text:
Category: Australia
So Much Winning!
The Slog Emperor.
Retarded and homoerotically obsessed Roissy commentators attack Trump critics, claiming that Trump has been WINNING and anything to the contrary is "fake news." Let's review all that "fake news" then:
1. Having two years of a Republican congress and not doing a damn thing except making America more comfortable for CEOs and pursuing a Neocon foreign policy.
2. No wall.
3. Publicly advocating for increased "legal" immigration.
4. Sending troops to the border who did absolutely nothing and quickly left.
5. Increased illegal border crossings.
6. Being head of the federal government and DOING NOTHING about far left domestic terrorism, letting Antifa run riot throughout America attacking his own supporters while his Justice Department persecutes his own supporters.
7. Not mentioning Whites during his State of the Union address but praising and/or showing concern for every other group.
8. Agonizing over the "anti-Semitism" of Democrats and how Democrats are insufficiently loyal to Israel.
Need I go on? So much winning! MAGA! Pepe! Kek!
By the way, where are all those free speech initiatives? I suppose I can add number nine:
9. Doing nothing about the free speech issue while blustering about it on Twitter like a jackass.
10. Being a complete and utter failure and embarrassment, thus alienating the base and delegitimizing in the public "mind" the idea of right-wing populism.
The subhuman animal Trump.
"I have the support of the police, the support of the military, the support of Bikers for Trump," Trump told Breitbart in the interview, which he later tweeted. "I have the tough people, but they don't play it tough until they go to a certain point, and then it would be very bad, very bad."
Yeah…it would be bad – bad for those supporters, as Trump's Justice Department indicts them for "hate crimes" while Trump tweets support for Jews and Israel.
Trump – an Antifa agent provocateur.
Question: Do they cheat on PISA tests as well? Let's ask Lynn and Sailer.
What you won't see at Chateau Heartiste.
This is great. The psychotic Left has within it all the potential for cannibalistic self-destruction, but the stupid Right is unable to take advantage of it.
Certified: A Type I numbnut. Why wasn't he wearing a Pepe t-shirt? MAGA! Kek! Drunken podcasts in Alexandria loft apartments! Homosexuals "flirting" with effeminate soyboys at meetings! Hermannson! Lewis! Leftist girlfriends let in with no screening! Hail Kek! Hail the Hobbit Hole! Hail Der Movement! Hail Yang! Hail Spencer! Hail nose candy! Hail Pilleater! Hail!
A Counter-Currents commentator pontificates on his proposed neo-Confederate Southern ethnostate:
…it might be possible to secure some foreign aid from a country like China. The US pays Egypt. SouthExit and maybe the Chinese (or the EU) pay you a couple billion annually in exchange for a base or two. The Gulf is well situated for future Chinese (or European) ambitions in central and South America.
China. Of course. Chinese military bases on White ethnostate territory. What could go wrong?
Another commentator replies:
This is unbelievably naive and flatly ridiculous and insane. After you give the Chinese a foothold in your territory, they will inch on you, take more of your land and resources, and send more people of their own to gradually colonize and conquest your land without fighting an actual war, and by fighting an actual war if they deem they overpower you militarily. This is largely the pattern of the Chinese conquests and annexations of other people's lands throughout history, all the more patent, intense, and thorough-going than even the Islam.
Quote right. Although now the Silkers are silently weeping, and will console themselves with fantasies of being ordered around by black-booted Chinese girls with guns, or imagining themselves being White GIs invading Japan in 1945 and having Japanese schoolgirls impaling them with bamboo spears.
Der Movement, Der Movement, Der Movement marches on.
In contrast to Roissy-Mangan dietary advice, here is a Sicilian bodybuilder's input.
Behold Der Movement. A constant embarrassment. Der Movement's affirmative action policy has real consequences. I've been warning you all about the consequences of Der Movement's ethnic fetishism ever since the days of Legion Europa. Enjoy reaping the stupidity you have sowed and enabled.
Will Connolly is a terrorist.
Will Connolly, the 17-year-old boy who egged Anning, has become an online hero for the incident, which was captured on video.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison on Sunday took Connolly's side, telling reporters: "The full force of the law should be applied to Sen. Anning."
Police allege Connolly, who calls himself "Egg Boy" online, assaulted the senator with the egg.
First, why is the assault "alleged?" It is on film. The soyboy admits doing it. And it is not only assault but battery as well (although Australian law may differ from American on these fine points).
Thus, Connolly physically attacked an elected official for political reasons; this is political violence, hence terrorism. Scott Morrison supports the terrorist and calls for the legal persecution of the victim of terrorism. Thus, "the full force of the law should be applied to" both Connolly and Morrison.
Movement Monday
Yet another day in Der Movement.
Gamester commentator:
Hugh Jenniks
He took over just in time from RR…like Anglin said, "I wouldn't be surprised if Tucker Carlson's wife is arrested for being alone inside the house while Antifa were kicking her door in. Based on the precedent set by Rod Rosenstein's Justice Department, getting attacked by Antifa is a federal crime."
Just replace "Rod Rosenstein" with "Jeff Sessions" and you'll be learning alright.
Zman is fundamentally dishonest:
thezman
I don't know about that. They got grief from our side for allowing themselves to be easily lured into a trap and allowing themselves to be attached to losers from the old WN 1.0 world. That's the lesson of Charlottesville. The way to avoid ending up like the losers from WN 1.0 is to not emulate them.
Liar. Charlottesville was organized by WN 2.0. The "losers from the old WN 1.0 world" showed up because the sniggering retards of the Alt Right – and their enablers among the "intellectual elite" (who should have known better but who wanted to ride the coattails of Pepe and Kek to promote themselves; more on that below) – engaged in activist imperialism, trying to co-opt the entire "movement" to their imbecility. Remember: "the Alt Right is White nationalism or it is nothing at all" – at the same time promoting "the big tent." So, we all had to be subsumed into the "youth culture" of Pepe, Kek, cosplay costumes, drunken podcasts, chugging gallons of milk as a racial statement, a frat boy alcohol culture, and cult feuds centered on the likes of Spencer and Johnson. WN 2.0 did not "emulate" WN 1.0; if anything, it was the other way around. Everyone jumped on the Alt Right bandwagon. I listen very carefully to Johnson's various podcasts – Zman and Johnson are allies despite disagreeing on the Jewish issue – and Greg made quite clear that various "boomer" "movement leaders" threw their lot in with the Alt Right despite being unhappy about the whole Pepe stupidity. That's the facts. WN 2.0 wrecked the "movement" and instead of being accountable, they blame "losers from the old WN 1.0 world" rather than blaming themselves. What a bunch of dishonorable low-life little worms the WN 2.0 crowd are.
And all of that is not meant to be a defense of WN 1.0, which was, and is, stupid, vulgar, and indefensible. But I'm not defending WN 1.0. Instead, I'm defending the truth. And the truth, the facts, say that WN 2.0 collapsed because of its own innate stupidity and flawed leadership, not because a few Nutzis showed up at rallies.
The anti-Semites, of course, focus exclusively on Jews, but our alien over-class is multi-racial. That means there are plenty of whites in it. Class plays a role, but most of it is a hangover from Cold Civil War, where sophisticated and educated whites worked hard to put distance between themselves and lower class whites.
A point I'm fond of making is that if whites get their act together and start thinking racially, the Jewish question loses all salience, other than for Jews who would have to confront the paradoxes and contradictions within Ashkenazim culture.
A point I'm fond of making is that Whites won't be allowed to "get their act together" without dealing with the "JQ." Yes, the over-class is multiracial, but its driving force is who? We all know the answer to that. And this: "The anti-Semites, of course, focus exclusively on Jews" is so patently dishonest as to be breathtaking. "Anti-Semites" do not "focus exclusively on Jews" – they simply acknowledge the importance of the "JQ" in the Great White Dilemma, which is, of course, a multi-faceted problem.
Keep in mind the same Zman who rants against "anti-Semites" is buddies with Greg "drive the Jews out of our society" Johnson and is the same Zman who has written that "Mike Enoch" should have been the definition of the Alt Right:
The alt-right is a good recent example of this. What started as an edgy internet movement was plagued by old school nutters from the white nationalist subculture, as well as by loons who simply lack self-control. As a result, they became defined by guys like Chris Cantwell instead of people like Mike Enoch.
That is why I cannot trust this "Zman."
"High- trust hunter-gatherers," I suppose. They'd have no problems with Der Movement's "extreme vetting," though. "Come on in!"
"Australian woman" = Asian female. How's dat dere multitculturalism working out for you, Aussies? Tie me kangaroo down, mate. And don't eat the strawberries.
HBD: Freddie Mercury, superman.
Parsi supremacism! Move over, Jews and Orientals!
Inherent Racism of Multiculturalism
More Salter analysis.
Read Part One.
Read Part Two.
I am going to quote, and comment on, several excerpts, not to critique the entirety of the whole piece, but rather to illuminate certain points important to this blog and to the interests of Whites in general. In all cases, emphasis added.
This article follows from my review for Quadrant of the SBS documentary Is Australia Racist? which was hosted by Ray Martin, funded by Screen Australia (and therefore the taxpayer) and aired on Sunday, 26 February 2017.1 The program was grossly inaccurate and biased against Anglo Australians. In other words, it was typical of the wide-borders multicultural propaganda awash in the mainstream media over the last half century.
Here, I look behind the program's glossy façade to examine another long term feature of multiculturalism: its academic enablers. I look more closely at the program's four academic experts, their on-screen claims and previous writings. It is important to look behind the smooth opinions of laymen such Ray Martin if we are to discover whether the linked policies of massive immigration and minority privilege have any basis in reason and scholarship.
That's what Salter's essay is about. Let's look at certain important excerpts.
Prof. Dunn's publication list is a window into academic multiculturalism. His research is funded by the academic and multicultural establishments. He researches racism and ethnic discrimination but, it seems, only when committed by mainstream Australians. He is not interested in Anglos being victimised, only in their transgressions against others, which includes denials of racism and privilege. These, together with immigrant victimhood, are treated as axiomatic. For example, he states that the "new racism" is a distinctly Anglo view of the nation as assimilationist, ethnocultural, or egalitarian. He argues that it is racist to assert the equality of all Australians, because this (supposedly) denies white privilege…Jakubowicz argues that multiculturalism is a fraud because it benefits the (allegedly) dominant Anglo population. British and Australian governments have claimed that their societies have been tolerant of diversity, reflecting genuine expressions of Anglo-liberalism. In fact these governments "disguise systematic structures of racialised inequality masked by surface egalitarian discourses."
This account resembles Dunn's view that egalitarianism is a form of Anglo racism.
This is astonishing, and reflects the extreme radical drift of the Left on racial issues. The old bywords of equality and egalitarianism, once a bulwark of the leftist worldview, are now considered forms of "Anglo" (i.e., White) racism! Multiculturalism, which oppresses the White majority while empowering non-White minorities, is a "fraud" because it "benefits" the very group it viciously oppresses. The very things leading to White demographic displacement – let us be frank, White Genocide – mass migration, assimilation, multiculturalism – are now considered by the Left to be manifestations of "White racism" and "White Privilege."
The Left has drifted so far into the fever swamps of revolutionary madness that slow White genocide is not only insufficient but akin to White Supremacy – not only must the pace of displacement be increased, but Whites must be constantly humiliated, disempowered, subjugated, slandered, and tormented, all the while being gaslighted by being told they are privileged racists living in a White supremacist society. In truly Orwellian fashion – nay, even to extremes Orwell could not imagine – a majority group being systematically dispossessed and destroyed is told that the System destroying them is a pro-majority fraud working for majority benefit and reflecting the majority's selfish racism! By analogy, Auschwitz was a bastion of Jewish Supremacy, and the Holomodor an example of Ukrainian Privilege.
By any objective, rational standards, the Left is stark, raving mad. But, perhaps it is not madness bit just pure, crystalline, rock-hard hatred. The fundamental basis of the modern Left is an unquenchable racial hatred of Whites, and the need to humiliate Whites while destroying them. Destroying Whites alone is not enough; Whites must be made into a subaltern, despised caste, while all the time being told they are "privileged."
To summarize: The Right can no longer assume that their opponents are merely sincere but deluded egalitarians who foolishly, but goodheartedly want equality for all peoples. No, the opponents are revolutionary extremists so consumed by hate that the complete eradication of the hated White enemy is not good enough; Whites must be ritually humiliated as they are being eradicated.
Jakubowicz also shares Dunn's assumption that Anglos dominate Australia's racial hierarchy. "In most Western societies Christian values or Christian social institutions dominate public debate and public practice.
Case in point. By some mysterious circumstance beyond our comprehension, the dominant group is being demographically and culturally displaced, while being castigated by the likes of Jakubowicz. That's some strange dominance, I'll tell you that for nothing.
In Jakubowicz's view Anglo Australians have no legitimate ethnic interests. Their only ethical option is complete acquiescence to minority demands, which do represent legitimate group interests. His call for Chinese-Australian inclusion makes no reference to numbers. Like other mainstream multiculturalists, he treats the displacement of Western populations as not worth mentioning. Note also his cavalier attitude towards Australian security despite acknowledging the growth of Han nationalism and its linkage to Chinese economic and military power. These potential threats can only be exacerbated by the growing Chinese presence in Australian politics and business, which Jakubowicz sees as an encouraging trend.
Pure hatred of Whites as Whites.
It is relevant that Beijing is already utilising Chinese-Australian individuals and organisations as agents of influence in this country, a development that is alarming security analysts. Chinese voters have been swayed by ethnic interests for many years, an example being Prime Minister John Howard's loss of the seat of Bennelong in 2007. Sam Dastyari, a Labor powerbroker, was forced to resign from parliament after he allowed improper influence by local Chinese businessmen; his foreign policy pronouncements were slavishly pro-Beijing. Chinese community leaders helped defeat the Abbott government's attempt to reform the draconian section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. It is true that apart from the important matters of identity and security, Chinese have been in the main high quality immigrants with stable families, an admirable work ethic, low crime rates, and strong educational outcomes.
That last part: Oh, no; just…NO. Maybe Salter has a reason to be moderate here and praise Chinese qualities, akin to the slavish obsessions of HBDers. But these positive qualities – even if we were to assume they are all true – are not the point. Even the loyalty issue is not the point. The point IS Salter's own paradigm of ethnic genetic interests; Chinese are a biologically (and culturally) alien intrusive subspecies in the Australian human ecology and for that reason – and that reason alone should be sufficient regardless of other considerations – Chinese immigration must be prevented.
But the Chinese population has risen from close to zero to about five percent of the population since the 1970s, concentrated mainly in capital cities. This success largely invalidates attempts to portray them as victims. Instead the issue of greatest import to Australia concerns their loyalty. If Markus and other academics had asked the obvious questions the political class would be informed on Chinese ethnicity and business cohesion, matters of national security at a time when China has become the world's second largest economy and is increasingly activated by nationalism. Decades ago they would have realised that many Chinese Australians feel, or will come to feel, allegiance to their ancient homeland. Some would have come to respect Australia's founding leaders for sparing the country a large Chinese minority. They would have been right to ask what madness led governments to squander this social capital by introducing a potential fifth column into the country?
True, but how about squandering the genetic capital? One can debate the presence, and place, of non-Anglo Whites in Australia; that's one issue – but as regard non-Whites the situation should be unambiguous and not even a required topic for debate: they do not belong.
Some factor is missing from the picture. Why the bias against Anglos?
The most overtly Marxist of the four, Kevin Dunn and Andrew Jakubowicz, may have replaced the bogey of the capitalist exploiter with the bogey of an ethnic exploiter, Anglo Australia.
And what did the old time Marxists want to do with the "capitalist exploiters?"" What did they do once coming to power? That's what the Racial Marxists of today are planning for Whites.
Professors Markus and Paradies have different theories but arrive at a similar conclusion, that white racism is the main risk to the joys of permanent open borders and multiculturalism…One thing we do know is that Dunn, Markus and Jakubowicz were willing to work with Martin and Paradies, self-declared ethnic loyalists, in making a documentary that dealt in part with the latter's identity group. It is not obvious how individuals motivated by leftist ideals could cooperate to make a program that furthered an ethnic agenda. Jakubowicz has called for Chinese Australians to establish an ethnic lobby.
An ethnic lobby for "Chinese Australians" would no doubt be welcomed by the "HBD race realists."
Andrew Markus is Professor of Jewish Civilisation at Monash University, a chair funded by the late Richard Pratt, a generous philanthropist for Jewish causes in Australia, Israel and elsewhere. As the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu noted on Pratt's death, many of his philanthropic gifts went to Israel's universities, the integration of new immigrants (all of whom are Jewish due to Israel's strict immigration laws) and disadvantaged Israelis. That shows love for his people, a noble sentiment. But what is Markus, supposedly a radical cosmopolitan, doing accepting funds from an ethnic nationalist? Would not a cosmopolitan shy away from a vertically integrated ethnic enterprise in which a Jewish academic is paid by a Jewish donor to study Jewish affairs? Markus has spent his professional life criticising Australia and other Western countries for immigration policies that were mildly discriminatory compared to Israel's. Yet it seems he has never criticised Richard Pratt or the Israeli leadership, all dedicated ethnic loyalists. Indeed, he has co-authored a paper praising Israel's discriminatory immigration policy.2
Jewish dual morality; the enemy revealed. But some on the "Far Right" tell us that Jews are "White Men of the West." Do you, dear reader, really believe that?
Multiculturalism was always a regime imposed on a reluctant majority by a triumphant left-minority alliance.
How did that alliance become triumphant? One cannot exempt Whites themselves from blame; indeed one must place significant blame on this race of cowardly lemmings. The failure of the "movement and its inept "leadership" must also be held accountable.
…Anglos and whites in general are rapidly being reduced to minority status due to bipartisan immigration policies imposed by the major parties and the cultural establishment. If Anglos are dominant and racist, as Dunn insists, why have they been cowed and silenced by political correctness? There is no doubt that Anglo-Australians are the prime target of the human rights apparatus. As observed by Stephen Chavura, a political scientist at Macquarie University, "Multicultural discourse is about silencing any who would dare to criticise the way immigration and integration have been conducted since mass immigration shifted from Europe to Asia and the Middle East in the mid to late 1970s."14 Anglo-Australians look very much like a subaltern ethnic group, leaderless and prevented from complaining even while losing their country.
And yet they are "dominant" and "privileged."
Conclusion and Policy Implications
One lesson of this review is that Australians should not be intimidated by academic titles and media fame. Individuals with high positions and the title of "professor" can peddle transparent falsehoods, as can the university courses they teach. Policy makers should be looking for ways to circumvent the leftist censorship in the social sciences and public broadcasting and re-establish a robust market of ideas.
But how? We need concrete proposals.
The deep state has been dragging Australia down with suicidal ethnic policies for half a century…The vanguard of the new morality are the elites. Indeed, capture of the elites has been a triumph for the broad and disparate progressive tide. In Australia, like the US, elites in government, business, the public service, and civic organisations are embracing progressive ideas […] The sheer size of the professional class now dealing with the new morality is immense.27
And while this professional class was being assembled, the mainstream Right was babbling about "tax cuts" and "economic growth" while Der Movement was pontificating about Kali Yuga, subfractional admixture percentages, the racial provenance of Leonidas, the "men who can't tell time," cephalic indices, Pyramids of Atlantis and Ultima Thule, and "being snug in your hobbit hole." Plenty of blame to go around, no?
The leftist professional class described by Kelly consists of several mutually-supporting components. The main sources of personnel are university departments of humanities and social science. Left-dominated universities develop doctrine and train professionals to man the many positions in the media, bureaucracies, unions, political parties, and schools used to suppress Anglo resistance under the cover of human rights. The mainstream media play a vital role in instructing the public and intimidating majority activists. An important arm of the infrastructure is equal opportunity and affirmative action offices employed by universities, corporations and unions, who develop and manage multicultural programs at state and federal levels.
How to dismantle this? How to build Rightist equivalents? And, also, we need an analysis on how self-serving affirmative action "infrastructures" were built within the "movement."
Again, it is not surprising that multicultural ideologues fear the rise of parties that could begin to build an ethnic infrastructure for the majority. The greatest danger to them is not temporary defunding of particular projects, but the creation of a professional class of national activists able to work in and with government agencies to neutralise and then replace the system of minority-left supremacy.
A danger they seem they will not have to worry about for some time.
There have been many attempts to explain the nature and cause of the intolerant Left's dominance of the universities…These accounts fail to explain why cosmopolitan, anti-Western ideology has prospered. A satisfactory explanation remains elusive. The academic literature on the subject agrees that the left's takeover of elite culture began early in the twentieth century. Sociologist Eric Kaufmann has traced the starting point back that far in the United States. The process lasted for two or three generations, ending in the 1950s to 1960s when the takeover of elite universities was completed.31
And all doing this time the Right did nothing. In my lifetime the two periods in which the Left has grown by leaps and bounds (after the 1964-1974 leftist political explosion) was during the Reagan and Trump Presidencies (the latter we see unfolding on a daily basis). Does that tell you anything? The Right declares victory and then sits around and does nothing while allowing the Left to roll up one real victory after another. The Right is not serious. After all, look at the stupidities that Der Movement concerns itself with.
As already noted, there is some doubt that multiculturalism is unambiguously leftist. The SBS program's attack on Anglo-Australians reveals that, despite its rhetoric, it can be seen as coming not only from the Left but also from individuals well to the right of One Nation. Multiculturalists mobilise ethnic constituents, their tribes, by warning them of threats from another tribe, Anglo Australia, which they vilify with accusations of racism.
But what to do about it? We all know this is true. What now?
It will be difficult to correct the social sciences and humanities while respecting the autonomy of scholars and the universities that employ them. Another hurdle is the fact that Australian academe is connected to international disciplines that are themselves politicised. If a way could be found, governments would be justified to defund intellectually corrupt courses and academics. The funding instrument might also be used to establish centres of excellence that champion science and disinterested scholarship over ideology. These centres would offer students real alternatives, and society real experts. Such reform will not be possible while governments of both sides of politics remain under the thumb of the powerful multicultural lobby. A parallel approach might work to reform public broadcasting.
But how exactly to get started? We can never "get over the hump" from proposing these obviously beneficial ideas to even the slightest beginning of any real progress. We require fresh ideas and careful planning, followed by competent implementation.
Screen Australia should be abolished or, preferably, reformed to defend traditional values. It should be feasible to reduce the high level of inaccuracy evident on ethnic and cultural themes in public broadcasting. Programs such as Ray Martin's should not progress beyond the proposal stage. Their poor scholarship and ethnic bigotry should have ruled them out. The media and academic elites examined in this review give first loyalty to political values ahead of curiosity and intellectual openness. They and their enablers need to be exposed before Australia can begin to rebuild its national identity and social cohesion.
You can expose them, but to oppose them you will need your own competing infrastructure. I do not see anyone on the Right capable of building such. Given the current inept "leadership" any budding infrastructure would be infiltrated by the first Swede or movie critic who walks in the door.
However, as philosopher Michael Walzer has noted, it is not feasible or desirable to abolish ethnocentrism in an open society. Instead, the multiple ethnic loyalties found in Australian society must be balanced. Decades of impotent criticism of the ABC show that balance can only be achieved among channels, not within individual channels. And that can only be achieved by establishing a counterweight, a network that take the side of Anglo Australia.
Another good analysis by Salter. Imagine if all the money that has been wasted on the Happy Penguins had gone instead to fund Salter, so as to allow him to commit full time to ethnological/nationalist analysis and also to advising political activists worldwide. If you want to contribute to Salter's work, do so as described here. Give generously.
Salter Trad Addendum
More comments.
And this.
Salter and I agree on most (albeit not all) of the fundamentals, as readers of this blog have long known. Focusing specifically on the Trad analysis pieces, I agree with the general pro-White, pro-Majoritarian, EGI-oriented basis. I agree that reactive nationalism is a failure, stupid Bunkerism that is counter-productive. The recent Barr-Planet of the Apes fiasco was instructive. Forgetting for a moment Barr's history and ancestry, what do we see? A crude "acting out," spewing forth racially-charged insults lacking in any productive content (not much balkanization ensued, given Barr's subsequent lickspittle apologetic spin), followed by the usual groveling apologies and pathology-related excuses ("it was the Ambien"). So, "racists" are seen to be merely crude bigots, the focus of public humiliation and social pricing, followed by apologetic groveling and implications that negative comments about Coloreds must be due to medication side-effects or some other mental-medical pathology. In summary, we would all have been better served if Barr had kept her reactive comments to herself.
One difference in our positions is that Salter seems to support liberal nationalism, at least as an option that may appeal to the largest mass of the native population, while still maintaining some degree of concern for ethnic interests. This seems to me a sort of mainstreaming, making ethnic nationalism more palatable by moving toward the center and justifying greater ethnic homogeneity based upon an appeal to "liberal democratic values" (sort of Jobling's argument when he was running his website).
However, just like the "Amren Gateway Hypothesis," mainstreaming has zero empirical evidence supporting it. Actually, it has a remarkable record of failure, most notably and recently with Ms. Le Pen.
Mainstreaming is based on the idea that the bulk of voters are toward the center, so any Far Right party that wants to win needs to move toward that center and become more palatable to those voters.
There are a number of problems with that. First, do we know for sure that the target voters are always in the (relative) center, politically speaking? The genius of the Trump campaign was to realize that a winnable fraction of Republican voters were significantly to the right of the GOP political establishment. In America, in the GOP, it has been the voters who have been mainstreaming toward the Establishment candidates (the Bush family, Dole, McCain, and Romney) rather than the other way around. Trump moved toward those voters (farstreaming), rather than asking the voters to move politically to accommodate him. Orban in Hungary is the same. Of course, the WN position is still much farther to the right than those voters, but, still, the general principle holds.
Second, let us assume that from a Far Right perspective, most of the voters are more towards the center. So, should the Far Right move toward them? No, that's a losing proposition. Mainstream conservatives always like to feint right come election time. If you as a Far Right candidate are moving left, toward the center, at some point your position and that of the mainstream conservatives will appear to converge. Right-of-center voters will always prefer the "safe" and "electable" mainstream conservatives over mainstreaming Far Rightists "tainted" with a past history of "extremism." If there is little difference between your position and that of the right-feinting Establishment Right, why would anyone vote for you? Even those voters skeptical of the Establishment Right's credibility regards their right-feint won't be tempted to look in a more radical direction if you've watered down your views so as to become another "conservative." You will lose respect and credibility, and "turn off" your own more radical base.
What about the young? What about the need to be more moderate to gain a following among the youth? Aren't they all liberals anyway? What about the crowing of the likes of Matt Bai that the bigoted faction of the Trump base is disappearing? The demographic end of the pincer, the decrease in the White population fraction and the concomitant increase in the Coloreds, well, yes, we all know that is occurring. But, isn't that a reason so many Whites, upset at those changes, voted for Trump in the first place? It's the other end of the pincer that is less convincing – that the liberalism of young Whites is an immutable characteristic that they will carry with them in the years and decades to come.
There is a stereotype, with some preliminary empirical support, that people tend to get more "conservative" with age. Let's say, more generally, they shift to the right. We can only expect that trend to become even sharper as the racial situation for Whites worldwide continues to degenerate, and tribalism becomes a more dominant force in politics. Also keep in mind that young Whites have been subjected to an unrelenting barrage of leftist propaganda, which is exponentially been made more potent via the Internet: schools, the news and entertainment media, social media, etc. At the same time, severe social pricing (and the leftist thuggery Trump and Sessions benignly enable) silences rightist voices. No wonder then that the youth are leftist (besides typical youthful naive faux-idealism); indeed, it is a surprise that any young Whites have healthy ideas at all.
As these young people age, and encounter the harsh realities of life, and get less dependent upon social media and snarky comedians to form their sociopolitical worldview, they will inevitably jettison, bit by bit, their leftist politics. They will learn that regardless of their "tolerance" that they are still low-caste subaltern Whites, hated by everyone else and targeted by the System. Heterosexual White men will find themselves the worst of all, untouchables, the Dalits of the Earth. Will their leftist social conditioning (i.e. brainwashing) still hold under those conditions?
The likes of Bai should not get overconfident.
In the end, the Far Right needs to get the masses to farstream to us, rather than we mainstreaming to them.
Getting back to the main point: I see no need for liberal nationalism or any other approach that does not give primacy of place to EGI. Ethnoracial nationalism needs to be sane and balanced for sure, the "mixed ethic" cited by Salter in the third section of On Genetic Interests, and some fundamental, basic human rights can be included (dependent of course on how we define "human"). Nevertheless, we should not "mainstream" and compromise in order to appeal to fickle, lemming-like masses of sheeple.
If we believe we are the future, the masses eventually must come to us. "Must" does not imply inevitability; we will need to work for it. "Must" does imply that this is the only way to achieve long-lasting goals.
The necessity for "culture warriors" I also agree with. The Right has always been weak in this regard, amplified by the Right's "declare (premature) victory and go home" pathology, unlike the ever-striving, never-satisfied, always-fighting Left. It is no coincidence that aggressive leftist SJW political correctness is soaring now under the Presidency of Donald "Alt Right God Emperor" Trump just as it did under Ronald "KKK groups disband because we won in November 1980" Reagan. Instead of long culture wars of attrition and the long slog through the institutions, the Right gives us the false idols of Men on White Horse frauds.
Three practical problems with "cultural warfare" –
1. The Right (particularly in the Anglosphere) has been notoriously weak with respect to cultural warfare (I'm talking about the real nationalist Right here, not the "Religious Right"), metapolitics, and serious ideology. I'm not sure that many on the Right even understand why any of that is important, much less that they would know how to effectively engage in such activities.
2. To the extent that "cultural warriors" exist on the Right, there is poor integration with the more explicitly political arm of the "movement." Now, in America, there really isn't a political arm either (Trump is a civic nationalist cuck and fraud); so in America, in the mess over here, there really isn't any effective political or any metapolitical/cultural activism. However, elsewhere – in Europe and Australia for example – there is very weak integration, as the nationalist politicians (or what passes for them) engage in reactive nationalism, in mainstreaming to civic nationalism, or try and dabble in metapolitics themselves, generally with poor results (see point 3). And in America, whatever embryonic metapolitical and even more nebulous political activism exists is either non-integrated, or you have the ineffective "jack of all trades" problem discussed next.
3. As Salter asserts, for the most part there will need to be specialization of the political and metapolitical spheres, following by cooperative integration of these activities and efforts. A truly effective "jack of all trades" – someone skilled at politics who is also well versed in ideology and who is a metapolitical master and culture warrior – is very rare (and should be treasured if identified).
A problem therefore is when people engage in activity for which they are ill-suited. There are people on the American scene (no names, but you can figure out who fits where) with this problem. There are some people who would have been best suited for electoral politics – either directly as candidates themselves or indirectly as advisers and campaign managers for candidates – and these people instead ineffectively flounder as faux-intellectuals, website managers, ideologists, culture warriors, etc. On the other hand, there are people suited for intellectual pursuits (even though I may disagree with their views) who put themselves forward in "movement" politics (not even electoral politics), and fail miserably in any leadership capacity whatsoever.
Probably we need even more sub-specialization – for example, some people may be good at organizing meetings and conferences at the level of attracting speakers and attendees, but are completely incompetent at security. Others may be good at security, but too introverted to do the broad organizing. Some people are skilled at the more cultural aspects of metapolitics, others at ideology, or are science experts. We don't have a critical mass of specialists yet, and the ones we do have can't work together because of ideological disagreements, personality clashes, and feuding.
One omission in Salter's work is a lack of analysis on how to defeat social pricing, and I would like to see Salter tackle that problem.
Like Salter, I support the idea of "democratic multiculturalism," both as part of a main Plan A to defeat the System as well as a fallback Plan B position in case the System will continue going strong for the foreseeable future. I've written a lot about this in the past and there is no need to rehash it now again.
In summary, Salter and I are in agreement with, say, 80% with 20% of difference (a Pareto distribution) on certain specific areas of importance.
I may have more to say on these topics in the future.
Salter Trad Analysis, II
Part Two here.
Once again, a summary and an analysis of excerpts; follow the link to read the whole thing.
Ethnic nationalism
Ethnic nationalism treats the nation as an extended family. More than other nationalisms it most directly identifies and protects ethnic interests because it seeks to establish a relatively homogeneous, cohesive and independent society.
These motives have evolutionary origins in kinship. Cultural similarity mimics kinship, especially shared religion and historical memories and belief in descent from common ancestors. In racially diverse regions, ethnic genetic kinship is typically equivalent to that between first cousins. This makes the ethnic group a large store of each member's distinctive genes.1 Ethnic kinship facilitates the spread and maintenance of ethnic nepotism, a weak but pervasive social tie.
That is the entire ethnic genetic interests paradigm in a nutshell.
Ethnic sentiment was hinted at and stated outright in early decisions to ban non-European immigration to Australia. Arthur Phillip, the first governor of the Sydney colony, refused the British Home Secretary's proposal to obtain wives for the convicts by taking women from South Pacific islands. Instead he requested more female convicts be sent from England. Other early governors such as Sir Richard Bourke and Sir George Gipps took a similar stand against the importation of cheap Indian labour. This time the proposal came from squatters facing labour shortages. The Colonial Office concurred with the governors, citing the adverse effect on the wages of white labourers of introducing migrants of "an inferior and servile description". Notice the concern with the working conditions of people of European descent in particular, not citizens in general. The first is an ethnic category, the second a civic.
Very good, No Asians. As opposed to Silk Road White nationalism that wants to see the West colonized by Asians and Whites as an enslaved subaltern caste.
…references to the blood of patriots, security of the homeland, portraying the nation as a family ("fatherland", "motherland"), and so on. As already discussed, "nation" connotes ethnicity and as such is a biological, tribal concept. Such rhetoric has been shown to release patriotic motivation.3 The effect is so pronounced politicians use releaser ideas in order to gain legitimacy. They use terms such as "nation" and "community" and "sovereignty" and "borders" and "homeland defence" incessantly. But the rhetoric is out of kilter with their policies, and the discrepancy is becoming evident to a growingly cynical, distrustful electorate. A competent media or an aroused citizenry would make it difficult for mainstream politicians to use this rhetoric.
Because releaser ideas fit naturally with people's evolved predispositions, they have greater effect with less effort. They are efficient. Ideas that fit less naturally do not release instinctive fixed action patterns but must be inculcated through repetition, which is costly. Unnatural ideas rely more on power, on monopoly of the media and education curricula. Perhaps that explains the globalist left's intolerance – they do not tolerate any opposition because their ideas are unpalatable.
The question is how the globalist left obtained all that power to begin with. If their ideas are so unpalatable that they have to be maintained by force, but these ideas did not come into power by force…it is obvious we need some sort of explanatory analysis here.
Ethnic nationalism – and we can place racial nationalism here – is the purest of the forms of nationalism Salter discusses. It is explicit. It has as its ends the well-being of the ethny. This can be contrasted to liberal nationalism:
Liberal Nationalism
The notion of liberal nationalism might seem oxymoronic, especially to Americans, in an age when 'liberal' has come to mean leftist or socialist. Here the term's original meaning is adopted, namely rational approaches to policy that emphasise individual rights and individual conscience.
Liberal philosophers inherited cultural leadership from traditionalists. Philosophers such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill were reformers and patriots at the same time. They did not question the continuity of their people or civilisation. They were not afflicted with group guilt. Despite being reformers, by modern standards they were conservative in outlook. They represented continuity with traditional patriotism.
Mill posited a connection between national identity, homogeneity and democratic values. He concluded:
Where the sentiment of nationality exists in any force, there is a prima facie case for uniting all the members of the nationality under the same government, and a government to themselves apart […] One hardly knows what any division of the human race should be free to do if not to determine with which of the various collective bodies they choose to associate themselves.6
In Considerations Mill argued that representative institutions are "next to impossible in a country made up of different nationalities". Democracy depends on society being educated and cohesive. As Mill thought that ethnic diversity reduced social cohesion, he concluded that diversity should be minimised. His argument concerned ethnicity, of which race is only one component. "The sympathies available for the purpose are those of race, language, religion, and, above all, of political institutions, as conducing most to a feeling of identity of political interest."7
So, in liberal nationalism defense of the ethny is means , not ends. It is the means toward constructing a polity in which "liberal" values, such as individual rights, can be most effectively actualized. However:
Strictly speaking, liberal nationalism need contain no national sentiment at all, only policies for making society cohere within the frame of representative democracy and individual liberty. Policy might be ethnically selective but not necessarily the motives for advancing those policies. The starting point of Mill's analysis of nationality (immigration, domestic affairs) is not loyalty to a particular tribe but universals of social behaviour, conflict avoidance, and civil liberties, especially freedom of speech and association.
Thus, we see the seeds of a problem in relying on liberal nationalism: it van be subverted toward policies hostile to the ethny in such policies can be formulated so as to ostensibly preserve the universal values prized by traditional liberal thinkers.
An example is Hans-Hermann Hoppe's recent enunciation of libertarianism, which overlaps classical liberalism in emphasing the need for freedom from coercion and conflict. Hoppe concludes that immigration to Western societies should mainly consist of people descended from ethnic Europeans – "Western, white candidate immigrants" – not because of any ethnic preference but in the interests of social harmony, neighbourliness, and economic equity.16 He criticised the goal of white solidarity on the ground that many globalist elites are white.17
That last part is retarded on Hoppe's part, and indicative of the weak analysis of libertarianism. Whites have genetic (and proximate) interests in the well-being of Whites, and hence White solidarity is useful. Are there free riders to such solidarity? Yes. Are there what I termed in the past "cross riders" to such solidarity – people who not only utilize the public good of solidarity without contributing to t but actually actively harm it? Yes, there are. But such types can be identified and they can be punished by withholding the benefits of such solidarity from them. White solidarity does not mean solidarity to every single White person on Earth, irrespective of their behavior. It instead implies solidarity to the group, in general, and those defectors from group solidarity of course should not derive benefits from it.
Genuine liberal nationalism is open to the idea that nationhood is beneficial for all peoples. This is another advantage over unregulated ethnic nationalism, which is prone to chauvinism, resulting in needless conflict. Universal nationalism has the potential to facilitate cooperation among parochialists against global centrists.
It is not clear to me why universal nationalism is not ethnic nationalism. Well, Salter uses the modifier "unregulated." Very well. But regulated ethnic nationalism is not the same as liberal nationalism. One can directly and explicitly defend ethnic interests without descending into genocidal Hitlerism.
Universalism risks drifting too far from local interests. Stability of liberal nationalism as an ethnic strategy probably depends on more than perceived fairness, privacy and equality before the law. Hoppe's rejection of ethnic solidarity misses the fact of ethnic kinship. Social divisions do not eliminate the interest we have in the welfare of our peoples. Genetically and civilisationally, class is false consciousness.
For these reasons it is rational for ethnic nationalists to join in discussions of liberal nationalism, clarifying matters of fact and reasoning to yield outcomes more amenable to ethnic interests.
Or we can reject liberal nationalism and promote a regulated ethnoracial nationalism.
Salter then discusses the dead ends of economic, republican and civil forms of nationalism. You can read the details in his original ext. On civic nationalism (read: Trump), Salter states:
One problem with basing cohesion on values is that the process of political compromise inevitably reduces values to shallow slogans. As the conservative educationalist Kevin Donnelly explained, "even when there is agreement on what constitutes Australian or Western values, […] the list is so vacuous and all-embracing that it's impossible to identify what makes such values special or unique".26 Australians are meant to be united by such values as tolerance and inclusion and respecting different points of view. Particular religious and ethnic origins are not even named on the assumption that all cultures are equal.
The tenets of civic nationalism are not altogether new. Empires have universalised the head of state and expanded citizenship to win the loyalty of far-flung provinces. This was an innovation of the Romans, emulated by the British. In neither case did the patrician class believe that provincials were their equals but in both cases they used citizenship to gain loyalty based on equal treatment under the law. Equality included the legal right to migrate around the empire. Omnivorous citizenship in the Roman and British empires resulted in the mass migrations towards the metropolitan society.
Cynicism and shortsightedness are apparent in these imperial ideologies. Of relevance to Australia is the use of the equality doctrine by Joseph Chamberlain, Colonial Secretary in Whitehall, to block the colonies and the new Commonwealth from explicitly selecting ethnically European immigrants. The experience of Chinese immigration during the gold rushes showed that a European country situated beside the large populations of Asia could only retain its identity by systematically favouring European immigrants. But the British government wished to sign a naval agreement with Japan, for which purpose they needed to secure Japan's favour. Chamberlain wrote to warn Australian leaders that the British government would advise the monarch to refuse the royal assent to any explicitly racial provision.
Note how the reverse is never true; for example, Japan never felt required to make racial concessions to Whites.
Reactive Nationalism
The reactive type has been influential. It will be briefly discussed, though it is not animated by a consistent ideology. Instead it is a manifestation of anxiety with rapid change and resulting frustration with and suspicion of the authorities.
Reactive nationalism carries bits and pieces of ideologies and policies propelled by emotion. Common denominators of national identity remain largely implicit and unanalyzed.
These are negative features because emotionally-driven politics tends to be inchoate, leaderless, episodic as it reacts to overreach by elites, including oppressive social controls.
In other words, Bunkerism and to a large extent some of the more lowbrow Type I "activists" one finds on 'movement" comments threads in online forums.
The Trump and Brexit revolts were based on passionate rejection of globalist social transformation and stifling social controls. The same reactions have propelled Pauline Hanson's electoral success.
And without analysis, without Type II activists preaching reason and rational strategizing, all of that has come to naught.
Comparing Types of Nationalism
The six types of Australian nationalism have been combined in various ways over two centuries, concluding in the 1970s with a relatively disjunctive break with the ethnic-liberal combination that had shaped the nation from the First Fleet.
All types of nationalism have encompassed bad decisions and unrealistic assumptions. But overall, ethnic and liberal nationalisms have proven less susceptible to elite free riding. The liberal type has the added advantage of retaining political forms developed over centuries that help the formation of public goods.
There is no reason why a regulated and rational ethnic nationalism cannot utilize the political and social technologies of liberal nationalism without going "full liberal" and making ethnic preservation merely proximate means rather than ultimate ends.
Australia's current mix of civic nationalism and multiculturalism constitutes a top-down elite agenda. It co-exists in antagonistic tension with latent ethnic nationalism, as demonstrated by the recent success of minor parties. The antagonism is caused by the multicultural establishment seeking to transform the original nation. Their dominance of the culture industries has not eliminated popular nationalism, which remains a sleeping giant.
Elites are traitors who will one day need to be held accountable.
Liberal nationalism has the advantage of self-criticism. We all operate with imperfect knowledge. By opening our beliefs to rational inspection we increase the chance of avoiding ill-informed ingrained assumptions, including those concerning goals and methods. A moderate culture of self-criticism allows a movement to adapt to changing conditions, including new tactics and strategy by opponents and potential allies. This nimbleness will be indispensible in defeating more powerful opponents.
I fail to see why a sane and reasonable ethnic nationalism cannot have self-criticism. I realize that Der Movement is congenitally resistant to self-criticism and accountability; however, liberal nationalism has been equally so, which is why it has collapsed into globalist multiculturalism.
Liberal nationalism's main weakness compared to ethnic nationalism is its tendency to collapse into the civic kind. The weakness lies in its reliance on ideas transmitted by higher education, at a time when universities have been captured by the West-hating left. Ethnic nationalism is less vulnerable in this respect because it has a stronger emotional basis in ethnic nepotism. It would remain loyal to the nation even if diversity were found not to have multiple negative impacts, because ethnic nationalists are willing to pay a price to live among their people in a relatively homogeneous self-governing society. The weakness of this doctrine is cultural, leading to rigidity of policy and ideas. The end result is compromise of the representative democratic system.
That system SHOULD be compromised. Bring it on!
Ethnic nationalism, and certainly the reactive type, are insufficient credentials for an individual or party to assume government, unless ethnic identity is taken to include the political traditions inherited from England. One way or another, nationalist voters are advised to elect only those politicians who have demonstrated competence, character and tradition in the broad sweep of government duties in the tradition of representative democracy.
Err…these latter things we need to get rid of.
One marked weakness of unqualified ethnic politics is that it risks emulating multiculturalism's effect of fragmenting society along ethnic and religious lines.
But this is precisely what we need! The road to freedom passes through racial balkanization and chaos, there is likely no other way. We NEED to be fragmented.
This has a direct human cost in social conflict and an indirect economic cost due to policy being diverted from serving public goods to serving particular group interests.
We have sacrificed ethnic interests for "the economy" long enough. That smacks of economic nationalism. And public goods SHOULD serve majority interests.
Given its mixed history, liberal nationalism might appear to be unreliable. One sign that it could be reclaimed is that every instance of it serving hostile goals has entailed fraud, the compromise of Enlightenment values of rationality and liberty.
I would say its inability to recognize and combat such fraud indicates a fatal weakness of liberal nationalism.
Australia's historical experience – of liberal nationalism giving way to globalism – indicates that liberal nationalism is sustainable only when it respects majority ethnic and religious identity as legitimate values. Liberal nationalism's divorce from ethnic identity in the decades before 1970 opened it to intellectual corruption and left-authoritarianism.
I suggest that liberal nationalism always has within it this inherent trend toward anti-majoritarian multiculturalism. Therefore it cannot be trusted and should be replaced by a sane and balanced ethnic nationalism (which includes racial nationalism).
Ethnic and liberal nationalism have different strengths in relation to multiculturalism. The growth of an ethnic nationalist movement would be accelerated by the strategy of democratic multiculturalism described earlier, due to rising Anglo consciousness. However, the doctrine does not provide a political framework for accommodating other identities when the state is retaken. At that point a liberal frame would make an emerging ethnic state more governable, more stable, by providing political processes for managing diversity.
Err…we should not have to "manage diversity" – we need to end it. I suppose there can be an intermediate period as the ethnic state is "emerging" in which the remnants of diversity would need to be managed, but a regulated and sane ethnic nationalism can handle that, and "keep the eyes on the prize." I simply do not trust liberal nationalism or any other approach that dose not have ethnic interests and the endpoint of analysis.
Informed liberal nationalism can be an effective, though partial, defence of majority ethnicity against globalists and multiculturalists. That is because it converges on ethnic nationalism at the policy level. Historically, liberal nationalism respected ethnic sentiment. Together the liberal and ethnic types encompassed motives rational and civic on the one hand, and nepotistic on the other. Together they promoted the national bio-culture.
The fusion of liberal and ethnic nationalism that shaped Australia for two centuries is better equipped with releaser memes than competing doctrines. On the liberal side, that is because institutions such as representative democracy and rule of law are part of Anglo identity, and therefore add another cultural layer to markers of descent.
This fusion is akin to the "mixed ethic" that Salter promotes in On Genetic Interests. The pure ethic would be analogous to unregulated ethnic nationalism and then we have all the ethics that treat ethnic interests as secondary or irrelevant. The mixed ethic fuses primacy of ethnic interests with a doctrine of rights, similar to what is suggested here.
The main disadvantage of this approach is when its identitarianism is implicit. Only an explicit appeal to the historic nation can establish a nationalist rhetoric able to fully mobilise Anglo Australians.
Yes, this is the case. Unfortunately, the next paragraph promotes the alleged positives of the failed implicit approach.
Implicit ethnicity also has advantages. Decades of indoctrination by media and education bureaucracies have made Anglo ethnic nepotism taboo. Liberal nationalism advances ethnic interests indirectly. Indirect ethnic preservation has the additional attraction of conforming more with the non-ideological tradition of Anglophone cultures. English-derived politics is famously divorced from theory compared to the Continental tradition. People distrust theory in politics, as much as they do theory in art. They perceive both as pretentious. Like conceptual art, a political position won't appeal to the common-sense public if it relies on abstruse theory. But everyone understands and desires social peace, stability and prosperity, which true liberal nationalism would protect better than bogus civic nationalism.
Implicit politics have ALWAYS failed. Mainstreaming has failed in Europe again and again. Even Orban, under EU constraints to modify his language, sometimes drifts from more implicit culturalist talk to that of ethny. Now, Salter here talks about Australia, and contrasts "English-derived politics" from that of "the Continental tradition." But even in "English-derived" traditions, implicit politics and mainstreaming has failed. Has One Nation succeeded? No. Brexit has led to a current UK where Polish immigrants are driven out by racist anti-White Negroes and South Asians; native Britons are a non-factor in their own nation. Thatcher co-opted anti-immigration angst to end up being a fraud. Then in America there is a long tradition of Republican dog whistling on race that leads nowhere: Nixon-Reagan-Trump. I most strongly disagree with Salter here. "But everyone understands and desires social peace, stability and prosperity, which true liberal nationalism would protect better than bogus civic nationalism." The other side will construe "true liberal nationalism" as akin to fascism and social strife.
To put this another way, the choice of types of nationalism is not only an intellectual exercise. It is also one of self-examination. The choice must feel right to the majority now or in the foreseeable future. And that depends on who we are psychologically, who we are in terms of shared memories, and who we could feasibly become as new memories slowly accumulate and the culture changes. Multicultural critics portray Anglo-Australians as uniquely driven by racial identity. In fact Anglo Australians are among the least collectivist of peoples, much less so than multicultural activists. They are so tolerant of foreigners to have retained their composure while being inundated by immigrants.
I do not fully agree here. We should not let the herd, with their psychological comfort level, define for us the limits of our choice of nationalism. They need to be led by the nose, ultimately. The sheeple are a herd of lemmings (if I may mix metaphors and analogies) and the vanguard need to set the tone.
In reality ethnic activism by and for the majority is awkward in the present political climate. That does not make it inappropriate. In a healthy political culture, one not distorted by a hostile culture industry, positive majority ethnocentrism would seem natural. And it is important that it be so again, because individuals with heightened ethnocentrism are their peoples' natural guardians, the passionate counterpoint to cold utilitarianism. Like a mother alert to her baby's cry, ethnocentric individuals of all backgrounds are the first to feel estranged and besieged by social trends that are adverse for their people.
But how do we protect these protectors? How do we defeat social pricing? There is a number of references and implications in these two essays to feed forward positive feedback loops favoring activism on behalf of the ethny. I agree, but with one caveat – how to get it started? We are at a sticking point. It is like a biochemical reaction with an enormous energy of activation to overcome to get it started. We need an enzymatic catalyst. From where? What will it be?
Majority ethnocentrists' expression of concern for their people makes them prime targets of the "human rights" apparatus, part-and-parcel of big-state globalism. Those who chant "all love is equal" excoriate anyone who loves the wrong race. Beginning with the Bolshevik coup in Russia in 1917, a powerful strand of left ideology has sought to suppress human nature to create a communist utopia. The civilised response is the liberal one: society should respect ethnic activists of all stripes, including the red white and blue of the founding people. Attacks on ethnic nepotism are unacceptable in a liberal society.
Ethnic nepotism is also strongly attacked by the Alt Wrong/HBD/race realists. Actually, it is only White ethnic nepotism that is, in practice, attacked. Always remember that the Alt Wrong is a vehicle to promote Jewish-Asian ethnic interests.
In particular liberal nationalists worthy of the name should accept individuals who profess the interests of the nation. They should accept as comrades those who do so in liberal terms, something civic nationalists and minority chauvinists can never allow. In practical terms that does not mean allowing national activists to make policy in general, because they represent one interest among many. But it does mean protecting the right to free speech and party membership of those who stand up for the historic nation. Liberal nationalists should do that not only as an expression of civil liberties but as a means of ensuring the multiple public goods that flow from a secure national identity and sovereignty.
OK, but as a racial nationalist I don't view my position as "one interest among many" – maybe liberal nationalism itself should be so viewed.
This paper has argued that Anglo patriots should use a dual political-cultural strategy to defend the historic Australian nation and reestablish the liberal nationalist state built by the founders. The recent success of nationalist protest parties in many Western societies, including Australia, indicates that voters are ready to confer significant political and cultural niches on leaders who are willing to challenge the dominant culture. There are ways forward.
There are ways forward but apparently no one available (and ethnically acceptable to the "movement" rank-and-file) to step and perform those steps.
In summary, Salter's two-part essay is interesting and useful, but readers can observe key differences between his positions and mine. We agree on the fundamentals, and on the weaknesses of reactive nationalism and of nationalism lacking in proper analysis. I understand why he in his position advocates more moderate positions. But I will continue to assert the primacy of explicit racial nationalism and the irrefutable fact that mainstreaming has failed.
Salter Essay Analysis, Part I
Salter on Australian nationalism and what to do.
I would urge the reader to study Salter's original essays either before or after reading my comments on them.
Salter has a two part essay about identitarian politics and nationalism from an Australian perspective, but what he writes is broadly applicable throughout the White world. I'll examine in part in turn, commenting on particular excerpts of relevance. Again, these are only excerpts. You should follow the link and read the whole thing.
Part One here.
The heights of Australian politics and culture have been hijacked by the leftist multicultural establishment. Anglo identitarians – those who think of themselves as part of Australia's historic identity originating in British settlement or more broadly as part of European civilization – have been marginalized by the anti-Western left. The trend has been apparent for decades in politics and the culture industries. The process began in the universities and mass media. As a result Australia's Western identity is ever more obscured by hostile news, commentary and curricula. It is being drowned by indiscriminate immigration and oppressed by globalist elites. The historic Australian nation is assailed from all sides at a time when it is leaderless, not protected by the sinews of government but tied up and gagged by them.
And the same applies to the entire Western world.
To fight back, people need a vision of the Australia they want. For what should they fight? The second half of this chapter compares types of nationalism that have been pursued through Australia's history. For present purposes, nationalists and conservatives will know the fight is won or at least going in a winning direction when assimilation is once again winning over ethno-cultural diversity as a guiding principle for choosing immigrants; in particular when the refugee intake is ended and the migrant intake is greatly reduced and limited mainly to people of European descent; when the Chinese and Indian nations are no longer colonizing Australia and relations with these rising powers are stabilized…
Salter's wisdom contrasts to Silker lunatics and Asian imperialists, who, under the guise of "White nationalism," propose Asian colonization of Euro ethnostates and the "borders of the West" guarded by Chinese girls with guns. Indeed, Silk Road White nationalism would consider "Asian Australians" as more authentic representatives of that nation than the Anglo founding stock.
…when schools desist from radical indoctrination and teach children the truth about their nation's and civilisation's glorious history; when our sons and daughters are not pitted against each other in a fabricated gender war; when civil liberties are secured largely by keeping the state out of the private realm; when UN mandates are lifted to restore freedom of association, allowing citizens to choose among whom they live and do business; when core institutions are reformed to become more compatible with human nature instead of socially engineering and herding citizens; when the multicultural apparatus is dismantled as a system designed to oppress the nation and is replaced with a democratic multiculturalism that includes fair representation for Anglo Australians; when foreign ownership is once again regulated to protect Australian industry and home owners; in short when the historic nation throws off its shackles and reasserts its prerogatives.
These policies will be enacted only when Anglo-Australians become sufficiently mobilised and organised to vote for their ethnic interests and build lobby, media, and educational organizations so powerful that wise politicians avoid offending national sensibilities or appearing less than eager to preserve national identity.
What Salter is talking about is building an infrastructure to leverage against the System in order to pursue ethnic interests. Note to the Alt Right: Salter does not mention rallies in which "activists" come dressed up like Captain America and Batman, while at the same time denouncing the use of "uniforms."
Because information is usually incomplete, especially concerning complex matters of policy, it is prudent in choosing goals to start with the most securely known interests. The most certain interests are biological, including personal health and a family that is safe and prosperous. That is why it is vital to have a robust diversified economy, secure borders and safe neighbourhoods. At the next layer of biological interests, one should invest in social cohesion and the secure identities upon which it relies. School curricula should induct children into their culture and history. Without such knowledge it is impossible for young adults to know themselves and Australia's place in world history.
That is all prudent.
How to achieve those goals? I propose a dual strategy of political and cultural activism, with the two linked so as to mutually reinforce. I also discuss how individuals can contribute.
The successes of the Brexit and Trump campaigns point to the feasibility of advancing Western identitarian goals through electoral politics.
Unfortunately, while Brexit and Trump represented a populist, if not nationalist, resistance, both campaigns (predictably for those who understand sociopolitical realities) have failed to accomplish what their supporters really wanted. Brexit basically eschews Polish plumbers while welcoming Pakistani sex groomers and child rapists and Jamaican gang-bangers. Trump's Presidency has devolved into endless scandals, including sex scandals, and pardons for physically abusive race-mixing Negro boxers.
In Australia the same indication is provided by the success of parties that, together, are breaking the political duopoly that has dominated government since the Second World War…The electoral base of these minor parties consisted mainly of Anglo-Australians, defined broadly to mean individuals who have assimilated and identify with the British-derived nation…The European share of One Nation voters was greater than their 80% of the population.
Racial politics.
In a subsequent analysis, Black observed that the Turnbull government was attempting to win back One Nation voters by tough talk about citizenship and refugees.2 He argued that Turnbull was mindful of Senator Hanson's wide support from "English-speaking Anzacs", "English-speakers", "Kiwis", "disaffected and angry, white, Australian-born English speakers", and "Poms", the great majority being immigration conservatives.
The same old trick: mainstream conservatives shift right to poach ethnic patriotic voters, only to shill for more immigration and more anti-White policies once elected. And the voters fall for the trick every time. This also shows why "mainstreaming" is a recipe for failure. When "Far Right" parties "mainstream" and move toward the center, they get politically close enough to mainstream conservatism so as to allow the mainstream conservatives to plausibly position themselves as the "more acceptable and electable version of the same basic policies." Time and time again, mainstream conservatives outcompete mainstreaming patriots and time and time again, mainstreaming fails. In Hungary, we instead see the success of what I call "farstreaming" – Orban, originally a more mainstream conservative, has gone from success to success the farther to the right he has moved; while his rightist competitors at Jobbik, originally on Orban's right and a credible threat, have experienced political disappointment after they have mainstreamed so far they are now on Orban's left. Orban and Jobbik have essentially exchanged places on the Hungarian political spectrum, with greater success being observed with more radical rightist positions. Even Trump's election can be viewed as a form of farstreaming success, as Trump's campaign (as opposed to the man himself and how he has governed) was the most "far right," politically speaking of any since Reagan, and in some ways even more so. Mainstreaming is a fraud. Even if staying true to "extremist" principles results in electoral defeat, that's better than ditching your principles and still being defeated. At least in the first case, you stake out a position and gradually normalize it through participation in the political process; in the second case, you lose you vacate your ideological high ground and become just another vaguely "conservative" politician, albeit one unelectable compared to your more tame conservative colleagues because of your past "extremist" positions. Mainstreaming gives you the worst of both electability and ideological promotion: you are still unelectable while weakening your ability to promote an ideology and educate the public.
One Nation's appeal to Anglo Australians has profound implications. A party could dominate Australian politics if it became identified in the public mind as representing mainstream Australia. At the same time, the census reveals the nation is splitting into ethnic zones, accelerating the rise of identity politics, including among Anglo Australians. The makeup of One Nation's supporters shows that the nation is not as far gone as its enemies hope, that survival is possible. For many journalists and commentators it is a bitter fact that the original Australian nation is not dead.
One Nation is showing the honesty and courage necessary to represent mainstream Australians and thus the national interest, especially on the issues of Islamic immigration, foreign ownership, and leftist bias in public broadcasting. The party would be allocating resources efficiently if it invested in appealing to its Anglo base, because Anglos are most likely to respond positively and because they are a majority of the population.
As a nationalist party that represents the majority population, One Nation or its successors could become a major political force. However there are obstacles to achieving this, the greatest being that the party's ethnic appeal is due to the intuitions of the leadership. Party leaders care about Australia and are courageous but like the mainstream parties are not versed in the sociology or history of ethnicity and nationalism. Their ethnic vision of society is implicit. Beyond Pauline Hanson's wish that Australia return to a relatively united culture, her party has not described the Australia they want in realistic demographic terms. This places One Nation among conventional political parties, not at the cutting edge of reform and renewal.
This is a key, important, fundamental observation, and it is good that Salter objectively identifies weaknesses in One Nation here. This is particularly important since the same weaknesses are inherent in much of right-wing populist and "mild" nationalist parties and even in some "movement" groups, such as the Alt Right and certainly the Alt Lite. No doubt Trump goes by "intuition" and "feeling" rather than by thoughtful analysis, ideology, and an explicit ethnoracial focus. We need cutting edge parties and leaders.
Pauline Hanson's biographer, Anna Broinowski, summarises her nationalism as a deep nostalgia for the monocultural Anglo society of her childhood.7 The left and minority chauvinists disparage nostalgia for any European society. In reality it is noble to be nostalgic for the sense of belonging and community that Australia is losing. There is nothing wrong with such emotion as part of a social vision. But nostalgia can only serve that function if it is attached to analysis. That requires cultural expertise and vision. Politicians cannot be expected to cover all bases. They rely on intellectuals in the humanities and social sciences. The anti-national left's domination of the universities helps explain why nationalist social analysis is weak.
That last sentence is important. The suggestion, the implication is that the Right is weak intellectually, analytically, and academically. The Left's domination of academia is, as Salter asserts, one key reason for this. But the Right itself is to blame, for its anti-intellectual tendencies, its reliance on irrational impulses to the exclusion of rational analysis, its eager grasping onto bizarre memes, fossilized dogmas, and crackpot conspiracy theories as well as crackpot pseudoscience. What passes for "rightist academic analysis" these days is HBD nonsense and "traditionalist" rambling about "the pyramids of Atlantis" being built by "psychokinesis." The Right is an unfriendly place for rational, empirical academics, and until that changes, don't expect the problems identified by Salter to be soon rectified.
Political leaders could exploit cultural capital by the following:
1. Talking about how cultural and racial diversity undermines social cohesion;
2. Introducing the public to the meaning and benefits of nationhood and its reliance on a dominant and confident core ethnic identity;
3. Explaining that multiculturalism is an ethnic hierarchy that subordinates Anglo Australians;
4. Linking indigenous identity to Australia's historic Anglo identity;
5. Maintaining a rational rage against the corruption of the universities and proposing remedial policies;
6. Working with responsible protest groups to defend the right to public assembly;
7. Explaining how the ANZACs have been betrayed by abrogating the social contract between generations. They did not fight and die for open borders or multiculturalism or foreign ownership;
8. Formulating and transmitting these messages would be made possible by working with nationalist think tanks to obtain analysis and personnel. The identitarian political front cannot advance far without drawing on advances in the culture war.
Who is actually doing this?
Cultural Activism
Identitarian goals can also be advanced by cultural and social work. This overlaps the idea of metapolitics, though that term has obscure post-modernist meanings. Raising ethnic and national consciousness is the prime goal of identitarian cultural activism, a necessary condition for national liberation.
At present patriotic ideas are marginal in academe but have the huge advantage of being largely true or at least open to scientific findings on history and ethnicity. Cosmopolitans, whether motivated by corporate or leftist or minority-chauvinist values, have become anti-scientific in order to construct an ideology that justifies attacking natural parochialisms, from families to nations. Long ago they expelled biological theories of human nature from the social sciences.8 The result has been intellectual chaos. Radical academics have maintained dominance only by non-intellectual means. Research by psychologist Jonathan Haidt9 confirm what many academics have experienced for decades, that conservatives and nationalist are driven out of university careers by hostile work environments and career-limiting bias.
This is all true. But it is also true that the "movement" is all a "hostile work environment" for activists with an academic/intellectual bent. The overall disinterest in EGI and, in general all of Salter's work, is troubling. In Salter and his work, activists have a rich resource that can be mined for ideas and for guidance, and most of them would rather dress up like Captain America at rallies, make drunken podcasts, or sniff about "spectral psychokinesis," "orcs," or "Kali Yuga."
Cultural warfare is more fundamental than electoral politics and has objectives broader than those of any political party, even one with a cultural string to its bow. A full cultural strategy cannot be managed by the political leadership; it must be conducted by cultural warriors. That is why the political and cultural strategies will often be separate specialisations, which nevertheless depend upon one another. Just as smart parties invest in culture, wise cultural warriors reach out to help political campaigns. Though neither side can be well managed by the other, both depend on the other; simultaneously self-managing and interdependent.
This is important, and I concur that such cooperation is crucial. Unfortunately, it rarely occurs. Politicians, who pride themselves on their "pragmatism" and attention to "the real word," often look with disdain on culture warriors, viewed as "pie in the sky theorists." For their part, the culture warriors sniff disdainfully at "crude politics" and claim "the time is not right" and we should exclusively concentrate on "metapolitics" (ill-defined).
Those engaged in cultural advocacy for their people also need theory if they are to compete with opponents who for generations have been beating them hands down. The starting point is to understand how cosmopolitans and globalists have been winning. A key source is Canadian sociologist Eric Kaufmann's 2004 text, The Rise and Fall of Anglo America. Kaufmann traces the rise of radical cosmopolitanism from its beginnings in the late nineteenth century to its victory over America's traditional culture leaders in the 1950s and 1960s. Instrumental for that victory was the left's capture of much of the centralised mass media and elite university culture by the post-Second World War years. This wrested the heights of culture production and distribution from the hands of traditionalist Anglo-Americans. Since then radicals have been mopping up Anglo resistance. They put down the Old South's resistance to desegregation in the 1950s and 1960s. In 1965 they opened the borders to Third World immigration despite lack of popular support.
A missing word here: Jews.
When America lost the cultural cold war so did Australia because we depend on U.S. military and economic power and are net importers of American culture. Academic disciplines and markets for culture are international, especially within language zones such as the Anglosphere. Now the U.S. and Australia are being mopped up through replacement-level immigration, the final irreversible cultural-genocidal stage of the conflict.
Kaufmann's analysis provides lessons in cultural warfare. Cosmopolitans invested in mobilizing intellectuals and professionals, and through them winning the hearts and minds of up-and-coming leaders. They:
1. Maintained their objectives but used flexible methods. Kaufmann traces the cosmopolitan movement back to 1876. Through all the ideological and organisational changes they retained their hostility to Anglo-Christian America. The New York Intellectuals, who brought cosmopolitanism to victory in the U.S., began in the 1930s as Stalinists, converted to Trotskyism before dividing into nihilistic radicals and pseudo-conservatives ('neo-conservatives'). Persistence paid off in the 1950s and 1960s, almost a century later, when radicals found places in the universities and the federal government.
2. Pursued objectives strategically. Cosmopolitans prioritised ethnic goals over other radical policies. This meant that the goal of liberal immigration trumped most other policies. For example, feminists and gay rights activists have not oppose the immigration of Muslims who hold them in contempt, and environmentalists did not oppose large scale immigration that increased the number of consumers and polluters.
Unlike Der Movement, which is incapable of thinking strategically, is always asserting an imminent System "collapse" and whose "long-term" planning is typically in the realm of weeks or months,
3. Funded their intellectuals with generous philanthropy.
Salter should be funded. The failed Tin Cup Fuhrers of Der Movement should not.
4. Established parallel institutions, social and educational, from which they sallied forth to participate in mainstream politics and culture.
Precisely the type of infrastructure building I've been promoting and that the "movement" ignores.
5. Developed tribe-like solidarity and hatreds. Kaufmann describes the pseudo ethnic character of the New York Intellectuals. One aspect of the tribal spirit of the radicals was their unwritten rule against public criticism of other leftists and their intolerance of those whose views they rejected. They showed a racist-like loathing and contempt for conservatives and small town Anglos.
6. Found psychological substitutes for religion in ideology and organisations. Their cohesion and ultimate triumph were achieved despite them rejecting traditional religion, not because of it. Put differently, their militant atheism was costly, driven not by cost-benefit logic but by some non-rational impulse to attack Christendom. One lesson for universal nationalists, those who want everyone to enjoy the benefits of identity and community, is that their fight back will be easier because they support religious freedom.
7. Prioritised gaining positions in universities, government departments and the media.
8. Showed disdain and intolerance for opponents, which marginalised conservatives and nationalists, yielding an effective radical monopoly in the universities. This intolerance continues as a hallmark of culture industries across the West.
Unfortunately, the Right is often also intolerant of their own intellectuals. "The future is in the forest," don't you know.
9. Strove to secure career paths for members. Junior recruits were mentored and defectors ostracised.
Compare that to Der Movement, where "leaders" have pontificated that such activities are useless since "the System will collapse within five years." Head to the hills! Grab your musket and pemmican!
10. Put great effort into acquiring or starting journals of analysis and opinion, such as Ramparts and The New York Review of Books, mainstays of the New York Intellectuals. These magazines gave the network some aspects of an academy. They emphasised intellectual achievement, not electoral politics. They adopted the cultural warfare objective of influencing the culture industries, which construct and distribute information, including entertainment, news and commentary. By the 1950s the New York Intellectuals were being hired by the universities and government agencies, which accelerated the march of cultural Marxism.
A deeper unstated implication of Kaufmann's analysis is that these radical cosmopolitans…
Religion has been a major front in the culture wars for at least a century. It should give pause that radicals and multiculturalists strive to separate the nation from Christianity and turn the secular state against that religion. Andrew Fraser has studied the role of Christianity in forging the English and Australian nations.12 Other theorists have studied religion as a "group evolutionary strategy" that forges cohesion and cooperation.13 Still other analysts observe that religions provide identity markers.14
According to evolutionary biologists D. S. Wilson and K. MacDonald, Christianity has underpinned European cultural group strategies, which release and direct intense altruism. These group strategies defend bio-cultures by clarifying identity and intensifying altruism. Andrew Fraser includes Australia in his observation that the Christian religion, through myth and ritual, has provided motivation essential for ethnic and national defence. England and Australia originated as Christian nations.
I'm no fan of Christianity and certainly no fan of Fraser, but I understand where the Anglo-Australian Salter is coming from here.
Both Christians and secular patriots need to understand the importance of religion in the culture wars. For Christianity has been a historic identity marker uniting European nations and Europe as a whole against existential and internal threats.
That's fine as far as it goes. It goes too far when people make Christianity the litmus test for the West, put religion ahead of race, and start ranting that atheists and agnostics (and pagans too I suppose) should make a pretense of Christian belief so as to "fit in." No, sorry, not going to do that. By the way, it is the responsibility of Christian racialists and nationalists to show us how their religion can be reformed and is currently compatible with EGI. It is not the responsibility, and certainly not the obligation, of non-Christian atheists to help Christians reform their cuck-religion.
These great deeds could not have been accomplished without a Church which saw its pastoral duty as extending to defence of the people, their nations and civilisation. De-Christianisation has been a successful strategy for breaking down ethnic and national solidarity of Western peoples.
The Christian churches themselves have been in the forefront of this. Can they be reformed? Christians need to show the way. Not me.
Countering this is an important part of an identitarian cultural strategy.
I really do not agree with that.
The concept of "political warfare" was adopted by Rich Higgins, a security analyst who worked for the National Security Council during the early Trump presidency. Higgins described the unprecedented institutional attacks on Trump and noted that:
Political warfare operates as one of the activities of the "counter-state" and is primarily focused on the resourcing and mobilization of the counter state or the exhaustion and demobilization of the targeted political movement. Political warfare methods can be implemented at strategic, operational, or tactical levels of operation.16
Higgins also described the larger goals of political warfare:
Attacks on President Trump are not just about destroying him, but also about destroying the vision of America that lead to his election. Those individuals and groups seeking the destruction of President Trump actually seek to suffocate the vision of America that made him president. Hence, the end state is not just a delegitimized, destabilized, immobilized and possibly destroyed presidency; but also a demoralized movement composed of a large enough bloc to elect a president that subsequently become[s] self-aware of its own disenfranchisement.17
Trump has been busy destroying himself and shunning his White base.
It is relevant that Higgins knew, as did every political analyst in the U.S., that Trump's implicit constituency was white America. The deep state's goal is not only to bring down the Trump presidency but to break the political will of the historic American nation. A similar situation exists in Australia, with the difference that the political leadership is still in the hands of the multicultural establishment.
The only reason to support Trump.
It is significant that Higgins, a staffer loyal to Trump's original policies, was fired by a more senior staffer. Training competent and loyal staff is one obvious benefit of cultural activism, which will be discussed further.
Are we surprised that Higgins is gone? Trump has shifted left upon election, as do ALL Republican "conservatives."
Feedback: the Virtuous Cycle
So far I have discussed political and cultural strategies for protecting national identity and thus cohesion. Also important is the relationship between them. Electoral and cultural successes need to feed on one another to produce positive feedback. That salutary process should be facilitated where possible because only exponential growth can allow national movements to acquire the numbers and commitment they need to stand against globalist forces.
Very true. But as I stated above, both sides of the rightist Political-Cultural divide disdain the other.
The cultural front can also help the political front by providing able and loyal staffers. Incompetent or subversive staff are a frequent reason minor parties fail. Patriotic parties must be able to draw on a pool of speech writers, policy analysts and media people who not only support conservative and nationalist values but are able to defend them with social and economic arguments. Promising politicians are too often hobbled, diverted, or hijacked by opportunists.
Or, in many cases, the opportunists are the politicians themselves. Hello Trump!
By constructing parallel institutions in education, media and welfare – all cultural projects – the movement would be better placed to retain its core values as it grows, resisting the temptation to compromise with "big tent" politics. The goal should be to roll back the subversive aspects of the cultural revolution that began in the 1960s while accepting change that is benign or harmless.
Parallel cultural institution should be of sufficiently high quality to be worthy of large investments and philanthropic bequests. Projects should be positive, not reactive. Wealthy individuals will only support groups whose operations are scalable, i.e. whose output rises with investment. Thus they will look for talented individuals and organisations whose performances can be broadcast on radio, television or internet. In the early phase the key ingredient is quality, not quantity.
Who will do this infrastructure building? The current "movement" has proven itself incapable of doing so.
Two obvious examples are a news service and, more importantly, an online academy. The latter would teach what the universities refuse to teach. Subjects would include social science that incorporates biosocial theories of human nature. Students would be introduced to research on ethnicity, nationality, social cohesion, political and cultural history, reproductive strategies, gender and race, and comparative civilisation.
The dual culture-politics strategy makes sense only if it includes a reformist critique of the universities' anti-Western bias. The social sciences and humanities are the jewels in the globalist crown. They must be won back to serve truth. Only by fixing the corruption in higher education will political victories be sustainable.
How to fight social pricing? Theorists like Salter should tackle this problem. I have no ideas myself other than that of building a sufficient infrastructure so as to "defang" the power of social pricing. But this is a classic "chicken-and-egg" scenario since social pricing stands in the way of the initial steps of infrastructure building required to defang social pricing.
Political and cultural strategies should be aimed at carving out a constituency. In asymmetrical conflicts the little guy does not have many victories, and when he does, the resulting political and cultural capital is fleeting. So victories should be maximally exploited. The goal should be to complete the feedback loop. Political victories yield platforms, windows of publicity. These should be used to draw people's attention to important values. Identity comes first, because interests so often depend on who we are.
No greater victory has been won by the enemies of the Australian nation and the West than the obscuring of traditional identities. Those the gods would destroy they first make mad, and loss of identity is madness. Nationalist advocates should expend their limited political capital on clarifying and reaffirming the nation's core Anglo European identity. That is best achieved through two-way feedback between political and cultural activities.
Good sense, no doubt. How to actually go about doing it is another story. The "movement" as it exists today is a poor vehicle for getting us there.
An arena in which feedback should be effective is multiculturalism. This is an important doctrine used to legitimate mass non-European immigration and suppress majority resistance.
Identitarians need a Plan B in situations where (and while) nationalism has failed to produce a homogeneous nation state. They need a strategy that protects ethnic and civilisational interests in the face of hostile multicultural regimes. In particular, the strategy needs to be workable in a situation where the majority or original nation has been subordinated by the aggressive type of multiculturalism practised in the West. This type consists of an alliance between minority ethnics and big coercive governments, promoted by the left cultural establishment.
And that Plan B is democratic multiculturalism, which I endorse, and which actually can form a component of Plan A as well.
A promising strategy is to advocate "democratic multiculturalism", in which the subaltern majority mobilises to demand group rights in the same way that minorities do. The majority is disadvantaged because, far from being treated as a client by the cosmopolitan elite, it is viewed as the main enemy. Nevertheless, agitating for democratic multiculturalism should yield positive results because the identity politics used to mobilise minorities will also work to some extent with Anglos, more so when their level of discomfort rises…Democratic multiculturalism promises to be a powerful strategy if feedback is successfully channeled between electoral and cultural activists. Electoral success can provide resources and growing legislative power. Cultural products can arouse identity and thus prime a growing constituency to vote for identitarian parties. By raising national identity and mobilisation the strategy stands to provide a rear-guard. New parties and activist groups are slowing and blunting multicultural policies such as open borders and the criminalisation of Anglo resistance.
"Movement" retards say all of that is "dishonoring our ancestors." Instead we all need to "grab dem muskets" and head off into the woods.
The doctrine of democratic multiculturalism provides a Plan B that can grow alongside and support the Plan A of liberal and ethnic nationalist strategies while giving people a workable way of life in coping with the diversity inflicted by a hostile political class.
Exactly, do both at the same time; thus Plan B can be a part of Plan A, as well as being a fallback position in case Plan A fails.
Risks of Feedback
Cultural activists should remain autonomous, speaking truth to power. To do so they should not be wedded to any politician or party. They should throw their support behind politicians who are good for Australia and punish those who are not.
In a word: Trump. The lickspittle worship of the "God Emperor" by factions of the Right is juvenile and pathetic. That's America; as Salter suggests, the same principle applies to Australia (and throughout the Western world).
Likewise, politicians should support promising cultural projects. They need to gather constituents able to diffuse ideas into the community. There is no ironclad solution. The relationship between political and cultural activism will sometimes need to be explicitly managed. What is certain is that a national revival will be unattainable without positive feedback between them.
"Explicitly managed." I agree, because as I suggested above, if left to their own devices, the political and cultural spheres will disdain each other and achieve nothing…for the Right. Of course, the more politically mature Left has had a seamless cooperation between Politics and Culture for many decades. Question: Who will be these explicit managers?
A fundamental challenge is weak leadership caused by political expediency.
In a word: Mainstreaming.
Personal Activism
Finally, I want to discuss personal strategy. What can one isolated person do with few resources and an imperfect grasp of the situation? Those engaged in asymmetric conflict must think hard about this question. First and always, citizens should strive to learn more about society, human nature, and the political process, circumventing establishment censorship.
Individual activism can be political and cultural. On the political front, join or support a party or special interest group that represents our people directly or indirectly. Choose one that is capable of making a difference. That is usually not a single-issue or tiny party. Whichever party or group you do join, agitate to have it accept members who are open national activists.
Cultural activism is broader and more varied, including individual artistic expression. On the joining side, get involved with or if necessary establish a group performing useful or needed work. Examples include supporting patriotic events such as Australia Day and Anzac Day; celebrating cultural events, such as Anglo-Celtic and European ethnic festivals and local community events. Become involved in community associations such as historical societies and local suburban groups, such as those resisting high-rise property development. Look for ways to help old people and families trapped in hostile immigrant suburbs. Friendly contact can reduce the sense of isolation and threat. Do chores, help with shopping. Alert the local council and police about local crime and anti-social behaviour. Provide information about welfare rights.
These are exactly the sorts of things I have been advocating for a long time, even as far back as my interview for Robert Griffin's book. The "movement" has not listened; the Type I activists have neither the desire nor the aptitude for these types of activities.
As already noted, religion is an important front in the culture war. There are things individuals can do. The religious should get involved in their local churches. Have a presence. Express yourself sincerely while listening to others. Urge ministers, priests and lay people to respect Anglo Australians' multicultural rights and return the church to its pastoral duty of uniting all communities. Oppose those who seek to hijack religion to harm the nation. The latter point applies to those who are not religious, who can legitimately claim and defend Christianity's cultural heritage. They can also defend their (and others) ancestral religions against vilification. They can teach children about the religion of their ancestors, the heroes of their faith, their music, art and literature. Cultural Christians can encourage clerics who speak up for the nation and for wholesome values.
For an atheist like me, this: "The latter point applies to those who are not religious, who can legitimately claim and defend Christianity's cultural heritage. They can also defend their (and others) ancestral religions against vilification" seems like good sense.
Stand up for your beliefs at work and among colleagues and friends. Use common sense. There are often opportunities to express viewpoints in workplaces. That includes responses to workplace surveys and electing union representatives. Communicate your views in a non-aggressive manner that maintains social norms.
This is an extremely important paragraph of suggestions. The last sentence is the sort of it-should-be-obvious advice that escapes many "activists." Crude Bunkerism is counter-productive. Set a good example, and, as Salter suggests "use common sense." Make use of the opportunities that present themselves to get pro-White views aired, normalizing such views, engaging in "democratic multiculturalism," and heightening the contradictions while promoting racial balkanization.
Elites have greater responsibility. Individuals influential in politics, economy or culture should examine their consciences. They have a duty of care, especially to their own nations.
Elites are traitors and at some time in the future need to be held accountable for their treason.
Choosing an Adaptive Nationalism
A big decision individuals need to make concerns political goals. What are the most adaptive policies relating to the national question?
Our starting position is nationalist, meaning that the nation is something worth preserving. But what is a nation and why is it valuable? At the start of this essay I described some nationalist policy objectives, without defining nationalism. For present purposes it can be defined as a form of social cohesion or solidarity derived from national identity. At its simplest and most cohesive a nation is an ethnic group living in its homeland, the latter being a named and demarcated territory. An ethnic group is a population with a proper name that believes itself to be descended from common ancestors.
Politicians refer to the nation while perpetuating mass indiscriminate immigration and approving a coercive multicultural apparatus that subordinates the founding historic nation. Are such politicians nationalists and can their policies produce social cohesion?
To decide that, we need to examine doctrines that have attracted the nationalist label.
I will next proceed to an analysis of Part II, when time allows.
Rotten Orange and VDARE News
Two items.
Australian leader mocks refugee-welcoming weakling cuck Trump.
Well, why not? He probably out-handshaked him as well. No worries though! A few more Trump tweets about "Celebrity Apprentice" ratings and it'll all be A-OK.
Speaking of VDARE, how about the spectacle of Happy Penguin Brimelow using the GOP baseball practice shooting as a fundraising vehicle? I'll let the reader make their own judgment on his character based on that – and his more typical habit of using his family, particularly his young children, as panhandling props (never mind his "cheesecake" pictures accompanying posts and his continued tolerance of a writer who publicly questioned at VDARE why possession of child porn should be illegal).
The good news: VDARE.com's Summer Fundraising drive is now within $25,000 of its $80,000 total.
The good and bad news: Every single day brings more confirmation of the vital importance of VDARE.com's role—unfortunately, often tragic.
After Inauguration Day, January 20 2017, I wrote of the Left's violent temper tantrum in the streets of the nation's capital: We're facing what was called in the case of the Civil War an irrepressible conflict. But this is America. People have guns. It will come to blood.
Now, on June 14, 2017, what appears to be a lone Leftist gunman has indeed shed blood—of House Majority Steve Scalise and at least four other victims at a Congressional Republican baseball practice.
There will be more.