Tuesday, September 12, 2017

The Enemy Population

Forced displacement or forced immigration is the coerced movement of a person or persons away from their home or home region and it often connotes violent coercion….Some migrants are impelled to cross national borders by war or persecution, due to political, social, ethnic, religious reasons.

Deportation is the expulsion of a person or group of people from a place or country….Definitions of deportation apply equally to nationals and foreigners….Deportation is the removal of an alien out of the country, simply because his presence is deemed inconsistent with the public welfare…

Population transfer or resettlement is the movement of a large group of people from one region to another, often a form of forced migration imposed by state policy or international authority and most frequently on the basis of ethnicity or religion but also due to economic development.

Events such as these have occurred innumerable times over the course of recorded history.  Perhaps the largest in number (and, curiously, least available to the conscious of most people outside of the regions in which this took place) is the expulsions of Germans after World War II, with as many as 14 million forced from various countries in Eastern Europe to Germany.

A fifth column is any group of people who undermine a larger group from within, usually in favor of an enemy group or nation.

How do you define the word “group”?  Who should be considered part of this “group”?  What to do with such a “group”? 

Genocide is intentional action to destroy a people (usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group) in whole or in part. (Emphasis added.)

Well…I guess this is one possible course of action.

McMeekin devotes a chapter to the situation in Eastern Anatolia, where the Ottoman Empire met Russia.  It is a chapter devoted to Russia’s relationship with the Armenians who lived in this region, and Russia’s role in the eventual fate of these same Armenians.

Most scholars refer to this event as genocide – a deliberate and conscious action to destroy a people, in whole or in part, in this case perpetrated by the Ottoman government.  I have written about this event once before – what is known as the Armenian Genocide.  This post was written about two-and-a-half- years ago, on the occasion of the 100th commemoration anniversary.  If you are not familiar with the event, it might be worth a read.

I guess it might be relevant to note here that the author of this book, Sean McMeekin, was – at the time the book was published – an assistant professor at Bilkent University located in Ankara, Turkey.  Why is this relevant? 

Article 301 is an article of the Turkish Penal Code making it illegal to insult Turkey, the Turkish nation, or Turkish government institutions.

The law has been used many times to charge those who speak of the Armenian Genocide.  To note: there are a few countries where denial of the Armenian Genocide is illegal. 

History, perhaps even more than science, is never settled.  All I can say – to both the Turkish law and these other laws: truth doesn’t need a law to promote or defend it.  I say the same regarding all similar laws (yes, also that one) designed to protect someone’s version of history.  It strikes me that the more prevalent the number of such laws on any issue, the more concerned one should be about the truth of the protected narrative.

Keeping the author’s sensitive position in mind, let’s begin.

In the case war breaks out [between Russia and Turkey], the Armenians and Assyrian Christians may be of great help to us.

-        S.D. Sazonov, Russia Foreign Minister, August 1914

Until the latter part of the nineteenth century, the Armenian minority in the Ottoman Empire – like other minorities in the empire – lived in relative harmony with the majority population.  The relationship dated back centuries – perhaps for as long as it had been since Turks overran Byzantium.

One reason for this relative harmony was the allowance for each minority to hold to its own customary law:

In the Ottoman Empire, a millet was a separate court of law pertaining to "personal law" under which a confessional community (a group abiding by the laws of Muslim Sharia, Christian Canon law, or Jewish Halakha) was allowed to rule itself under its own laws.

A system was also in place to deal with the situation where the crime involved parties from different millets:

When a member of one millet committed a crime against a member of another, the law of the injured party applied, but the ruling Islamic majority being paramount, any dispute involving a Muslim fell under their sharia−based law.

As a minority, it is difficult to ask for much more; if the minorities demanded to be treated equally under the law, all cases would be decided under sharia law – probably not an improvement for the various Christians and Jews in the empire.

This system minimized, but didn’t eliminate (given the ultimate preference offered to Muslims), the risk raised by Mises – the issue where a minority could do nothing about laws passed in favor of the majority.

Returning to McMeekin, the relationship between the Armenian minority and the Muslim majority began to change toward the end of the nineteenth century for many of the same reasons that political tensions were increasing throughout much of Europe during the same time: social upheaval and even revolution:

There were many causes for the upsurge in tensions, from the general decline in Ottoman authority and prestige over the past century to the organization of Armenian revolutionary groups like the Dashnaktsutyun (or “Dashnaks”), and the Hunchakian Revolutionary Party (the Hunchaks”).

These parties were inspired by the spread of Social Democratic parties throughout Europe.  Like many of the sources of agitation that precipitated the coming calamity for local Armenians, these groups were founded outside of Ottoman territory: the Dashnaks in Tiflis, then part of the Russian Empire; the Hunchaks in Geneva, Switzerland.  These external parties soon began their agitation within Anatolia.

From this point, the relationship of the minority Armenians with the Ottoman government begins to degrade.  Sultan Abdul Hamid II raised an irregular militia of Kurdish tribesmen, the notorious “Hamidiye” regimen, in 1891.

In 1894, in Sassun province in the far eastern part of Ottoman territory, violence erupted between the Armenian residents and Turkish troops aided by the Hamidiye irregulars.  It was reported that 265 Armenians were killed.  An Ottoman commission of inquiry was established; western powers (British, French, and Russian) voiced their indignation of Ottoman governance.

These western powers demanded reforms for the six “Armenian” provinces in the east.  The violent clashes escalated, culminating – at least at this point – with Armenian revolutionaries seizing the Imperial Ottoman Bank in Istanbul, in August 1896.  They threatened to blow up the bank if reforms for the six eastern provinces were not granted and Armenian political prisoners were not freed.

Apparently many knew that the bank seizure was coming: in its wake, Muslim mobs were well prepared to beat up Armenians; Armenians fleeing the city anticipating that this was coming.

Altogether, the Ottoman reprisals – both organized and spontaneous – were overwhelming, and carried out throughout Turkey: official estimates of something more than 13,000 Armenians killed; contemporary European estimates range up to 80,000.

It is a good moment to reflect: the violent act by a handful of individuals resulted in the deaths of tens-of-thousands of others who happened to be of the same minority.  This will be a pattern throughout the rest of this history, and a point more important than any Russian role in this tragedy.

Further reform initiatives were passed by western governments, most notably the Armenian reform package devised in 1912 – 1914.  While approved by several western powers (not Germany), the plan was devised by André Mandelstam, the dragoman at the Russian Embassy in Istanbul.  It was signed by Russia and Grand Vezir Said Halim Pasha of the Ottoman Empire in February, 1914.  It was abolished in December, after Turkey’s entrance into the war.

Yet, events aren’t so cut and dried: seventy anti-Russian activists, most of these Armenian, were taking refuge in the Ottoman consulate in Tabriz – a city in Persian Azerbaijan; many Armenians remained suspicious of Tsarist intentions; Armenian forces joined Turkish troops in pursuit of Kurdish chieftains. 

Russians courted both Kurdish chieftains and Armenian revolutionaries; Kurdish depredations led to Armenian demands for Russian protection, as they were not receiving protection from their own Ottoman government; the Ottoman government supplied weapons to anti-Russian Dashnaks.

What a mess.  It would obviously be of benefit to the Russians for there to be turmoil in the border regions of Turkey; that there would be turmoil was a certainty by this point.  Yet, even now, the primary enemy for many Armenians in this region was the Kurdish tribes.  This was true in the city of Van.

It was also true in Bitlis.  The Kurds called for an uprising against the Turks; they vowed not to harm the Christians.  Yet, the Armenians in the region, having lived through recent violence at the hands of the Kurds, asked the government for weapons to defend themselves.  The weapons were denied.

Helpless, many Armenians took refuge in the local Russian consulate, as did the Kurdish chieftain who called for the uprising!  He stayed in the consulate for six months, still there when the Turks entered the war in November.

While the Russian harboring of the Kurd leader was troubling, many Armenians in the region were now convinced that the Turks were not going to provide any protection.  This drove many to look to Russia for support. 

In the meantime, many local Armenian organizations encouraged Armenians not to run into the arms of Russia; this feeling was not held by Armenians in the diaspora – who were able to influence western governments to put even more pressure on the Turks who then considered the Armenians in Turkey even more of a threat.

By 1914, there were sufficient Armenian revolutionaries in the region that weapons smuggling was supported and encouraged by the Russians.  Many Armenians (mostly Ottoman army deserters) crossed the frontier into Russia (aided by Dashnak guerillas, who were familiar with the passes through the mountains), ready to take up arms alongside their Armenian brethren who lived on the Russian side of the border. 

The Russian Foreign Ministry estimated that up to 200,000 Armenians crossed the border – although most of these crossed, looking for safety, after the deportations and genocidal acts began in April 1915.

Enough Armenians volunteered that the Russians were unable to arm them all.  The local Russian command asked for an extra 25,000 rifles and 12 million rounds of ammunition to arm Armenian guerillas.

Nikolai Yudenich, Chief of Staff of the Russian Caucasus Army, composed a memorandum in August 1914: “On the Arming of Ottoman Armenians.” He foresaw the brutalizing of Ottoman Armenians, whether Russia or Turkey was victorious in the war.  He saw the war as the opportunity for the Turks “to carry out their cherished goal of annihilating the Armenians.”

I will bring this story to a close: the Turks entered the war; they suffered a tremendous defeat in the Battle of Sarikamish (December 1914 – January 1915), due in large part to being unprepared for the winter.  Battle lines went back and forth, with Armenians stuck in the middle.

And in this environment, the Turks began the systematic deportations.  Village by village, the adult males were executed; women and children sent to march in the desert, with many dying along the way.  This occurred not just in the war zones, but throughout Turkey – in regions nowhere near the front.

The Turkish government treated all Armenians as enemy – an enemy population, defined by religion and nationality.  Estimates for the Armenian deaths range from 800,000 to 1.5 million.  This due to the actions – many of which were defensive in nature – of a relatively insignificant minority of the Armenian population.


This chapter of McMeekin’s book requires one to come face-to-face with the issue: an enemy population, with all guilty because of the actions of a few. 

I understand that thinking about individuals as part of a group is not always insidious, and certainly does not automatically lead to genocide; yet, without thinking of individuals as part of a group, it is difficult to see how ones gets started down the road to genocide.  Let’s call it necessary but not sufficient.

An enemy population.  How one feels about this idea says much about their worldview and their politics and – dare I say it – their religion.


  1. "I understand that thinking about individuals as part of a group is not always insidious, and certainly does not automatically lead to genocide; yet, without thinking of individuals as part of a group, it is difficult to see how ones gets started down the road to genocide. Let’s call it necessary but not sufficient."

    Iron-clad logic, this.

    I continue to return to the notion that, while it is evidently true that many (most?) people think of people, including themselves, as (primarily) members of "groups"...I do not believe it to be consistent with New Testament, Christian, living.

    Understanding that people do it, though, does have utility when attempting to understand the world, and how best to live peaceably alongside them. But it doesn't make how "they" think right. We are called, individually, to work out our own salvation here on earth. We are exhorted to voluntarily assemble ourselves (after such calling) into the Body of Christ. We are ALL equally fallen, before God. There is no Jew, no Gentile, no Greek, no Barbarian.

    We are, indeed, called to come out and be separate, but that is from the world (non-believers), not from other "races".

    1. Jew or God-fearing vs. Gentile: Old Testament, post-Exodus
      The Elect or saved vs. The Lost or unsaved: New Testament.

      Also see: sheep, goats, the Church, wheat, tares, etc.

      God's Final judgement is individual. God's temporal judgements are borh individual and natinal/group and universal.

    2. This inhuman evil acts by the Muslims against the Christians in Turkey and Syria is unique in its savagery. Of course, you will have a knee jerk response: what how about the Nazis treatments of the Jews? I can go in long explanations to illustrate the Armenian Christian Holocaust was more savage than the Jewish one, but, it does not matter. Both were savages. Except in the case of the Muslims, it was simply Muslim citizens rather than government was organically committing the program, as the Nazi Germany the concentration camps were sponsored by the state. My father remembered the Armenian Holocaust vivedly as a child. He said a week in advance the Muslim gangs came to his village in northern Syria, and painted a Red Cross on his home front door. Of course no one knew that neighbors were going to kill neighbors because they have different religion. That dormant hate against infidel is well coded in every Friday prayer. So, my father remember as a 3 years old along with 5 other siblings as old as teenagers watching their parents being beheaded and running out in the street. They walked from Aleppo to Cairo Egypt, a 1400 kilometer distance. No money no supply just run for your lives kids! The German government knows that many exaggerations and lies are part of our current history of the Nazis crimes, however, they APOLOGIZED AND COMPENSATED THE VICTIMS. On the contrary, Turkey never had the moral integrity to face up to the crimes of its people.

    3. gr, a tragic story for your family personally.

      "Except in the case of the Muslims, it was simply Muslim citizens rather than government was organically committing the program..."

      I believe there is documented evidence that certain orders were issued by the CUP; when it comes to the average Muslim having a free hand, however, I agree with you - the government turned a blind eye (no "orders" necessary) and there was loot to be had for the taking.

  2. Two things that will never go away
    1. Friend-Enemy distinctions
    2. Population Groups

    It is very easy to arrive at the concept of an enemy population, and even easier when you have to share territory and political organization with them.

    This is not a moral issue though obviously you can make moral judgments on specific actions and what not. Carl Schmitt defines enemies not by enmity or morality but by the possibility of serious existential conflict. In the Schmittian sense you can even like your enemy, hell you can even believe his position to be morally superior to yours (very rare), but none of this changes the fact that when your enemy pursues his interests it makes you worse off.

    As for "thinking about people in terms of groups." It's revealing that you are referring to the ones doing the genocide and not the ones being genocided. Imagine telling an Armenian at the time, "there are no Turks and Armenians but only one race, the human race." Obviously absurd but that's what we are dealing with among Europeans.

    If thinking about people in terms of groups is a necessary condition for genocide, is not denying you belong to a group under attack an assurance that you will be genocided?

    1. “This is not a moral issue though obviously you can make moral judgments on specific actions and what not.”

      Absent “specific actions,” nothing is a moral issue.

      “Imagine telling an Armenian at the time, "there are no Turks and Armenians but only one race, the human race." Obviously absurd but that's what we are dealing with among Europeans.”

      Europeans = majority

      Armenians = minority

      These are not equivalent.

    2. "Europeans = majority

      Armenians = minority

      These are not equivalent"

      Why is that an important distinction? Majority today, minority tomorrow. Majority within a certain geographical area, tiny minority in the global context.

  3. Couple of points

    Clarification re morality: my point was simply that enemy status is not determined by morality but by the possibility of existential threat. You could behave immorally but still be correct that you are dealing with an enemy.

    As for there being no equivalent between Amernians and Europeans, well there will be at some point in the 21st century when birth rates and immigration make Europeans minorities in Europe (we are already a global minority). This is already the case in entire neighborhoods in Europe (no go zones) and nearly entire cities in America (Detroit, Baltimore). In South Africa the Boers are currently being genocided. Can we compare Boers to Armenians?

    If the Boers fail to see themselves as a distinct group does this not assure their genocide?

    For the question of "enemy populations" minority/majority status is less important than enemy status. In America the Amish are a minority but they aren't a threat. Blacks are 10% of the population but commit more than 50% of the murders.

    In Rotherham England the Arabs and Pakis are less than 20% but they have enough people in the courts, police, and city gov to cover up the rape of over 1200 white British girls. This is going on all throughout England in similarly infected areas. Estimates of total rapes by "Asian" foreigners is around half a million for the last ten or so years.

    This is an example of an *enemy population* that is currently a minority (expected to change) in the country as a whole, but you don't want to be the working class father living near a neighborhood with these "people" as the majority, just like you don't want to live in a majority-minority city in America.

    There is no rule that says the majority can't be victims of a minority enemy population. Sometimes minorities gain control of the State and kill everyone. Ask Solzhenitsyn.

  4. All

    I really struggled with publishing this post on an enemy population immediately after my statement about staying away from the discussion of culture. I sat on it for a day or two while considering this. I knew that this post would make discussion of this topic unavoidable.

    At the same time, I knew I wanted to focus on my books, and…fortunately or unfortunately…this happened to be the next topic in the book that raised my interest. The story of the Armenian Genocide is reasonably well-known to any moderately awake individual in the west. Yet, I felt, the relationship of Russian actions to this episode was not. Hence, it was worth exploration.

    Matt: UC compared the Europeans to the Armenians, I did not. UC looks at the blindness of Europeans today and suggests something similar regarding the Armenians of 100 years ago, I did not.

    Europeans are committing suicide; inherently this is a self-inflicted act. Armenians were murdered; inherently this is not. Europeans, if one wants to think in group terms, have themselves to blame. Armenians do not.

    A handful of Armenians take a bank hostage – for this somewhere between 13,000 and 80,000 Armenians are murdered. On what planet is this comparable to what Europeans have done and are doing to themselves?

    UC: I greatly appreciate your concept of autistic libertarians; it paints the picture precisely. Those who cite “it’s the jooz, it’s the jooz, it’s the jooz” for every wrong to be found in the west are inflicted with a similar handicap, equally intellectually blind.

    If you must label perpetrators in a group, as you insist: considering the specific individuals who took specific actions that have brought on the culture destroying actions and events in the west, almost all of these were and are white, Anglo-Saxon males. They have destroyed their own culture, and continue to allow it to be destroyed both passively and actively.

    The west is committing suicide. Barzun cites the event with the beginning of the Great War; some can consider the Reformation and Renaissance as the death blows. In any case, all of these events were driven by, primarily, white males.

    Does this mean I hate whitey? Given all of the writing I have done here regarding the value I place in Western civilization, one would have to be willfully blind to think so. Does this mean I want a whites-only west? Only people who have ignored what I have favorably written about naturally evolving cultures would think so, given how often I have written about this here.

    As I said before, maybe my writing isn’t so clear.

    In any case…

    My intent is to avoid further comment in this thread on these topics.

    Unfortunately, the books I am reading are not bland biographies of famous athletes; they involve history and war and political philosophy and the like. I think this topic of culture will come up even during this.

    1. BM, what yo are seeing the origins of what will become. An individual's action (Brevik), an arson of an empty (for now) immigrant center, it will escalate. The immigrant are not changing their customs nor religion, and demand their customs have equal footing with their hosts' laws.

      Those immigrants are an enemy. They do not intend to change their cultural norms. They seek and demand welfare from their inferior host.

      There will be war.

    2. Mr. M.,

      "I think this topic of culture will come up even during this."

      ...and for this, I am very grateful. I was, I must admit, saddened to hear (read) you say (write) that you were going to veer away from the topic for a while. You and I are attached, it seems, at the hip in this particular intellectual journey, and I was going to miss my seat-mate. All aboard!

    3. Turks are a hornet's nest. Armenian revolutionaries are naïve. It's racial.

    4. BM,

      I will respect your decision to shelf this topic. However, I must give a final response to your reply for the record. I will do my best to keep it succinct.

      I can't help but feel your inclination to place the blame for Europe's decline on internal (suicide) rather than external (murder) forces is a way of avoiding recognition of enemy populations. I am not going to speculate as to your motives (that would be disrespectful) but I don't think I am being unfair when I say you are clearly uncomfortable with the idea and would prefer it wasn't the case.

      The fact is we don't get to chose our enemies. They are chosen by fate, circumstance, and the great wheel of History. Failure to recognize an enemy for what he is means certain defeat. The dynamics of ethnic conflict are not pretty but they repeat themselves time and again.

      It is interesting that you mentioned the name of the enemy when I did not. I would wager you know where this boxcar is going and wanted to head it off.

      Ultimately I agree that the causes of Western decline are internal. I subscribe to a Spenglerian view of History in which cultural decline is part of the life cycle of the organism, but in the life of High Cultures this process takes quite some time. I also agree that the first European Holocaust (WW1) was the nadir of the West, but disagree that the blame can be placed entirely on European leaders (debate for another time).

      IMO it is percisely because of the organic decline of the West that it was made weak to the enemy culture distorters. They used money to buy their way into key positions and after the Second War they emerged in total control of the European occupation governments. They have been solidifying this control ever since and in doing so are making our total extinction all the more possible.

      Of course the enemy is small in number and could not succeed without traitors helping them along, and oh how deep the treason runs. Merkel does not control Germany, she is the lapdog of the enemy.

      From the perspective of survival the question of suicide or murder is ultimately irrelevant because any attempt for European Renewal will be met with the full force of the enemy. When we regain our will to fight all illusions will be shattered; friend and foe will be made clear and the wheel of history will turn again.

      "Was mich nicht umbringt, mach mich stärker"- Nietzsche

    5. You have identified often enough who is in your boxcar; must you really pretend that I dreamt this up? We have come too far to play games.

      “…a way of avoiding recognition of enemy populations.”

      Be specific: is it ALL jooz? Yes or no. Is it ONLY jooz? Yes or no. Thereafter, tell me all about your enemy population.

      “I am not going to speculate as to your motives…”

      My motives are nothing more than simple logic. Just answer the questions in a way that makes clear that there is an objectively identifiable “enemy population” (by nationality, religion, skin color, tribal affiliation, whatever) as opposed to individual actors united in similar beliefs and pulling in a similar direction.

      It is both ALL jooz and ONLY jooz, else you fail. Every single joo in the world, and no one not a joo. This is your view of the enemy, if it is "an enemy population."

      Put up.

    6. if you do not like parts or all do not post it.

Sorry Mr. Bionic this is for my Unhappy neo nazi boys:

      There are plenty of crackpot anti-Zionists who are deeply anti-Semitic. They are usually on the Right, although Social Credit Lefties sometimes are anti-Semitic, because of the banking issue. They warn against the IJBC: the International Jewish Banking Conspiracy. This anti-Semitism goes back to the American Populist movement.
      This one is just anti-Zionist.


      On the fringes of the Right wing in America there is a very special movement. It is crackpot to the core. It believes that the Jews are behind everything bad. Even worse, the Jews are making a potful of money doing it. This really annoys them.
      Not all Jews, of course. Not the guy who runs the local deli, who makes the terrific corned beef sandwiches. He's merely a circumcised dupe. It's the other kind. The secret ones. The cartel. The Power behind the powers.

      There are approximately 20 million people in the United States who devoutly believe that there is a very real possibility that they will not die. Their belief rests entirely on the existence of the State of Israel. This is why they regard current affairs in the Middle East as a life-and-no-death matter.


      Vocal support of a pro-Israel American foreign policy is basic for the leaders of American Protestant fundamentalism. This has been true ever since 1948.

      People may ask themselves, "Why this support?" Fundamentalists earlier in this century were sometimes associated with anti-Semitism.


      Fundamentalists actively support the State of Israel, despite their belief that by doing so, they are helping to lure millions of Jews into a horrible death: "Holocaust II." They do so for a reason: they expect to escape death personally. This is a powerful incentive.


      2 worst monsters in the german history where: Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.


    7. Max,

      The reason why some Christians support the heresy of Christian Zionism is that they have been poisoned by the Scofield Bible.

    8. BM,

      I applaud you for being so direct with UC.

      I am usually quite content lurking here to enjoy your posts and the ensuing discussions. But I can't let this go without comment.

      I'm quite surprised, and even more disappointed, by the utter lack of support for you in regards to your calling out of UC. There even seems to be a bit of support for UC in this matter.

      To all,

      UC is an unapologetic facist, advocating for a "total state" at a libertarian's blog. The fact that he has been commenting at this site for so long without condemnation is testament to BM's openness to discussion with all. It is also testament to UC's craftiness (he speaks of his politics very infrequently and when he does it's dispassionately.)

      When one considers the position of facists in the world today (an extremely small group with very grand aspirations,) it becomes plain very quickly that recruitment must be of the utmost importance. This importance is amplified by the fact of a limited pool from which to recruit.

      Tom Woods and Lew Rockwell talked recently on Wood's podcast. One of the topics covered was the alleged "pipeline from libertarianism to facism." They pointed out the obvious theoretical diametrics of the two politcal philosophies, but neglected to mention the reality of some shared views. Strong opposition to cultural marxism comes immediately to mind. Shared views will (for good reason) encourage attempts to recruit, wherever and whenever they are found.

      Go back to BM's post from August 28 titled: "Where is the Outrage?" In the comments you'll see that Josh1476 is either a recruit in the making, or a cohort creating a ruse in order to publish UC's email address to encourage private correspondence.

      Common culture doesn't necessarily rely upon a common race. And racial purity, in my estimation, stands absolutely zero chance in the long run. Extreme conservatism seeks to halt cultural evolution. Any serious attempt to do this must include making enemies of all other cultures.

      I wasn't expecting responses like this, but I'm still shocked that the only detectable supprort seems to be for UC.

    9. Jeff

      I truly appreciate this comment in many ways. I would like to elaborate (and even offer some thoughts about why this dialogue has continued for so long at this site), but - as you know and as I have mentioned often enough - I want to stay away from this general topic for a time.

      But, rest assured, this comment is meaningful to me. Thank you.

    10. Jeff Levesque

      Trust me when I say the current State of affairs (US) is fascist, and at every turn their power has been ruinous to my life. They destroyed my liver and kidneys with some of the most dangerous drugs ever given to children at the tender age of six bc I have "ADHD". The collusion between big business, the medical community, and big gov are immediately to blame. I could go on with more reasons but this one is enough for me to inherently hate true fascism.

      I can see why you thought I am a fascist in-the-making. I even asked myself if I am beginning to be a fascist. Maybe, it depends on your definition. I love peace and harmony and this is why libertarianism draws me, but the myriad of inconsistencies with the theory when applied to humans always leads my mind to the question"Who or what will be sovereign?" UC is right when he says "something" will be sovereign.
      Another way to put it is "might makes right".
      As battle lines are drawn around us, time seems to be slipping away for preparation or discussion and the time for action nigh. I don't have the answers but exploring new ideas like the dissidents that UC might show me might shed light on some things I didnt know or hadn't considered before.
      My people are being destroyed, the NAP for what it's worth has been violated at every turn, and I desire to defend all that I have left, what litte family, church, and tradition that still barely survives. New tools and weapons are needed, as the old ones lack punch.

    11. A few notes first:

      I was on the fence as to whether I should respond at all. I drafted a response and decided not to post it.

      However, your exchange with Matt has made me decide to give a final response and bow out altogether. If a further follow up to this is desired I will provide it, but otherwise this will be my final post for the time and perhaps for all time.

      I have very much enjoyed commenting here and have learned a lot from interacting with you and some of the other folks.

      It seems we have come full circle

      On to the post:

      To deny the existence of superpersonal forces is to deny politics altogether and dispense with a fundamental tool for understanding the world. Friend-Enemy relations in this context are not personal moral categories but *political* categories. The closest analogy being the natural world where different predators struggle with each other in a zero sum game for a food supply. Two species attempting to occupy the same niche are natural enemies. A parasite and a host are natural enemies.

      Your question about "all jews" strikes me as disingenuous but I will answer it anyways. All Jews are members of the jewish tribe. Not all members of the tribe are individual enemies but the tribe itself, when acting in a political capacity, is an enemy of Europe and of my people. This is a political fact. Jewish power can only increase at the expense of white power, Jewish interests can only be advanced in white counties at the expense of white interests.

      What libertarian would question the idea that America is currently the world enemy? Would you blame an Afghan for seeing us all as enemies? How about Israel which has threatened to nuke Europe? Would you rebuke a Palestinian for saying the jews are an enemy of their people and future? How about Iran? Is it "individuals" threatening Iran or is the conflict the result of the interests of a certain political body? The jewish occupation state could not be anything but enemies with Iran due to the organic necessity that follows from its form and purpose. This is a political fact.

      The Jews in America and Europe have formed a state within a state. I thought libertarians hated the state. How about the Jewish state within a state? Complete with enforcement organizations like the ADL and SPLC (and honestly the courts themselves).

      Jewish power is a political fact. Jewish power is enemy power.

      Can you give me one reason why Americans or Europeans should tolerate Jewish power in our countries? While you are at it name ONE Jewish organization that is critical of Jewish power and supportive of white interests.

      Jews will remain domestic enemies until they no longer have power in our countries and they will remain foreign enemies until they lose the capacity to nuke us.

      Failure to understand this and behave accordingly is irrational. But according to certain jewish strains of libertarian thinking western man should be egotist individualists and never think in terms of groups. Because surely that will make us stronger not weaker...

      "Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism [unless it's for the jews]"
      -Zionist hypocrite and libertarian hero Ayn Rand

    12. Jeff,

      I also appreciate your comment, it shows you have been paying attention.

      Two points though. My intentions were not "recruitment." I was only being polite to Josh (and as you pointed out I took a risk in doing so).

      There are other places and other people better suited to that end. However I can't tell you how many white nationalists I have met who are ex-libertarians (often ancaps). Do you know why this is Jeff?

      It's because your ideology is weak and doesn't address the political battle lines of our age. To say "we are just individuals, power is bad mmmmkay" is to lie down and die. If you don't know where the battle is you will lose every time.

      Finally, if you were bothered by people not challenging my arguments you could have done it yourself.

      You say we are small in number, well maybe so, but we are bigger than you. That's for damn sure.

    13. UC

      I have learned much from our exchange, and I thank you for this. I have also been clear that there is a road you travel upon which I will never travel. There is nothing full circle about this.

      “If a further follow up to this is desired I will provide it…”

      While I have some thoughts on your comments, it would be unfair to post these as I have no desire for further follow up.

      “…but otherwise this will be my final post for the time and perhaps for all time.”

      Thank you.

    14. UC, so I am clear: if you choose to comment again, I will post it - subject to my normal practice of expecting respectful dialogue.

    15. Josh

      I'm truly saddened any time I hear of injust suffering. And, I agree with your assessment of the US gov't.

      I also agree with your final sentence about the necessity of new tools. Facism is not in that category. With that said, I'd like to encourage you to resist the impulses and influences that may be pulling you in that direction.

    16. Josh

      “…leads my mind to the question "Who or what will be sovereign?" UC is right when he says "something" will be sovereign.”

      I don’t recall that UC has said this; maybe he has. I am certain that I have said it many times. I use it in reference to my support for custom and culture (or God, if you like) to be sovereign – something other than and above man, as was the case for an extended time in Middle Age Europe.

      “Another way to put it is "might makes right".”

      We know where this road leads. When hope is placed in a destructive philosophy, why hold on to hope? Talk about a pointless existence.

      “My people are being destroyed…New tools and weapons are needed, as the old ones lack punch.”

      Be careful which tools and weapons you embrace. Your “people" – the future generations you hope to protect – may not thank you very much.

    17. UC

      "My intentions were not "recruitment." I was only being polite to Josh"

      If you say this in earnest, then I will stand corrected. But, you cannot deny that recruitment may have been an unintended benifit (for you) or consequence (for those not in your group) of your presence here.

      "I can't tell you how many white nationalists I have met who are ex-libertarians (often ancaps). Do you know why this is Jeff?"

      On a Joe Rogan podcast I heard Bret Weinstein, an evolutionary biologist, who (even though he is a self-described progressive) is standing up, through an all out attack by the PC left. During the podcast he noted that through clinical research, it has been determined that some people react to viewing photos of people of different races with disgust, which is an involuntary reaction (unlike anger or hatred.).

      He identified the trait as a collective genetic survival mechanism. He did not expound much on the ramifications of this, and I cannot say whether or not this theory is correct, but I am going to use this as the base of my argument.

      This trait is obviously encoded in a recessive gene. It does not get passed with anywhere near the regularity as skin color. I don't think that that gene was passed to Derek Black.

      The gene pool is mixed. If the world was ever comprised of pure races, it is not anymore, and has not been for a long time. Without that racist gene, and with the genes for inquisitiveness and adventurousness, people will explore the world and forge new relationships with other people. In the long run racial purity stands no chance.

      This is not to say that I'm not for cultural purity. If someone wants to immerse themselves in another culture they damn well better assimilate. This, thanks to reading this blog, seems like common sense to me now.

      "It's because your ideology is weak and doesn't address the political battle lines of our age."

      I'm doing my best to not be an ideologue anymore.

      "To say "we are just individuals, power is bad mmmmkay" is to lie down and die."

      I've not said any such thing. At least not since a few months after I started reading this blog.

      "If you don't know where the battle is you will lose every time."

      The battle lines are many. BM drew an intellectual battle line with you. I stand on the side that you are not on.

      As far as physical battle lines, I'm watching the extremists at both ends of the bogus political spectrum and doing my best to avoid that confrontation altogether. (I say it's bogus because it's clear to me now that it's nothing more than two types of facism to choose from.) You guys can destroy each other. After that it will be up to the rest of us to try to pick up the pieces and move forward.

      "Finally, if you were bothered by people not challenging my arguments you could have done it yourself."

      BM had already done it. I was just disappointed that people were arguing your point, when BM had apparently stunned you.

      "You say we are small in number, well maybe so, but we are bigger than you. That's for damn sure."

      I'll meet your South Park reference with a Simpsons reference:


      I do respect your intellectual prowess. Your book knowledge is beyond what I hope to achieve in my lifetime. I also share your enthusiasm for King Crimson.

      However, I don't have the racist gene.

    18. Addendum:

      I've just had a thought about how the racist gene (again I'm basing this comment on it's validity) might be related to the concept of original sin.

      Jordan Peterson has outlined in his Bible lecture series that his interpretation of sin was anything that detracted from mankind's ability to flourish.

      If Peterson's interpretation is correct. This could fit the bill.

  5. I forgot.

    "Turkey controls 900 mosques in Germany and feels free to say that a "liberal mosque" in Germany is "incompatible" with Islam."

    Germany: The Rise Of Islam

    1. God help me, I hate to do this...

      Jaime, do you have an understanding of how frustrating it is for me to read these comments that have absolutely nothing with what I wrote above?

      In neither case are the circumstances due to a naturally evolving culture. In each case, these are driven primarily by state policy and force; their is nothing "natural" about these.

      Man, sometimes I want to scream.

    2. If a post went through prior to this one, delete it.

      At this stage it is state policy and force. But, the immigrant issue has been building for a long time and not due to the recent waves. At what point does it become an organic/natural problem? The Ottoman Empire, the Mongols, etc., did conquer lands occupied by small grouping of people. State actions, accommodations made, time elapsed, and something happens that strains that accommodations, then more conflict.

  6. participants of the wars and historians always trying to justify killings of the civilians

    excuses are: in the name of survival; God's orders ; In the name of God; because they are wicked,devils,barbarians,inferior; because they support enemy;collateral damage;to finish war faster;to save our soldiers ....

    if done by us it is not genocide, but if done by them it is.

    usually what winer did was good what loser did was bad.

ps. name of the game is one world government -- everything else is a distraction.


    1. Because civilians never, ever, actively support their armies's aims.

  7. "I knew I wanted to focus on my books"

    This is a sentiment I can appreciate fully. We all need a break from intellectual debate for a variety of reasons from time to time.

    This discussion on "culture" in general was a needed topic in libertarian circles- and you provided a venue under which it could be discussed intellectually without the normal devolution into ad hominem's and the like that typifies most internet "discussions".

    You supplied the venue for intellectual honesty.

    I completely understand why you might want a break from it, it's just that in providing such a venue the topic itself won't die easily or go away even though you want a break because people in the libertarian community(and those that participate that aren't libertarians) were desperate for such discussions. (intellectual honesty)

    So I both sympathize with both you and them. (and I apologize for my email to you/Lew the same day you posted that you wanted to move on from the topic, but I too felt some residual urgency on the topic and felt the linked video was relevant/important)

    Anyway, it will all work itself out in due time. I'm glad the exchanges were had as it gives us all some things to think about things and the pause in said thought/exchanges in timely so everyone can digest them.

    1. Nick, don't apologize for the email That I am avoiding writing on the topic (at least via posts specifically on the philosophical issues / etc) does not mean I am uninterested.

      I am writing some rough drafts for the future - some day when I come back to publishing on these, I should have a small inventory to work with.

      "...people in the libertarian community (and those that participate that aren't libertarians) were desperate for such discussions. (intellectual honesty)."

      It is one of the things I am most pleased with about this conversation. I just had concerns - coming from both sides (libertarian on the one hand and some version of "right" on the other) that my views were not being properly conveyed.

    2. @ UC


      My favorite is Romney Wordsworth:


      Notice his reference to "you people", in referring to the state.


  8. "Be specific: is it ALL jooz? Yes or no. Is it ONLY jooz? Yes or no. Thereafter, tell me all about your enemy population".

    The subject of "the jooz" seems to be a trigger point for many people. I have a friend that can't even admit that the Palestinians are oppressed because it is "the jooz" that are doing to oppressing. Lets take 'the jooz' out of consideration and talk of hypothetical peoples instead.

    There are two ethnic groups. The Rustics and the Cosmopolitans. The Rustics and Cosmopolitans have different belief systems, although there are some Rustics that think like Cosmpolitans, and some Cosmopolitans that think like Rustics. Even so the most useful heuristic for working out who believes what is whether they are Rustics or Cosmopolitans.

    The Cosmopolitans somehow became the leaders of society. Many Rustics claimed it was because of nepotism. The Cosmpolitan belief system was enshrined in law, and expressing doubts about matters of Cosmpolitan history became illegal with sentences of years in prison being handed out. The Cosmopolitans took over the education system and taught an anti-Rustic historical narrative. The Cosmpolitans imported different ethnic groups that undermined the Rustic demographic dominance, and then used the law to discriminate against Rustics in giving jobs preferences to these other groups.

    Question: Are the Rustics and Cosmpolitans enemies? Do individual friendships between Rustics and Cosmpolitans matter in this scenario?

    1. Matt

      The subject is jooz, not cosmopolitans. I have allowed this conversation to go on too long in exploring theory and concepts.

      So don't deflect, and don't do UC's work for him.

      You have enough work to do on your own, as you have ignored my question to you about 80,000 killed in exchange for a few holding a bank hostage. So deal with that.

  9. BM,

    Those Armenians must have been suicidal because so many of them collaborated with the Turks. To the extent that a handful of them didn't collaborate (you admit it was only a few that stood up against the Turks at that bank), the Turks then took the very effective step of imposing a group punishment.

    Is a European serving a prison sentence for hate speech for opposing the flood of immigrants into Europe suicidal? Are people that don't speak out because they fear punishment suicidal?

    Let's talk about the Jews then. You intimate that they are not an enemy group but you were not able to get a single prominent libertarian to apply open borders as a universal principle to Israel. Why? Because they run the show and and people instinctively know not to do that. The first rule of Jewish power is to respect Jewish power. The second rule of Jewish power is never to speak of it.

    Are the Jews an enemy group or not?

    1. What about what I have written do you not understand? Read what I wrote to UC, which still goes unanswered:

      Is it ALL the Jooz? Every single Joo? These are simple questions, a yes or no will suffice.

      "Are the Jews an enemy group or not?"

      Let me be clear, as expecting a simple answer from autistic Joo-haters is rather a silly expectation on my part:


      Is this clear? A simple yes or no will suffice.

    2. It's clear to me that you don't accept the idea of an enemy group at all.

      If there are Jews that aren't enemies, it is because they took my side and not the side of their co-ethnics. Is that clear?

    3. Matt, are you saying Jews are an enemy group? ALL Jews, yes or no. How much simpler can this be?

      As to the ones that you label with "if," you really don't know why they have chosen their path. Maybe they took my side and not yours. Do you think this might at least be possible?

    4. BM,

      Why be so cagey? If a jew is on my side, and is fighting Jewish power, then he isn't an enemy.

      Individual dynamics are not the same as group dynamics. When the Turks inflicted their group punishment on the Armenians, were they not the group enemy of the Armenians, yes or no? And if there was an individual Turk that took up arms to fight the Turks on behalf of Armenians would the Armenians consider that person an enemy? Doubtful. Doesn't change the fact that the Armenians have a serious problem with the Turks.

      If you have some sort of personal cognitive dissonance about the Jews, then just come out with it. Is it because you think Christianity tells you that you need to be supportive of the Jews no matter what? Is it because of a Jewish ancestor? Something else? You are reaching levels of caginess that shouldn't even be possible.

    5. So, Matt, you don't believe in the concept of an enemy group.

      Thank you for clarifying. We see eye to eye on this.

    6. Nations are groups.
      It is possible to be at war (declared or not; economic or political; with enmity or simple pragmatism) with another nation and not consider every member of that nation (group) an enemy. I consider the United States to be at war with my people yet I used to be an American and I have many American friends that I do not think I would lose should open hostilities resume.

      To be clear BM I do not think that all jews are the enemy. They are part of one nation but my enemies are their leaders, movers, and earth shifters. Let's just say they have a very colorful history, especially in diaspora, that needs a lot more explaining.

    7. Josh,

      Jordan Peterson said something interesting about this idea of "the Jews." Something to the effect of: high IQ people tend to be on the left and the Jews are over-represented in the high IQ population.

      I certainly will not be the one to deny the over-representation of Jews in endeavors that I consider destructive toward many people on earth.

      But, as you say - and as in all cases - who are the leaders, the movers, etc. To the extent these are identifiable, there is the enemy...and in total there are more white-anglo enemies than any other...if we insist to label them racially or otherwise as a group.

      As important, I suppose: Jews are also over-represented in many areas that one could consider life-enhancing...what to do with that?

    8. I assumed this thread was going to be dead except for my recent reply but this is something I need to respond to as well.

      Jews are not "left" because of IQ. They are "left" because those are the ideas that reduce ethnic unity and culitural vitality in gentile nations, in other words- they are the ideas that benefit jews. In Israel they forbid race mixing, have pro-natal policies, and are an ethnic state. The same exact jews who promote this garbage in our countries do the OPPOSITE in theirs.

      They are the way they are due to evolutionary pressures that have selected for high IQ and strong in-group orientation (see Kevin MacDonald's work).

      The jew (who is not an enemy) Ron Unz has a very good paper showing that IQ cannot explain the disporportiante jewry at Harvard. Only nepotism can explain it.

    9. BM
      "But, as you say - and as in all cases - who are the leaders, the movers, etc. To the extent these are identifiable, there is the enemy..."
      If these leaders mobilize their Nation, all mobilized force towards the end of western culture is the collective force of the enemy.
      Conscripts or taxpayers or water carriers may not know what cogs in the wheel they represent, just as in an Afghan village that some of my Marine brethren may have ransacked, the survivores view me as the enemy. Not Josh the individual, but Josh the American. One of those villagers might actually enjoy my company in another time and place but for now I constitute a portion of threat proportionate to my military service and taxes paid for more bombs.
      Wars do not have to be characterized by violence, (although violent force is the abstract Ideal of War) they may range from simple armed guard and patrol of borders to spying and sabotaging an enemies rail network, infilrate gov, etc. In our case our culture is being sabotaged.
      I'd like to expound more on these thoughts but I feel I'm beginning to overstay my welcome, I can tell you want to give culture a break for now, thank you for suffering me so far BM.

      I'm going to miss you at this site, I always felt that you and BM provided perfect foils for one another
      (ocassionally Red Sonja offers a third wheel lol).
      Your differences of ideology and perspective hashed out in polite yet firm and aggressive debate always gets my creative juices flowing for new ideas of what might or might not be (or somehow both). I'm surprised to see BM so quick to get rid of you.
      Thank you for taking the risk to be polite and engage in correspondance with me, as you say, just in time.

    10. "...but for now I constitute a portion of threat proportionate to my military service and taxes paid for more bombs."

      Regarding your "military service" part, they would be right in considering you an enemy. As to the rest, perhaps we all just ought to get it over with and blow each other up - all seven billion of us - because no one is untouched by the mud. That's a great political philosophy, don't you think?

      "I'm surprised to see BM so quick to get rid of you."

      I am not the one who did the getting rid of; read his words again and then read mine.

      In any case, I disagree with your characterization: UC has commented here freely for well over a year - although I did not "get rid" of him, what is "quick" about this?

  10. BM
    Please don't strawman me I never said we should just end it all here once and for all.
    The discussion was on "enemy population" and what that entails and means to different peoples with different perspectives. Part of the discussion ended in unexplained disagreement about what could constitute an enemy population collectively, not individually, and I felt I had clarifications worthy of discussion.
    I guess I was wrong, or otherwise I was misunderstood or needed to clarify further.
    "In any case, I disagree with your characterization: UC has commented here freely for well over a year - although I did not "get rid" of him, what is "quick" about this?"

    UC- I may not post here for at least some while, or possibly not ever.

    BM- Thanks

    UC might as well have asked you if he was welcome to stay, deplorable and fascist as he may be.
    And to just say "thanks" after this comment from UC was a rude way of ensuring he chose the latter rather than former of his choices.
    You are one of the most intelligent and insightful writers that I have ever read, you really expect me to believe that you didn't know what you were doing making such a short comment to UC.

    1. Josh

      I think I have done enough damage on this topic and in this thread.

      I will only say, very clearly: if UC writes a comment, I will post it. I will make this clear in the comment above.