doing their work for the correct spiritual reasons?

Although, arguably, Rodrigues seeing himself as Christ could be seen as Rodrigues failing to understand his true mission in Japan and thus questioning and undermining it. There are several parts where it does seem as if Rodrigues believes he has made a mistake in attempting to spread the faith and this could all be a divine test of Rodrigues’ faith. A test I believe Jones would say Rodrigues ultimately fails, as Jones believes the voice which compels Rodrigues to apostatize is not that of Christ but of Satan.

I am no expert on the Jesuit order but from what I hear they have had an impact on development of “liberation theology” and other progressive liberal dogmas dressed up as religion. Indeed, in this film they come across as liberal, one-world types whereas the Japanese are clearly nationalists. Most of the common folk have disdain for priests as much as the ruling samurai.

And going back to the questions Jones brought up concerning race and religion, in Silence we are witness to how the faith of the Japanese converts diverted markedly from mainstream Catholicism. For example, the character Kijichiro constantly blasphemes and commits acts of treachery towards his co-religionists but then asks for forgiveness. He doesn’t seem to understand how confession works or how to act as a Christian. One couple thinks baptism means that from there on out this life will be like the heavenly abode. Ferreira states many thought Jesus was actually the sun and that he dies and rises every day. Throughout the film some of the captions are not translated (kirishtian, paraiso) to show how converts weren’t fully able to grasp Christian concepts.

A great line which is uttered several times by Japanese characters is that not all seeds can be planted in all soils. Whether utopian, liberal minded people like it or not we are not all the same and it is ridiculous to think we can all be made to believe and act the same. Different people have differing faiths or when they do share the same religion, it is often differing conceptions of it. The faith is suited to fit the people who practice it. Foreign faiths and cultures only bring discord and dissent.

The review at Counter Currents concludes with this,

“From an Identitarian point of view, Silence is somewhat paradoxical. On the one hand, it is a story about the heroism and suffering of European Christians and their Japanese converts. And for all the film’s fair-mindedness toward the Japanese Inquisitor — itself a very white thing — Silence remains an essentially Christian film dedicated, at the end, to the greater glory of God. On the other hand, all my sympathies ultimately were with the Japanese, not because white is bad and non-white is good, but because their cunning and ruthless struggle against a colonizing universalism is the struggle of all white men today.”

Though the point about Silence being an ultimately Christian movie is debatable (Jones certainly thinks it isn’t) the rest is very true. No doubt Scorsese did not mean for this film to be taken from a pro-White angle as Johnson has done (and I am doing here) and would probably identify more with an anti-colonial, third wordlist angle if racial conflict were to have been an issue for him.

Earlier I stated that Silence is quite bleak, but it is also fulfilling in a way too, for if there is a positive message for those of us on the right it is how it affirms the fact that humanity is not one united, undifferentiated mass as mainstream films so often do. Whether Scorsese wanted it to or not, Silence justifies the struggle of all those who stand against internationalism.

Posted in Films/TV | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Justin Trudeau’s Two Best Friends: Aga Khan and Ahmed Hussen

Also published at the Council of European Canadians

Aga Kahn
Aga Kahn, or “The Magnificent Aga Kahn” as he self-identifies, or “His Highness” as Ismaili Muslims call him, is now close liaison and financial secret supporter of Justin’s mass immigration agenda

Recently at a town hall meeting in Calgary, our fearless leader, Mr. Current Year himself, was booed and met with hostile questions from the audience. Now granted this was in Calgary a city located in a province frequently condemned by the liberal elite in other provinces for supposedly being “far-right” and is often ridiculed for being filled with stupid, uneducated rednecks. Gosh I mean they are like Americans! Like oh my gaaawwd! However, Trudeau has been facing criticism from Canadians in general and even sympathetic sections more specifically.

He received some flak last spring after a strange incident in the House of Commons where he refused to let go of a Tory minister and pushed aside some NDP woman. Of course all the criticism was concerning the supposed pushing which was deemed sexist. However, a great many people came out in support of Trudeau and this incident was largely forgotten. But recently a whole new crop of controversies has sprung up to pester Trudeau. Then this past November Trudeau got himself in hot-water again when he praised recently deceased communist dictator Fidel Castro. That same month also saw criticism of Trudeau for his ties with wealthy Chinese.

Aga Khan

And now there is a new scandal. Apparently, this past Christmas holiday, Trudeau flew on a private jet to the Aga Khan’s — religious leader of the Ismail’i sect of Shia Islam — personal island in the Caribbean. This is scandalous as

  1. he received a free gift (in this case a vacation) from the founder and a director of an organization that is a federally registered lobbyist — as the Aga Khan is more than just a religious leader, he also has extensive charity and business interests and
  2. it is illegal for a minister to fly in a private aircraft. He is now under investigation by the ethics commissioner.

But one recent event I’m not seeing much criticism of is Trudeau’s cabinet shake-up. Well, some perhaps are questioning why he is making a woman who is blacklisted from visiting Russia as foreign minister; a woman who arguably isn’t emotionally stable and who also has a history of dubious trips abroad.

Ahmed Hussen

But we won’t see Trudeau getting attacked for his new Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. The new immigration minister is one Ahmed Hussen, a Somali refugee. Evidently, Hussen previously worked to push unwanted refugees on inhabitants of Toronto before becoming an MP. According to one Ben Cohen, Hussen has also worked to tackle extremism in Islamic community, but of course one wonders why bother importing people who have such predilection for extremism? Especially when second and third generations are more likely to become radicalised.

Ahmed Hussen
As Statistics Canada announces the country will be majority non-White before 2040, Justin Trudeau selects a Somali to advance the process and bring as many Africans as possible to replace Eurocanadians.

Now granted immigration is already bad and the previous minister of immigration was hardly competent despite being of founding stock. Given Trudeau’s support for mass migration and multiculturalism it is hardly as if Hussen will be going against the grain here; no doubt his views and Trudeau’s are the same so not as if he will go rouge here. However, Hussen is a symbol. He is supposed to show that Muslims, and more specifically Somalis, are just like us when in fact this is not so. It’s already well known how violent and uncompromising Islam is (though even if it weren’t we shouldn’t need to import Muslims, there is no reason to bring in masses of people so culturally different from founding peoples), but Somalis are particularly problematic. Somalis have a problem with gang violence and rape. Oh, and the women are complacent in Somali’s actual rape culture.

Well I suppose there has been criticism of Trudeau over his immigration policy from the mainstream, but it is that he isn’t doing enough! Although maybe that will be changing now that Trudeau is desperately signalling against Trump. Prior to Trump’s brilliant banning of “refugees” from Syria and travel restrictions from a series of countries well known as producers of violent Islamism, Canada was set to take in 300,000 immigrants (including 40,000 “refugees”). That number was no doubt always meant to be increased but now it certainly will be. Fun fact, Somalia is one of those seven countries Trump’s new executive order impacts.

Few if any journalists, politicians and others in the public eye seem too concerned with this development or news that by 2036 half of the population will likely be immigrants or children of immigrants if current immigration levels continue. And of course immigrants in this case overwhelmingly refers to Asians and Africans. Indeed, many are reveling in the fact that if current trends continue Euro-Canadians will be a minority in their own homeland. They know but simply don’t care that no one wanted multiculturalism or mass non-White immigration.

Hussen is a symbol of a new Canada that is primarily non-White and which our elites are so desperate to create to the detriment of the nation. It is also symbolic that Hussen was placed in this role, but then again perhaps it is positive that he is new immigration minister. It will show to the masses how immigration minister is not a gatekeeper, which of course, sadly, they haven’t been in a while.

Posted in Canada, Immigration, Politics | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Political Violence For Me But Not For Thee

On Friday the 20th Trump was sworn in as President of the United States and almost immediately we saw a return to political violence from the anti-Trump faction. Nothing new here they did this back in November when he won the election. In this most recent act of political violence more than 200 were arrested after starting fires, attacking private property (interestingly enough of companies and banks that had given money to Trump’s opponents! Hah way to bite the hand that feeds!) and insulted Trump supporters,

Families from flyover country were greeted to the nation’s capital with chants of “No Trump, no KKK, no fascist USA.” When short of breath, protestors opted for the more succinct, “Fuck Trump!” One activist even decided to lecture a young Republican, screaming “don’t grow up and grab women by the pussies!” before his father covered his ears.

Trump supporters were also attacked and indeed so too were members of the media! Again way to bite the hand that feeds! One of the victims of leftist violence was Richard Spencer. Attack on Spencer was a dirty move; the idiot caught Spencer off guard and immediately ran away after hitting him. Of course, this is justified by left. Riots also occurred at the University of Washington against Milo Yiannopoulos who is not in any way a nationalist let alone a “nazi.” The violence that erupted here included a shooting by a 50-year-old Asian male. Milo’s friends at the Deploraball were also attacked and harassed and again these people are hardly far-right. Same goes for the average Trump supporter at the inauguration.

Many on twitter – such as media personality Patton Oswalt – came out in support of political violence such as the attack on Spencer because it is against “nazis.” Still others have claimed they are against all forms of violence but that Spencer and even Trump and other tepid civic nationalists have it coming. Many were vindicating support for attack on Spencer by referencing WWII propaganda featuring Captain America and other superheroes beating up Germans. First off, that is hardly compelling evidence in their favour and secondly, given how wide a term “nazi” is to them fighting “nazis” cannot be called an American tradition. What is a “nazi” to these people? Richard Spencer certainly isn’t one. Being White Nationalist doesn’t mean being a national socialist necessarily; let alone a Hitlerite.

I have seen and heard libertarians and even bloody neocons called “nazis” and Bush, Romney and Harper were all compared to Hitler back when they were relevant. If you don’t share leftist views on gender or sexuality you are a “nazi” if you don’t share their political programme you are a “nazi” and if you are in any way pro-White, even implicitly than you are a “nazi.” And of course libertarianism and conservativism are implicitly White given that they grew out of the European political tradition and unlike other political theories have never until now cared about promoting third worldism or the like. The term has been so overused that is it meaningless now.

Essentially all they want is to use political violence for their own gain. Labeling their opponents as “nazis” is just a way of justifying to themselves the use of violence.


Richard Spencer moments before being sucker punched by cowardly tool. Notice the sign behind him. The left hates Whites


Left has always used violence or intimidation of some kind to get its way, going all the way back to the Jacobins and as it happens the left today is more violent than the right. This political violence is especially prominent in European countries like Sweden where ANTIFA and other such organizations have been far and away more extreme than their North American counterparts. And of course egalitarianism has lead to the most destructive and violent movement on earth: communism.

Funny how the left loves to talk of peace, love, tolerance, etc., given how more violent it is. It is especially humorous from mainstream moderate left which constantly moans about how rightists’ critiques and condemnations of their various pet insanities (transgenderism, open borders, et al.) are verbal acts of violence; only to pretend to be real hardcore when it comes to being part of some resistance to Trump. Hateful Heretic was right: they really do base their entire lives off of Hollywood. Well that and children’s books which are treated as great works of literature by mostly effete and infantilised liberals. I suppose they really are just big children. They act tough when they know there is some great paternal power behind them and cry and play the victim when they don’t get their way.

There is a silver lining to what has happened and no doubt will only continue to occur. I think most regular people will look upon anti-Trump violence and hysteria with disdain. Especially as the left continues to spiral out of control with its ideology and become ever more insane and ever more openly anti-White. Libertarians, conservatives, mainstream Trump supporters and others who formerly never bothered about race will be forced to come to terms with it and either continue to cuck to the left to the point of just joining them, or stand for their own people and fight against their displacement and replacement. In the end the left will be its own worst enemy.

Posted in Cultural Struggle, Politics, United States | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment