text:
Author: Radix Journal
The Conservative Media and the Microphone
April 19, 2016 6:05 am April 19, 2016
No Comments on The Conservative Media and the Microphone
It's not like we didn't know this was coming. [Megyn Kelly](www.radixjournal.com/journal/2015/8/10/shes-lost-control) is already talking about leaving Fox News. In recent interviews, Kelly is triangulating against her employer, snarking about the "brain damage that comes from the job" of working at Fox. She's openly [speculating](crooksandliars.com/2016/04/megyn-kelly-open-leaving-fox-there-s-lot) about bailing on the company when her contract runs out because she doesn't feel the company has backed her sufficiently against the evil sexist Donald J. Trump.
It's not like we didn't know this was coming. Megyn Kelly is already talking about leaving Fox News. In recent interviews, Kelly is triangulating against her employer, snarking about the "brain damage that comes from the job" of working at Fox. She's openly speculating about bailing on the company when her contract runs out because she doesn't feel the company has backed her sufficiently against the evil sexist Donald J. Trump.
Trump's attacks on her are the best thing that could have happened to Kelly. Before, she was America's Sweetheart, a center-right pundit with flowing blonde locks ready to calmly tell you how it is. Not a bad position to be in, but no one important would take her seriously. Now, Megyn Kelly scowls at us from the camera with her angry woman haircut, covering the really critical issues like the "assault" on Michelle Fields. She tours the country paying tribute to her own courage as the pudgy white knights of the conservative movement serve as her amen chorus. As bucket food salesman Glenn Beck gloats, Megyn can do "whatever she wants" now. Hillary Clinton adds her own praise. And when Kelly does bail, she'll write a bestselling book detailing how horrible it was to work for right-wing propaganda network which didn't have her back. She's not just respectable, but a hero.
It's hard not to compare the situation to Michelle Fields. Fields claimed she "never wanted to be the story." But her supposed "assault" at the hands of Trump's campaign manager was utterly trivial, the kind of thing a man wouldn't even notice. Yet this story becomes the obsession of several major journalists, including Kelly. When her fanatically anti-Trump boyfriend (((Jamie Weinstein))) decided to make this a story, you could actually see the Beltway Right conspiring and scheming in real time on Twitter to make this a big deal. Fields didn't bother contacting her employer before going with the story and contemptuously treated her own company as an enemy throughout the process.
Breitbart has been targeted for elimination by the Beltway Right after this election cycle. The company is vulnerable because one of the major donors is Robert Mercer, a major Ted Cruz backer who funnels millions of dollars into the company to purchase favorable coverage for his preferred candidate. At the same time, Breitbart has not been characterized by the kind of fanatically anti-Trump coverage you see coming out of everything else. I expect Mercer will be heavily pressured to lend his support to another outlet which aligns more closely with the #NeverTrump consensus within the Beltway.
The Narrative emerged that Breitbart didn't have Fields' back. But the truth is Fields was never invested in Breitbart any more than was Ben Shapiro. Shapiro always wanted to build up his own website. Fields was interested in building her own brand. And Kelly wants to do the same.
Few people involved in what is absurdly called the "conservative media" want to shift the Overton Window to the Right or view themselves as activists. Instead, their goal is to carve out a niche, secure the loyalty of a certain market, and then push products to that market. If you are Jim Bakker (back and bigger than ever) or Glenn Beck, it's buckets of food or packets of "survival seeds" so you can survive the End Times. If you're some girl on Fox News, you want some subtly suggestive picture of yourself on the cover; what you are actually writing about is beyond the point. If you are Bill O'Reilly, you're pushing a particular fantasy about "greatness" to aging white men who know the country's best years are behind it. If you are Mark Levin, you're offering Talmudic and convoluted knowledge about the Constitution, with Levin acting as a kind of rabbi bestowing ancient secrets on the uneducated goyim.
The point is to secure ownership of The Microphone to guarantee access to that market. The business model only works if the Narrative is predictable, the talking points are the same, and the supposed solutions are things people are used to. The recent report Erick Erickson, Mark Levin, and Glenn Beck are being paid to attack Trump isn't some amazing revelation. It's just business as usual.
For that reason, we may have to rethink some of our assumptions about the way the conservative movement or even the Republican Party operates. It's tempting to say the point of the movement or the party is just to carry out the wishes of its donors. Yes, these donors want cheap labor via mass immigration, support for Israel, and a pro-corporate stance in regulatory policy. But consider the donors who blew untold millions on the campaigns of people like Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio. Are they Masters of the Universe – or simply suckers?
If 2016 has shown us anything, it's the absurdity of pretending there's a difference between the "Republican Establishment" and some virtuous TruConservative Movement. Ted Cruz's campaign represents the unification of these supposedly disparate forces if indeed there ever was a difference. And the key to understanding both the GOP and the Beltway Right is recognizing both are fundamentally self-interested. Talking to either about "principles" is like talking to a cafeteria Catholic about the intricacies of ecclesial law or some centuries-old papal bull. It's completely irrelevant to their own worldview. When a TruConservative starts talking to you about "principles," you're simply hearing a sales pitch.
If we had to describe the Beltway Right in two words, it would be "organized mediocrity." It's not just that conservatives refuse to address the challenges of this century, it's that they are intellectually incapable of understanding them. But that doesn't matter if you have managed to secure ownership to that captive "conservative" market.
Every movement, it is said, devolves into a business and then into a racket. The reason movement conservatives hate Donald Trump has nothing to do with "tone" or even "policies," but because he threatens the smooth operation of that racket. As Joseph Sobran said of conservatives, "It was all a game, a way of making a living."
The Beltway Right has two fundamental characteristics. First, like all mainstream conservatives, they believe they are in charge, that the country faces no fundamental threats or even the possibility of real changes. Secondly, and more importantly, it shares a common interest with the Cultural Marxist Left in preventing any raising of white racial consciousness which could threaten its business model of shadowboxing with the Democrats on TV. Thus, SE Cupp can giggle about being friends with Van Jones, a former member of the "socialist collective" STORM. But she frantically counter-signals against Trump and cries about how great gay marriage is. We can only imagine what she would say about us.
Indeed, like Megyn Kelly, many of the figures involved in the nominal American Right are simply looking for the opportunity to triangulate against their own institutions and transition into the "mainstream." On a far smaller scale, former "William F. Buckley fellow" Betsy Woodruff did something similar and now works for The Daily Beast, endlessly tone policing the American Right. One could argue she's simply following Buckley's legacy.
This is a key difference between conservatives and progressives. While progressives work to pull their institutions (and by extension, the culture) to the Left, conservatives constantly try to triangulate between their "friends" on the Left and the hated white constituency who actually reads or views them on TV. If the opportunity arises, they'll jump ship altogether. Conservative journalists and even activists have no real stake in the success of their own movement. Indeed, the "worse" things get, the more money than can make. Who can doubt the Beltway Right is salivating at the financial prospects offered by another Clinton Administration?
The result is the old pattern of the American Right losing in slow motion, with the timeless "conservative values" simply being today's progressivism after a few years delay. Insofar as there is a "populist" tone to American conservatism, it combines paranoia with political correctness, leading to idiotic campaigns about secret "Islamist" plots to impose Sharia rather than rational discussions about the implications of racial reality and demographic change.
Trump has given an opening for some conservatives within the Beltway Right to start challenging this pattern of gradual retreat and moral surrender. It's no exaggeration to say the Alt Right has gained a foothold, quietly, within the conservative movement itself because of The Donald. But make no mistake – the "blacklist" promised by minicons like Amanda Carpenter will become a reality if Trump falters. The battle for American Right isn't just about delegates in Colorado or Indiana, but about the staffing decisions within companies like Breitbart or the Daily Caller, the struggles over key donors, and the coups and counter-coups within long-established conservative institutions.
What is needed is for the Alternative Right to become an independent political force and to break the hold Conservatism Inc. has on white Americans. But pushing through the cordon sanitaire will require something more than more websites, Twitter campaigns, and small donations. That serious financial and logistical backing has not yet emerged. And unless it does soon, the Alt Right boomlet may fade if Trump does.
Every revolution begins by attacking the collaborators. And Conservatism Inc. is composed of collaborators, too cowardly, mediocre, or simply malevolent to stand up for the interests of their people. They operate as parasites on European-America. Our job as revolutionaries is to constantly bring out the contradictions within their own artificial ideology, to constantly show how they are betraying the very people they claim to speak for. American whites have no more dangerous enemy than those who claim they are defending a Republic which vanished long before any of us was born.
We are left in the uncomfortable situation of embracing Jeb Bush's characterization of Donald Trump as a #ChaosCandidate, rather than as the God-Emperor. Instability is the best ally we have. Tactically, we must do all we can to disrupt the conservative movement, to destroy its ability to serve as a safety valve to diffuse white discontent, to racialize the policy issues of the day, to ensure conservativism can never return to the "safe" territory of tax cuts for billionaires and enterprise zones. Because as long as Conservatism Inc. can provide a profitable living for its minions in Arlington or Georgetown, we'll never be able to connect to the mass base we need.
April 13, 2016 4:32 pm April 13, 2016
No Comments on Unintended Consequences
Abortion is a hot topic right now because of Donald Trump. Trump was strongly pro-choice in the past, and few of his supporters or detractors think he has gone through a serious conversion. His recent controversy seemed to result from his botching of pro-life talking points while trying to pander to pro-lifers. Nevertheless, he has focused renewed attention on abortion within the Alt Right.
Alymer Fisher's The Pro-Life Temptation has caused a stir in the Alt Right. Hunter Wallace wrote two pieces criticizing Fisher at his Occidental Dissent blog, while Greg Johnson has put in his own two cents at Counter Currents.
Abortion is a hot topic right now because of Donald Trump. Trump was strongly pro-choice in the past, and few of his supporters or detractors think he has gone through a serious conversion. His recent controversy resulted from his botching of pro-life talking points while trying to pander to pro-lifers. Nevertheless, he has focused renewed attention on abortion within the Alt Right.
Before addressing Hunter Wallace's arguments, I'd like to make a couple of disclaimers and an attempt to find some common ground.
First, while I disagree with Hunter Wallace, I greatly value the work he has done for the movement, and I hope he sees this article as part of a healthy debate.
Unlike foreign affairs, immigration, or multiculturalism, abortion is not an issue that really defines the Alt Right or separates it from mainstream conservatism. In other words, no one comes to the Alt Right because they are attracted to our positions on abortion, nor does the media attention we have received of late have anything to do with this issue. Thus, it's unnecessarily divisive to try to create some sort of "party line."
However, there are a few issues that most on the Alt-Right agree on.
We are not "pro-choice" in the sense that we do not believe women have an absolute right to "control their bodies" and that either sex should be free of the consequences of their sexual choices.
We reject the bromides of the pro-life movement about "black genocide," Margaret Sanger's fascist villainy, or how women are the "second victims" of abortion.
With that said, while abortion may be a side issue, it is not inconsequential. It reflects how we view rights, life, and demographics.
In this respect, I think Wallace deeply errs.
1. Abortion Rates, Not Absolute Numbers, Matter.
Wallace writes:
According to the Guttmacher Institute, the abortion breakdown by race in 2008 was as follows: 36.1 percent Non-Hispanic White, 29.6 percent Black, 9.4 percent Other, and 24.9 percent Hispanic. In other words, more White women than Black women are getting abortions."
Hunter ignores that Whites still are approximately 70 percent of the population. Stating that abortion affects Whites more than Blacks because a greater absolute number of Whites have an abortion is no different than those who will point to higher absolute levels of White crime to suggest that Whites are more violent than Blacks.
In the comment section of the Pro-Life Temptation, many Radix readers did not seem to understand this, so I will explain via a simple hypothetical. Imagine you have a society that has 1,000 pregnancies a year, none of which are aborted: 800 births are to Whites and 200 to blacks; thus 80 percent of all births are to Whites. The next year, abortion is legalized. Whites have an abortion rate of 10 percent, and Blacks have a an abortion rate of 30 percent: 80 white pregnancies are aborted, and 60 black pregnancies are aborted. The next year, there would be 720 White pregnancies and 140 Black pregnancies, with Whites now making up 84 percent of all births. Even though there is a higher absolute number of White abortions, the society becomes Whiter.
2. Abortion Didn't Cause the White Demographic Decline
Mid-way through his critique, Wallace gives a long list of state-by-state demographics as of 1970.
Alabama – 74 percent White
Georgia – 74 percent White
South Carolina – 69 percent White
Mississippi – 63 percent White
Florida – 77 percent White
Louisiana – 66 percent White
Texas – 66 percent White
Etcetera.
Wallace concludes,
This is what America looked like in 1970 on the cusp of Roe v. Wade when abortion on demand was illegal in all but a handful of states. . . . America has never in its entire history been whiter before or since.
It might seem autistic to accuse someone of a logical fallacy in an online debate . . . but this is a textbook case of post hoc ergo procter hoc. There is an obvious alternative cause to White's demographic displacement—immigration policy. Wallace attempts to tie abortion to immigration, noting,
As it happens, the 45 million immigrants who have arrived since 1965 have replaced the 45 million Whites and blacks we have aborted since Roe v. Wade.
Yet this ignores that the 1965 Immigration Act, which fueled mass immigration, predated Roe by many years.
Given that Blacks and Hispanics are both much more likely to have abortions than Whites, Whites would be an even smaller share of the population if abortion had not been legalized.
3. Birth Control, Not Abortion, Causes Falling White Birth Rates.
According to Wallace:
Colorado has been singled out and cited as an abortion success story. Just so you know, the latest abortion numbers from Colorado in 2012 paint a very different story: Non-Hispanic White women are getting 60.8% of abortions in Colorado, Black women are getting 7.2%, Other accounts for 9% and Hispanic for 23%. The birthrate of low-income women that is plummeting in Colorado is likely that of White women.
First, as Colorado is 70 percent non-Hispanic White, abortion still has an overall eugenic benefit in Colorado. More importantly, he misread Fisher's argument. Fisher was praising Colorado's plan to provide free long-term contraceptives to the poor—not abortion. As Fisher wrote,
[T]he state provided intrauterine devices and implants that, unlike condoms or the pill, did not require that the user be responsible enough to plan ahead. Within a few years, the birth rate of low-income women plummeted."
Pro-life conservatives, predictably, compared this policy to Nazi eugenics. Because this was the only way to get non-Whites to use birth control, one would expect there to be a lower gap between White and non-White abortion rates in Colorado because of the contraceptives.
This segues into a larger point. While birth control may be selfish, it requires some forward planning and discipline. You spend money on "the pill" and take it every day to avoid the mere possibility of a pregnancy in the future. Thus, while Blacks are more likely to have abortion, Whites are more likely to use birth control.
Birth control, not abortion, is what causes lower White birth rates. Few on the Alt Right have argued for banning birth control, and it would be an incredibly unpopular position to take. I'm sure most everyone reading this has used some form of contraception at some time, as have 98 percent of women who have been sexually active.
While I think the pill has been a major net negative on civilization, the genie is out of the lamp, and we need to deal with society as it is.
4. Eugenics or Eugenic Effects
Wallace responds to the arguments about whether we should waste our political capital on fighting birth control or abortion by noting the irony of "the same people who say we can't outlaw or restrict abortion are strongly in favor of even more implausible government mandated eugenics schemes."
But by supporting legalized abortion (or at least not bothering to fight it), we are not making the larger case of eugenics; we are rather accepting a policy with eugenic effects that is already in place. While I support eugenics (more on this below), leaving abortion laws as is, is not viewed by society as "eugenics."
There are many public policies that have strong eugenic and dysgenic effects without coming under the rubric of "eugenics." The crushing burden of student-loan debt, for example, prevents many young college-educated (high IQ) White couples from having children at a young age. In contrast, welfare subsidies for children encourage the poor and uneducated to reproduce.
We could support ending welfare for young mothers and ending the education-financial complex—both of which are popular positions among certain segments of the Left and Right—because they would have eugenic effects for our people.
(Yes, I am acknowledging my eugenic motives, but as I said, we don't have much of an effect on these policy debates one way or the other. The question is simply what we decide to spend our limited resources and political capital on.)
5. The Ubermensch, the Untermensch, and the Embryo
Wallace reacted in horror to a quote from Greg Johnson's essay on abortion:
for eugenic purposes, it might be very useful to fertilize a dozen eggs, sequence their genomes, choose only to implant the best, and wash the rest down the drain.
He fails to note that Johnson followed that sentence with "but no decent society can countenance such casual killing of healthy human beings." Wallace goes on to discuss whether we support "White Identity" or some Nietzschean concept of a "superman."
I'll be happy to argue for Wallace's straw man. I don't really consider myself a Nietzschean. However, all things being equal, I would prefer a society populated by attractive, healthy, and intelligent people—rather than the ugly, sick, and stupid. Like all ends, there are some means that I find objectionable. I think most of us would agree that it's wrong to indiscriminately murder everyone below an IQ 100; but few of us would be horrified by the idea of using IQ as a factor in immigration admissions.
Eugenics helps achieve that goal, and it can be done through various means—some more coercive than others. There have historically been two types of eugenics, positive eugenics (which encourages the desirable to breed) and negative eugenics (which discouraging the undesirable). Scientific advances creates a third option, sometimes called liberal eugenics, which involves genetic engineering or couples using either positive or negative eugenics to choose their best offspring.
Within each type of eugenics, there are still various levels of coercion that can be used. We could, for example, pay people to get sterilized voluntarily (as William Shockley famously suggested), or we could force them to do so. We could subsidize the desirable to reproduce or we could even bar them from using birth control.
While Wallace claims eugenics is completely unpalatable, the fact is, our society accepts certain forms of it. For example, while it receives some criticism, Project Prevention, which pays drug addicts to take long term birth control, still operates with relatively positive press.
Although the technology is not quite available, the idea of embryo screening would likely also be acceptable to most. It involves couples creating many dozens of embryos and selecting the best. This is a form of liberal eugenics, but it does not require genetic manipulation—which makes it more technologically feasible and removes the problem of a couple's children not sharing their DNA.
From a moral perspective, there is no coercion, nor even any suggestion about who should or should not be reproducing. Thus, this could become one of the most feasible and morally acceptable form of eugenics, if one is willing to overlook the discarded embryos.
And our society already accepts this. In vitro fertilization (IVF) is widespread and requires discarding embryos even without the screening. In contrast to abortion, those who use IVF tend to be "Caucasian, married women with higher levels of education and income."
Despite resulting in more babies and families, pro-lifers oppose helping rich, educated Whites have children through IVF because it "promotes the discarding of 'extra' human embryos." As an alternative to having your own children, they suggest the "beautiful, loving and moral option of adoption." In other words, pro-lifers promote cucking. Literally.
Personally, I do not see anything wrong with the IVF method. Remember that 60-80 percent of embryos fail to implant, and of those that do, 30 percent miscarry early in pregnancy—meaning that 72-86 percent of all embryos do not make it out of the womb. In almost all cases, the mother doesn't know. However, if she did, no one would regard it as tragic as a third trimester miscarriage, much less the death of an infant.
This is just basic moral intuition. It's the reason why Americans are generally opposed to late-term abortions but not first-trimester abortions. It may not be "logical" or "morally consistent" but the truth is that one needs a philosopher or a holy book to convince himself that a collection of cells has the same value as an infant.
While I can respect someone who has sincerely held religious view about abortion, from a strictly utilitarian view, abortion, as practiced, mitigates the negative dysgenic and demographic trends facing White Americans.
Follow T. M. Goddard on Twitter.
On LARPing
April 11, 2016 11:51 pm April 11, 2016
No Comments on On LARPing
"How will we know we've won?"
I shrugged. "That's easy," I said. "When we get executed for being too leftist."
Take a step back and look at the world we live in. Just look at the current headlines:
A man leaves his wife so he can have a child with his mom.
France vows to import more Muslim refugees–as does Iceland.
Major businesses are moving out of North Carolina because the state passed a law saying men who crossdress or mutilate their genitals can't use a ladies' room.
Meanwhile, in Germany, train cars must be segregated by sex because of constant attacks from Muslims.
The Roman Republic was born when the outraged men of the city rose against the last king following his rape of Lucretia. On any given day, each one of us is witness to events that by themselves justify the overthrow of governments or the need for radical social change. (The fact I know who Amy Schumer is, is sufficient reason to unleash Ragnarök.)
But most of us don't do anything. If we're really daring, we might post some online critiques, usually under a pen name. A devastatingly small number of us financially support organizations or online media outlets we agree with. But we don't take to the streets; we don't hang the traitors from lamposts; we don't revolt the same way any of our ancestors would.
We're all culpable, at least in some ways. We all make the choice that today is the day we will not take to the streets, that we'll bend the knee and police our own dissent. Our job, our physical safety, our families, our reputation (in the eyes of people who hate us) is more important. Unless you're not paying taxes, living outside the law, or in some form of war against the powers that be, you'll be objectively helping the System keep going, whatever subversive thoughts you have within your own head. Hence, the radical (even by National Socialist standards) James Mason recommended either total war or dropping out of the System entirely.
There are exceptions. I've met a few and been told of far more. Some have faced jail time, some have taken beatings, some have lost jobs or family members. Some of these figures I consider positively heroic and far more courageous than myself. But none could be called politically successful in the sense of building a movement which has actually built power or changed policy. Some have done far more harm than good. Others dropped out, not from the System, but from the Movement after being disillusioned after putting it all on the line and getting nothing in return except criticism. I wouldn't encourage anyone to follow their path.
But I sympathize. Years ago, at a private gathering of explicit White nationalists, one of the writers I most respect in this movement said he participates not because he expects to win, but because it is what he feels he must do to be true to himself. He drew a parallel to Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita, who is told he fights because he must, because it his nature and duty, regardless of the outcome.
Heroic and inspiring to be sure. And it's hard not to relate to it. I despise politics but have devoted my life to it. I participate in the movement because of a primal need to resist, to not give into the demise of my entire race, culture, and civilization.
But politics is the art of the possible and the point of any ideological movement is to build power, change the culture, and hopefully capture (or found) a state.
Politics should not be about personal redemption or spiritual fulfillment. In the end, the point is to actually build the world we want to live in. If the point of activism is just to make yourself feel better or troll the normies for its own sake, it's really no different from the leftists and their preening on social networking.
So goys, do we mean it? Any of it? Allum Bokhari and Milo Yiannopoulos's recent article profiling the Alt Right has led to predictable caterwauling from the usual swine. As that is just cheap virtue signaling from NPC's who don't have any values or real opinions anyway, we can dismiss it. The real question is about us.
We are told many on the Alt Right aren't "actually bigots" and, indeed, may be "instinctive libertarians" rather than conservatives. Our main motivation is lulz, not any real political end. And we are told we don't want to be like those "1488ers," which isn't "edifying stuff." (Speak for yourself).
Bokhari and Yiannopoulos aren't entirely wrong when they say there are those out there who are "humourless ideologues who have no lives beyond their political crusade, and live for the destruction of the great." These are the people who are constantly dumping on the efforts of anyone who are trying to get anything going. Few of those involved in the movement haven't been accused of being a Mossad shill, a fag, a race-mixer, "just in it for the money," or all of the above. The infighting is continuous and savage. And sadly there are those out there who are involved, at whatever degree, not only because they have nothing else going on but because they are incapable of having anything else going on; such people live for the drama because it makes them feel important.
But who cares? If someone accuses me, Gregory Hood, of being some kind of shill for the merchants, there is no teeth behind it. If anything, I quietly thank them, as it moves the Overton Window, in some small way, to the Right.
And few WN's are getting anything out of "the movement" in terms that make sense by modern standards. One's reminded of the outraged Enoch Powell screaming: "Judas was paid; I am making a sacrifice!" when he was accused of being a turncoat. Who profits from involvement in the movement?
Let's name names. Jared Taylor lost much his business as a result of his work for the cause and has sacrificed untold hundreds of thousands. He gets called a Jewish shill for his trouble. Richard Spencer could easily have been some degenerate Establishment Republican lounging on ski lifts for the rest of his life, living in luxury and maybe even getting elected. Instead, he gets tossed in a Hungarian prison and his own town basically tries to ban him because he dedicates his entire life to securing a future for our people. Peter Brimelow is not only purged from National Review but loses his financial journalism career. Kevin MacDonald has screaming protesters showing up to his classes. Andrew Anglin can barely keep afloat with the constant attacks against his website. Andrew "Weev" Auernheimer has been hounded from his country. Greg Johnson is hounded out of his home by leftist thugs. And there are so many more.
Every single person who has done stuff under their own names has made a sacrifice by participating in the movement. Why the hell would anyone choose this unless they meant it?
The more extreme are sometimes accused of LARPing. Is National Socialism inherently LARPing? Unless one is literally marching around in 1930s uniforms trying to set up a putsch (which even the NSM doesn't do anymore), I don't see why.
What makes LARPing "LARPing" is the absence of danger, the suspension of disbelief, the idea that you can always walk away. It's living your life under the pretense society is organized under the way you would prefer, rather than dealing with the word as it is.
To use the most obvious example, if you give yourself a knightly title and pretend you are in the Teutonic Order, you're LARPing. But if you're jousting competitively in Maryland, you're not LARPing. You're training, you're getting concussions, you're putting it on the line. You're not a member of some knightly order, but it's fair to call yourself a tourney fighter. That's not LARPing. It's just what you do. And screw anyone who tells you otherwise.
If you throw on a tunic and call yourself Thorolf Skullsplitter even though you've never killed anybody and then go to work at the office the next day, yeah, you're LARPing. But if you are living as a heathen, building organic spirituality that actually has something to say about modern life in Vinland and constantly being hammered by the powers that be for doing it, then that's just who you are.
If you want to kid yourself that you're a "Traditionalist Catholic" and that the Church of Francis has anything to do with the Church of Urban II or that putting some Hapsburg in charge is going to save us, yeah, you're LARPing. But if you're living as an authentic Catholic, putting your whole life on the altar of sacrifice before what you see as God and His Church, while having no illusions about what the Church is today and what the modern world is, who the hell is anyone else to say you are kidding yourself? I think you are living your belief based on a delusion. But it's not my call. No martyr of any creed is a LARPer.
The most obvious LARPers in society aren't white nationalists. They're the TruConservative or #CruzCrew types sending me pixelated and crappy memes that look like something out of the American Eagle Party, while sending money to Conservative Inc. hacks who laugh at them.
It's those pretending "the Constitution" means something, that non-Whites are my "fellow Americans," and that the United States was founded as a "Christian nation," despite being founded by a bunch of Freemasons.
It's the useless cowards who have done nothing as their movement leads from failure to failure for decades but now are suddenly ready to fight against Donald Trump because it's safe and because they have the Beltway Right and the Media Left both on their side. They can bail anytime they want.
In contrast, those who recognize the reality of race, who understand the importance of identity, who see where this is all going, live with the consequences of our beliefs every day. We recognize we aren't just living at an important time in history, but the most important time in history, when our people will choose to live or die. The more we are willing to sacrifice, the more we are willing to put ourselves out there, the more real this struggle becomes. As all Traditionalists know, Life is most real at the moment of its end, which is why those glorious men of the Spanish Right hurled themselves into battle during the civil war screaming "Vive La Muerte!"
Which, of course, brings us to Pepe memes.
Because whatever these high ideals, the Alt Right is undoubtedly characterized by self-awareness and cynical humor. Part of this is simply because the traditional institutions needed for an earnest effort at Restoration simply don't exist. Who the hell wants to save the Church of Francis, or, even worse, the "conservative movement?" The people who were supposed to safeguard our civilization are helping destroy it. Our elders have betrayed us.
Milo is right when he says part of this is simply rebellion against our elders. But Milo, we're not just being contrarian–it's furious despair over the fact that these people who were supposed to safeguard our civilization are handing us a ruin. The wrath, the pain, the black night of the soul—this is all real. I know that feel, bro.
Partially, this is self-protection. One must laugh to keep from crying. Our society is filled with those who self-detonate: the fathers who light themselves on fire because they can't deal with the family courts; the men who suddenly erupt in violence against their own families after years of passivity; the untold millions self-medicating themselves into oblivion with booze, drugs, porn, and entertainment. This culture is fundamentally sick.
As it almost always is, humor is a shield preventing us from sinking into total despair or sudden violence. In evolutionary terms, our brain is screaming for us to pick up the sword and wade into the enemy. But we know it's politically counter-productive and won't do anything. So we retreat into humor, not because we don't take anything seriously, but because we take it all-too-seriously. If we looked reality in the face, we'd go mad. Who wouldn't?
Most all, it's simply a recognition of reality. Of course, there's an undercurrent of irony when the same people hailing God Emperor Trump and his Jewish daughter are those who demand Jared Taylor "name the Jew." But really, it's just a recognition of our position. We are powerless. Even our internal squabbles don't really matter. Where we have power is in creating a culture of subversion, hollowing out the shibboleths of the modern age. The first generation raised in a culture of hyper-media, self-referential culture, and all-encompassing media could not have manifested our resistance in any other way.
And I find I can only fully trust those who come out of this kind of climate. You can't renounce that which you never possessed. Some neckbearded virgin telling you not to have premarital sex doesn't mean anything. Contra Milo, it's not that we don't have a problem with multicultural society. It's that we've never known anything else. We actually live in the society generations of leftists worked to build and we know it is garbage. It's aesthetically ugly, spiritually empty, empirically false, morally meaningless.
I'm not going to start screaming obscenities at a random Black man I encounter. And unless you want to go to jail by starting The Race War the next time you see a White woman dating a Muslim at 7-11, or begin The Purge when two dudes are holding hands in Adams Morgan, you have to deal with it every day. But whatever nice old Black woman or polite Hispanic man you've met, you know what multiculturalism leads to.
Exposure doesn't lead to acceptance; it leads to resistance, even if it doesn't mean you spend your days attacking or yelling at people. You see the problem. And so it's those who deepest in the filth who react most strongly against it, the same way the diverse states break for Trump while the whitopias go for Cruz.
How to fight back? Even you're willing to make a spectacle of yourself, what will it accomplish besides a trip to jail? So most of us take refuge in subversion. Ironically, today, we are the "Culture of Critique." We are those who hollow up the pillars of the social order. And the contempt I feel for those ironically championing "spreading democracy in the Middle East" or who say "diversity is our strength" must be the same feeling (((leftists))) have when they see a happy White family.
The hard part is determining that which we don't subject to irony, that which we are willing to hold as sacred. There will be a moment where we have to come forth. There will be a choice where you have to decide what you are willing to fight for and to die for. I have made my choice. Each one of you reading this ultimately has to make that choice for yourself.
I am not a Christian. I don't know of one traditional institution I think can save us. I have a forthcoming compilation that calls my own country's existence into question. But for me, the irreducible element is race and the basis of morality is that which furthers the upward development of our people.
In our own lives, we must build tribes, communities, and networks that we can use to support us during this time of occupation. We have to support those people, like Jared Taylor, Richard Spencer, Greg Johnson and others, who are willing to openly advocate for our cause. And we have to build a world, which, in truth, many of us may feel uncomfortable if it ever comes into being.
Because we are all tainted. I don't consider myself a degenerate (well, not too much). I try to live with fidelity and honor my oaths. I don't want my children to know of the filth I have to encounter every time I turn on the television even exists. But just by existing in this society and going along with it every day, I have failed. If the Revolution judges me guilty, it's right.
What is the Alt Right? We all have our own ideas. But what makes the Alt Right the "alternative" isn't just acknowledging race, the destructive impact of Jews, Traditionalism, or whatever deity you prefer. You can find traditional conservatives willing to agree with you on all of that. What makes the Alt Right "alternative" is that it has nothing to do with preserving or saving the existing system.
It's about destroying it. It's about paving the way for something new. It's about recognizing that all of this is too sick, and evil, and ugly to survive. And that sacrificing everything, even ourselves, is worth it if it means our children can live in a world where their lives will be something more than passively consuming media churned out by people who despise us.
I don't take the morality of our society seriously. Who could? I don't take our politics seriously.
But I would sacrifice all for my people. I know all of you reading this will do the same. And eventually, sooner than we expect, we will be called upon to prove it.
Dark Enlightenment
April 9, 2016 6:09 pm April 9, 2016
No Comments on Dark Enlightenment
Beyond the usual name-calling, when self-described "conservatives" attack the Alt Right they usually accuse us of being insufficiently "conservative," "constitutionalist, or "classically liberal." Ian Tuttle of National Review claims that the Alt Right's racism is in and of itself a rejection of classical liberalism.
Beyond the usual name-calling, when self-described "conservatives" attack the Alt Right they usually accuse us of being insufficiently "conservative," "constitutionalist, or "classically liberal."
Ian Tuttle of National Review claims that the Alt Right's racism is in and of itself a rejection of classical liberalism.
Most on the Alt-Right do not only reject the "conservative Establishment" or some other contemporary bogeyman; they also reject the ideals of classical liberalism as such. That rejection grounds the thinking of Jared Taylor, and Richard Spencer, for instance—representative "intellectuals" of the Alt-Right, according to Bokhari and Yiannopoulos. These men—the founders of the publications American Renaissance and Radix Journal, respectively—have not simply been "accused of racism." They are racist, by definition. Taylor's "race realism," for example, co-opts evolutionary biology in the hopes of demonstrating that the races have become sufficiently differentiated over the millennia to the point that the races are fundamentally—that is, biologically—different.
Writing in The Federalist, Robert Tracinski argues that the Alt Right "is not really part of the 'right' because it is thoroughly collectivist in a vile and personal way." Tracinski is especially bothered by expressed opposition to interracial marriage.
[The Alt Right] says that your most personal, individual, deeply meaningful decisions—such as whom you marry and have children with—should be determined by some larger social program based on group identity.
That's why they are openly opposed to free markets in favor of economic nationalism: this is an anti-freedom, anti-individualist movement. And it's a big reason why the distinction between "identitarians" and white supremacists is a false one. Both are joined by the premise, "Du bist nichts; dein Volk ist alles." You are nothing, your race is everything.
William Regnery, the co-founder of The National Policy Institute along with Sam Francis, told neocon publicist Jamie Kirchick that the conservative movement is overly concerned with "the mechanics, the Constitution, bromides"; and that England has fared well without a written Constitution. Kirchick predictably expressed shock at this "open disrespect for America's founding document . . . from someone to the right of Genghis Khan." For Kirchick,
it's ironic that self-identified right-wingers would proclaim the obsolescence of the Constitution as a 'vehicle for progress,' since that's precisely the way many liberals see it's role in American Society.
Furthermore, many of these conservatives seem to believe that opposing classical liberal values puts you at odds with Western Civilization itself. For Tracinski, "the central theme of the Western intellectual tradition is about rising above tribalism to arrive at universal values." At Reason, Robby Soave claims Trump and his Alt Right supporters reject "the most important legacies of the Enlightenment and Western society" and that you cannot be pro-Western if you are "desperate to undo its crowning achievements."
I'm not sure exactly how sincere all these criticisms are. Kirchick, who rose to fame attacking Ron Paul and whose entire career is based on promoting undeclared wars and multinational peacekeeping forces, is not exactly the ideal defender of "limited government" or "constitutionalism". . . Nevertheless, the conservative and libertarian smart set seem to believe this is an effective enough argument to repeat ad nauseum, so it's worth seriously addressing.
1. The West is More Than the Enlightenment and Classical Liberalism.
While I don't want to digress too much about the relationship between the Enlightenment and the Western tradition, it's uncontroversial to note that Western civilization existed before Locke and Rousseau, and many great Western thinkers and artists (notably the Romantics) who came after the Enlightenment, openly rejected it.
Furthermore, its rich that ostensive conservatives would identify the Enlightenment and classical liberalism as the zenith of Western Civilization, when traditionalists have been at odds with the Enlightenment for centuries.
Russell Kirk, the author The Conservative Mind and who remains an icon among Beltway conservatives, argued that
"absolute liberty," "absolute equality," and similar projects, far from being natural rights, are conspicuously unnatural conditions. . . . In confounding matters of social convenience and convention with the subtle and indefinable natural order of God, the philosophers of the Enlightenment and followers of Rousseau threaten society with the dissolution of artificial institutions.
2. The Founding Fathers Were Hardly Free-Trading Egalitarians.
Tracinski cites the Alt Right's opposition to miscegenation and free trade as proof that it is not "right" and would be offensive to the generation of Washington, Jefferson, and Madison. But what did the Founders really think about race?
At the time of the Declaration of Independence, the majority of states had anti-miscegenation laws; those that did not had virtually no Blacks. At some point in history, 44 of all 50 states had such laws. And these views did not change with abolition.
Abraham Lincoln stated unequivocally,
I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races—that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.
Even in the mid-20th century, Dwight Eisenhower emphasized that, while he supported moderate civil-rights measures, he did not want a Negro to "court my daughter."
While the Founders debated slavery, they were universal in their belief that the races were not equal. As Jefferson put it in Notes on the State of Virginia. Whites had "superior beauty," while Blacks had "a reason much inferior,"
as I think one could scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid; and that in imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous.
Most enlightenment thinkers shared this view. Like Jefferson, Montesquieu noted the Blacks were both "wanting common sense."
It is hardly to be believed that God, who is a wise Being, should place a soul, especially a good soul, in such a black ugly body.
David Hume, the author of A Treatise on Human Nature, observed,
I am apt to suspect the Negroes, and in general all other species of men to be naturally inferior to the whites. There never was any civilized nation of any other complection than white, nor even any individual eminent in action or speculation.
As for trade, James Madison introduced the Tariff Act of 1789, which, as William Edmunds Benson noted in The Political History of the Tariff 1789-1861, included both revenue tariffs and an "enumerated list, higher specific duties," which "would be levied for protection." In 1791, Alexander Hamilton issued his Report on Manfactures to Congress. The first principle was:
Protecting duties—or duties on those foreign articles which are the rivals of the domestic ones intended to be encouraged.
In other words, statements like "all men are created equal" were never seen by the Founders as arguments against economic nationalism.
3. Classical Liberal Values Cannot Survive Diversity
Before he founded National Review, William F Buckley Jr. wrote an article extolling the virtues of libertarian individualism in the abstract, but qualified that these values would cease to exist if the Soviet Union conquered America. To Buckley, "The important issue of the day, it is time to admit it, is survival." Thus,
we have to accept Big Government for the duration—for neither an offensive nor a defensive war can be waged . . . except through the instrument of a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores.
Buckley's endorsement of the "instrument of a totalitarian bureaucracy" has always outraged libertarians, but in principle, Buckley was undoubtedly correct that adherence to libertarianism was suicidal if it meant refusing to use the power of the state to protect against existential threats.
John Locke similarly believed that the state could not universally grant rights to all groups, because this would undermine freedom. Notably, he argued that England should not tolerate the Catholic Church because
all those who enter into it do thereby ipso facto deliver themselves up to the protection and service of another prince.
Regardless of whether Locke was right about the threat of Catholics, or Buckley, about the threat of the Soviet Union, the principle applies today. What is at stake is survival, whether the threat imitates from foreign armies, immigrants, or domestic citizens.
4. The Limits of the Constitution
Interestingly, Alexander Hamilton helped draft Haiti's Constitution of 1801. Despite such an illustrious pedigree, Haiti never sustained a republican government, or anything resembling a civilized society. There are many reasons for this, of course, but none more important than the fact that Haiti is full of Haitians. The paradox of republican and Enlightenment values is that, no matter how "universalist" that might profess to be, they are ultimately only sustained by Europeans.
Yet according to Tuttle,
it's entirely plausible that, where conservatives have endorsed policies—high levels of immigration, for example—that have ended up undermining certain "core Western values" (the importance of the rule of law, say), it was out of a commitment to other high-minded principles also in keeping with the Western tradition.
Putting aside his unstated "high minded" Western principles, the problem with mass immigration is not that it undermines the rule of law. The problem is that when you import non-European people, they will undermine Western values, including Tuttle's beloved classical liberalism. This will occur regardless of whether they arrive illegally or fill out all the paperwork correctly.
Moreover, any constitution is only as good as the government that enforces and interprets it, and any government is defined by the people it governs.
This reality often offends conservatives, who like to believe that laws and words don't (or shouldn't) change meanings, and that a United States of America could exist as a legalistic mechanism indefinitely and regardless of the racial makeup of its population.
Yet in multicultural America, non-Whites secured the election of Barack Obama . . . who appointed Sonia Sotomayor to interpret the Constitution. If we continue to import more non-Whites, there will be many more Sonia Sotomayors to define the "true" meaning of the law.
In truth, you can no more be against "constitutional conservatism" as you can oppose the Passenger Pigeon. In Joe Sobran's words, we live in a "Post-Constitutional America," where "the U.S. Constitution poses no serious threat to our form of government." Most of what the government does on a daily basis is clearly not authorized by the Constitution. Thus, for conservatives, "defending the Constitution" seems to function as a proxy in an undeclared culture war.
There are some on the Alt Right who believe that The Enlightenment and American Founding were fundamentally flawed. Politically incorrect quotes from Jefferson and Locke notwithstanding, they would argue that these Enlightenment and classically liberal ideals planted universalist and egalitarian seeds that blossomed into our current multicultural mess.
There are others who believe that we can have a constitutionally limited government so long as we have an ethno-state. Many are now using the phrase "libertarianism in one country."
We all agree that arguing about "restoring the Constitution" when America is run by a hostile elites intent on replacing the historic American nation with third worlders is—to use a cliché—much like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It's more important that we escape the sinking ship, a ship, we must admit, that was constructed on classically liberal values. Only after we get to safety and reaffirm our heritage and destiny can we discuss what aspects of the liberal tradition we want to salvage.
The Pro-Life Temptation
7 Comments on The Pro-Life Temptation
I understand the pro-life temptation. The kinds of people who support abortion access most fervently are those who stand for the things we oppose: selfishness, atomization, the "liberation" of women, and leftist identity politics. In popular culture, legalized abortion is tied to "reproductive freedom," which has liberated women from the horrible fate of being wives and mothers and allowed them to pursue more meaningful lives as cubicle drones.
Conversely, it is tempting to believe that abolishing legalized abortion would lead to a return to more traditional values, a higher birthrate, and healthier relations between the sexes. Many European leaders that we admire are moving (http://www.lifenews.com/2013/11/25/putin-signs-law-banning-abortion-ads-as-it-decimates-russias-population/) their countries (http://www.politics.hu/20120522/orban-said-outraged-by-eu-mandated-licensing-of-abortion-pill-in-hungary-opponents-say-move-violates-pro-life-constitution/) in a pro-life direction, perhaps because they have bought into this narrative.
Unfortunately, as our movement gains influence, it is important that we not fall prey to the pro-life temptation.
Few issues divide our movement—whether we call it identitarianism, race-realism, or the "alt Right"—like abortion. To some, the practice is akin to murder, and its acceptance shows the degeneracy of the Left. To others, abortion—and contraception more generally—are eugenic practices, which are about the only things keeping our societies from falling into complete idiocracy.
Conversely, it is tempting to believe that abolishing legalized abortion would lead to a return to more traditional values, a higher birthrate, and healthier relations between the sexes. Many European leaders that we admire are moving their countries in a pro-life direction, perhaps because they have bought into this narrative.
First off, the alt Right appreciates what is superior in man, in the Nietzschean sense. Most members of the alt Right applaud countries like Japan and South Korea for having low out-of-wedlock birth rates and not taking in Muslim or African refugees. We don't simply say "who cares what they do, they're not my tribe." Rather, we recognize that such people have built impressive civilizations, and we believe that it is in the interest of humanity that these nations continue to exist, and not adopt the suicidal policies of the West.
Second, we on the alt Right have an appreciation of tribalism and identity. We realize that people are not just autonomous individuals. Life gains its meaning through connections to other members of our families, tribes, and nations.
Being pro-life flies in the face both of these principles.
The Pro-Life Movement is Dysgenic
First of all, the pro-life position is clearly dysgenic. A 2011 study showed that in 2008, while 16 percent of women aged 15-44 lived below the poverty line, among women who had abortions, the number was 42 percent. Hispanic and African-American women made up a combined 31 percent of this age group, but almost 55 percent of those who chose to terminate a pregnancy. The reasons behind these patterns aren't hard to figure out. In a world with reliable birth control, it is quite easy to avoid an unwanted pregnancy; the only ones who can't are the least intelligent and responsible members of society: women who are disproportionately Black, Hispanic, and poor.
A natural experiment in Colorado shows what happens when a state makes contraception and abortion more freely available. Over the last decade, the state has moved to the Left, and in 2009 it began offering free or low-cost long-acting contraception to poorer women. The state provided intrauterine devices and implants that, unlike condoms or the pill, did not require that the user be responsible enough to plan ahead. Within a few years, the birth rate of low-income women plummeted. In states where Republican legislatures have enacted a pro-life agenda, the opposite has happened.
The idea that there are capable women out there who are aborting their babies as they delay marriage and climb the corporate ladder is a fantasy. When an intelligent, responsible woman does have an abortion, it is often because the baby has a disease or the pregnancy threatens her health, not because she or her boyfriend forget to use contraception. A study in Europe found that over 90 percent of mothers who were told that their babies were going to have Down's syndrome did not continue the pregnancy. In 2011, it was estimated that there are now 30 percent fewer people with the disorder in the United States due to prenatal diagnosis. In the future, as such technologies improve, what the Left calls "reproductive freedom" will continue to be the justification for private-sector eugenics.
The Identitarian Case
Not only is the pro-life movement dysgenic, but its justifications rely on principles we generally reject. The alt Right is skeptical, to say the least, of concepts like "equality" and "human rights," especially as bases for policy. The unborn fetus has no connection to anyone else in the community. If it is not even wanted by its own mother, criminalizing abortion means that the state must step in and say that the individual has rights as an individual, despite its lack of connection to any larger social group. This is no problem to those in the conservative movement, who decide right and wrong based on principles like "the right to life." It is no coincidence that some of the most pro-life politicians are those most excited about adopting children from Africa and those in their movement are among the conservatives most likely to denounce the "racism" of their political opponents.
The mother-child bond is the strongest of human relationships, the one least subject to being altered by government policy or societal forces. While over the last decades, fathers have become more likely to walk out on their children and divorce rates have risen, there has been no similar rise in females abandoning their children. When the parent-child bond does not exist for a pregnant woman, society has no business stepping in. Those who want to do so, by banning abortion because it's "racist" or adopting children from Africa, are the ultimate cuckservatives.
If there were to be a pro-life position that we could accept, it would be based on arguments about what is good for the community. The case would have to be made that abortion is what is decimating the White population and decreasing its quality. While it's true that a blanket ban on abortion would probably increase the White population in there numbers, it would, no doubt, decrease the overall quality, as well and leave all races stupider, more criminally prone, and more diseased.
For those of us who believe that the sexual revolution and women's liberation have been disastrous for society, it is tempting to lash out at contraception and abortion. Yet the pro-life agenda would give us the worst of all worlds. Those whom we want to have children would continue to find a way to do what they wanted, while the birth rates among the worst members of society would explode. Childbearing among better classes would probably decrease even further under the strain of the inevitable increases in crime and redistributive policies that would follow.
It is as if pro-life identitarians want to force women be wives and mothers by leaving them no other choice: Just take away their access to abortion and contraception, and they'll have to stay home and raise children or stop having sex at all! Yet this kind of thinking implicitly affirms the Left's premise that, when given a choice, women will want to be barren careerists.
A better way is to make an honest case that feminism has been bad for women. There is no higher calling in life than continuing the species, and raising happy, healthy children who will be a benefit to society. The case that babies are more fulfilling than cubicles should not be hard to make, and has been self-evident to every society not infected with the virus of leftism. Indeed, data shows that as feminism has progressed across the Western world, women have become less happy. The program of the Left fails by its own standards.
Of course, we cannot return to healthier relations between the sexes over night. Doing so is a long-term project, one that would require non-feminized men who can be worthy partners for women fulfilling their destinies. No one wants to be a stay-at-home wife to a man who is needy, weak, or cowardly. Much of the campus unrest we see has been estrogen-driven, and to be honest, it is not surprising that young women, prone towards conformity and cheap sentimentality, buy into modern leftism. But to me, the saddest thing is that we've come to a point where 20-year-old "men" are unashamed to show their faces in public while proudly demanding "safe spaces." Careers are more appealing than relationships and families only when men and women are discouraged from exhibiting the traits that make them attractive to the opposite sex.
Perhaps nothing is more important than advocating for a return to more natural relations between the sexes. But that does not mean we mindlessly oppose everything that the Left supports. In the popular imagination, the pro-life movement is associated with opposition to women's liberation and the rest of the leftist agenda. In reality, its positions lead to dysgenics and are justified through appeals to the same universalist principles that are allowing mass Third World immigration and other forms of suicidal liberalism. The alt Right, for both our own principles and the greater good, must oppose the pro-life agenda.
No Comments on Minority Report
You often hear it: "There are not enough White men to get Donald Trump elected." And, of course, Donald Trump is not even a White nationalist. He is simply America's last gasp unification candidate, representing the idea of the country united around its traditional core – proud White Americans – but without excluding other groups.
Those other groups – Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, and anti-White Whites (mainly evangelicals and liberals) – are of course unable to fill that core unifying role for two reasons. They are too small or too hateful. Only proud but generous White Americans can serve that role. Yet you keep hearing, "There are not enough White men to get Donald Trump elected."
There is a strong implication of cuckedness in this statement, as it strongly implies that White women are not with their men, and that they side instead with Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, and anti-White Whites.
But what should be remembered is that any political structure that is not built with White men at the centre is doomed. While you can get away with a system that excludes other groups, the one group that cannot be excluded in America is White men. This is why the present US election is so important, because it makes this explicit. Quite simply, the failure to elect anyone else other than Donald Trump will be an unmistakable exclusion of the White American male at the centre of US politics.
Sure, any other candidate who is elected – Hillary, Bernie, or even Paul Ryan if things go as the GOP high command wish – will try to pretend to be representing everyone, but it will soon become apparent that the country is actually run by a ramshackle alliance predicated on the hatred of the White male.
Most importantly, after Trump, the White American male will know this, and, given the fact that Whites are still the majority, he will also be aware that this chicanery was only achieved by politically cucking him, that is, by separating the perceived interests of the White American woman from his.
But this ramshackle alliance will have two major flaws (1) inherent weakness and (2) inefficiency. It will be in constant danger of falling apart and for this reason will lack the ability to run the country effectively, thus increasing the divisive pressures.
How can it clamp down on crime when this impacts on one of the alliance's key members Blacks? How can it improve border security when this likewise impacts on Hispanics? How can it have an effective foreign policy when Jews will find fault? etc., etc.
In some degree, America has already been living through this mess with dysfunctional crime, porous borders, and a Zionist foreign policy, but there have been limits and the still proud and patriotic American male has been helping to hold things together. But if Trump loses, a switch will be thrown. Things will immediately be different. The White man will have effectively been dethroned and a strong, semi-unified, and efficient America will no longer be a possibility.
We will see growing conflict within America and a weakening of the country's global footprint. Without White men at the centre, shrill political divisions will open up between the various minority group, including Whites, and search out the constitutional fault lines.
White, Christian, or Conservative states will challenge invasive Federal power; while Black or Hispanic cities will demand more from the centre and act up when they don't get it. Centripetal efforts at increasing control in reaction to the instability will be met with increasing centrifugal forces pulling everything apart. There will, of course, be economic consequences, which will only reinforce the tendency to chaos.
As America becomes weaker and less able to project strength, its international position will unravel. For decades, we have seen signs of that in Latin America and more recently in Europe, where the EU is enmeshed in chaos, but the keystone is the fragile state of Saudi Arabia the key component in the petrodollar arrangement. There have been growing signs that America no longer knows how to play realpolitik in the Middle East, but after a Trump defeat, the poisons that have until now been lurking in the mud will hatch out.
There might be a few more misuses of the military industrial complex – perhaps a futile attempt to save the Saudi state from its own Salafist fires – but the power of the American military has always been inextricably linked to the hegemony of the proud White American male in US society. It will be a very different creature under a gibsmedat-feminist or hyper-cuckservative late Republican admin.
As things come unwound both at home and abroad, the White man won't just be sitting back eating popcorn, laughing at the chaos of a world that doesn't want him anymore. No, he will be directly affected. Instead, he will be cleaning his gun and coming to the conclusion that when you become a minority, then it may be time to give up on democracy.
My Hate Group is Different Than Your Hate Group
No Comments on My Hate Group is Different Than Your Hate Group
The Southern Poverty Law Center must be in a panic. A leading candidate for the Republican nomination has received the outright endorsement of a number of its "hate groups." Some…
The Southern Poverty Law Center must be in a panic. A leading candidate for the Republican nomination has received the outright endorsement of a number of its "hate groups." Some of the leaders of these groups are even working with the campaign. Judging from the lack of protest and the principle of qui tacet consentire videtur, the larger conservative movement seems to be comfortable with being aligned with these hate groups.
I'm, of course, referring to Ted Cruz.
Ted Cruz recently announced his foreign policy team, a motley collection of relics from the Bush years seemingly designed to end any rumors Cruz was actually a closet realist. One of these advisors is Frank Gaffney, head of the Center for Security Policy, which has the distinction of being labeled a "hate group" by our friends at the SPLC.
Gaffney is an interesting figure. On the one hand, he is a walking stereotype of an Israel-first neoconservative. He's fanatically anti-Russian, anxious for interventions in the Middle East, and was by his own admission "delighted" with the second Iraq War.
Yet unlike most neocons, he supports Donald Trump's proposed moratorium on Muslim immigration and the research of his organization has been used to defend it. Gaffney proudly hosts immigration restrictionists at his conferences. Most spectacularly, he continues to generate controversy within the Beltway Right by alleging Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and that a faction of the conservative movement itself is serving as a fifth column for "radical Islamists."
Usually, neoconservatism is a deeply cynical and dishonest way of getting White Christians to care about bombing Israel's enemies, while ignoring the issues surrounding immigration and cultural collapse in the West. One wonders if many so-called neoconservatives even believe their own bullshit or are simply making Straussian arguments, telling one thing to the masses, while communicating something far different to the chosen (or, Chosen).
Gaffney's brand is a bit different. He actually confronts the issues of Muslim immigration, political subversion, and the threats posed by enemies within the West, not just those in Mecca or Baghdad. He takes his ideology so seriously, he actually endangers it.
If you are willing to go as far as Gaffney, eventually you are going to start confronting questions of race, demographics, and identity. After all, if you have a Muslim majority in London, it doesn't much matter whether Sunnis or Shi'a hold sway over the Euphrates.
At the same time, once you start honestly examining these issues, it's hard to think the greatest threat to American security is something like Hezbollah. You might begin to think Iran is not actually a real threat to the United States. Eventually, you'll probably suspect the main force turning our own governments against us isn't the Muslim Brotherhood but our "greatest ally." And once you come to that realization, there's no turning back.
Thus, you have to artificially limit yourself, falling back on Protective Stupidity in order to keep getting the generous donations that come with being part of Conservatism, Inc. Striking the delicate balance between truth and absurdity is the art of employment in the conservative movement.
Gaffney screwed it up recently. He interviewed Jared Taylor, warmly expressing his "admiration" for Taylor's work and even mentioning Taylor's book from a few years back, White Identity. When the wailing and gnashing of teeth ensued, Gaffney disavowed the interview and pretended he didn't know who Taylor was. It's worth noting Gaffney pulled the interview despite receiving no criticism from conservative media sources.
Gaffney is still the leader of a "hate group," according to the SPLC, even though he was "once respectable." However, it's a "hate group" Cruz isn't afraid to associate with.
And he's not alone. Tony Perkins is the leader of the Family Research Council. He was also one of the most critical leaders of the movement to align the Beltway Right behind Cruz rather than Marco Rubio.
Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association is also campaigning for Cruz and was going to speak on the same stage as the candidate before the rally was canceled due to sickness. He's currently calling for evangelicals to oppose Trump because Trump isn't nice enough to women. Needless to say, the American Family Association is also a "hate group."
We can go through this forever. And, until recently, the media was, playing the guilt-by-association game against Cruz, highlighting every time he stepped on the same stage with some "anti-gay" pastor and demanding Cruz account for everything Frank Gaffney ever said.
Of course, that same media is currently helping Cruz play the victim, moaning that Donald Trump was sooo mean to Cruz's wife. And now that Cruz has the media on his side, he's taking advantage of it. Indeed, as with Ben Shapiro during the Michelle Fields fraud, Ted Cruz isn't acting like an SJW, he is being revealed as an SJW.
Cruz accuses Trump of being "afraid of strong women," exactly the line of attack Hillary supporters are making against "Bernie Bros." When Trump spokesperson Katrina Pierson "spilled the beans" on Heidi Cruz by talking about her record as a globalist, Bush operative, and supporter of NAFTA, these policy-based criticisms were calledsound proof that "there's no low the Trump campaign won't go." If this is too much, it's unclear how Cruz intends to confront Hillary Clinton when even Bernie Sanders' gentle criticisms are taken as proof of sexism.
Outside the increasingly cult-like conservative movement, no one even believes Cruz is authentically outraged about the "attacks" on his wife. He called Trump a "sniveling coward" but immediately dodged the follow-up question of whether he would support Trump if he was the nominee. Cruz tried to call Trump a "ratfucker," but botched it so badly he seemed to suggest he's into rodent bestiality.
Cruz has been reduced to blaming Trump for a National Enquirer report on his alleged infidelity, even though Rubio operatives have been shopping around the story for months. And since Trump's spokeswoman, Katrina Pierson—who has denied any affair—is the main focus of the story, Cruz's line of attack makes no sense. Would Pierson not have confirmed the affair (even if it didn't happen) if this were a carefully planned smear originating from Trump? Yet the conservative movement is still managing to work itself into a frenzy about dastardly Donald's latest "sleazy" scheme, even though it's precisely the Beltway crowd who were pushing it on the mainstream media back when it was called #TheThing.
Ted Cruz looks like a monster from a 1980s video game, who will burst into a group of dangerous slimy creatures if you hit him. Circumstantial evidence notwithstanding, I find it hard to believe this pile of melting dough had an affair. Not because I don't think he's capable of it, but because I find it amazing Cruz had sex with his own wife, let alone someone else's.
But Cruz is a typical greasy example of a definite "type" found in the conservative movement, the devious Christian conservative who is useless when it comes to defeating leftists but is a master of sleazy tactics, lawyerly rhetoric, and political schemes designed to secure absolute ownership of his little niche. And ultimately, that is what the conservative movement is all about.
Acting like his wife is the victim of a sexist attack against women does seem to be working for Cruz in the polls. It's not surprising. Playing the victim works for people generally. After all, our culture will bestow a generous living on a feminist who can get some people to call her mean words on the Internet. And the main reason Hillary Clinton got into the Senate to begin with was because Rick Lazio made the mistake of approaching her during a debate with a piece of paper. Feminists were able to spin this as constituting rape.
But now that Cruz has accepted the legitimacy of this line of attack, he's already lost the general election, if he somehow becomes the GOP nominee. His surrogate Glenn Beck can call Melania Trump a "lesbian porno model" without being called to account now, but Mormon Jesus help Cruz if Beck says something about Hillary Clinton's hair in the general.
More broadly, Cruz's entire candidacy has been reduced to being the "acceptable" alternative to Donald Trump, as determined by the mainstream media. But that same media will quickly and easily marginalize Cruz as an extremist, a sexist, and a man deeply "linked" to "hate groups" if Trump is ever removed. And one suspects both Conservatism, Inc. and the so-called Republican Establishment knows this. As they've been increasingly forthright about expressing lately, it's the responsibility of the American Right to lose politely.
Consider the position of the religious conservatives who have been at the forefront of the #NeverTrump movement. Original cuckservative Erick Erickson is pitching a third party if Trump gets the nomination. But he's spending his days trying to get the state of Georgia to defend "religious freedom," i.e. the ability to allow discrimination against homosexuals. His biggest opponents, as you've probably guessed, are those wonderful free-market corporations he loves so much and whose taxes he wants to cut.
Perhaps religious conservatives really believe they can make a separate peace with the hard Left, and that their fate will be different from that of identitarians and racial realists. Presumably, Erickson believes his form of anti-business populism is different than Trump's "fascism" because, well, Jesus. And at the end of the day, all Erickson will do is give more money to those secular corporate executives who (rightly) consider him a useful idiot, whereas Trump might actually confront them.
The same conservatives who constantly babble about "principle" will never actually defend freedom of association; they will merely seek the unprincipled exception. They might not even want that. It's hard not see the "religious freedom" campaign as simply an exercise in signaling rather than serious political or cultural activism.
What is the purpose? Defending market share. The Christian Right knows it has lost the culture, but it still has the power to defend its hold on those White Christians (and non-believers who still identify as "Christian") who are opposed to the more extreme forms of leftism. As late-stage American Christianity grows more deracinated, it becomes more apocalyptic and hucksterish. The people warning us about Donald Trump's threat to the Republic also tell us the world is about to end, that Israel is about to be attacked, and that this means we are running out of time to buy their giant buckets o' survival food.
The nominally secular "movement conservatives" are operating in the same way. Ted Cruz would not even still be a candidate for President had Donald Trump not shifted the Overton Window on so many issues. And Trump is important because he's shifted the debate more in six months than the conservative movement did in 60 years. Instead of being happy or grateful, movement conservatives are outraged. And now, by relying on the Left to do the hard work of destroying them by whining about feminism, Cruz and the conservatives are confessing their own ideological impotence. But Cruz's cowardice ensures he is seen as the leader of the Republican Party, he signals his virtue, and he protects his market share.
Conservatism is trapped in a closed loop. It has lost the ability (if, indeed, it ever had it) to shift the culture or even the policy debate. Rather than bringing in new activists and ideas, it is desperately trying to hold on its current followers by guilt tripping and moral shaming them via leftist premises. Intellectually exhausted and proudly ignorant, it's getting harder to portend that those involved, even the followers, are simply misguided rather than malevolent.
At a certain point, gullibility becomes a moral failing. Conservative voters are like the man who blew a fortune on a "psychic" because he couldn't get a girlfriend. It doesn't make them evil, but it makes them contemptible. They are suckers, and nothing besides. And if the "grassroots" keeps falling for the scam, the Beltway hucksters will keep right on profiting as they run out the clock on Western Civilization.
Equal Rites
No Comments on Equal Rites
This was not supposed to happen. Brussels was meant to be just another harmonious, happy "global city."(1) Brussels, the quiet, peaceful capital of the enlightened and "posthistorical" European Union. The…
This was not supposed to happen. Brussels was meant to be just another harmonious, happy "global city."(1) Brussels, the quiet, peaceful capital of the enlightened and "posthistorical" European Union. The Muslim presence, one-quarter of the population already, was growing of course. But this was of no significance.
The Maelbeek metro station – on the commuting route of many Eurocrats – had some typically postmodern childlike, ugly art on the walls: Drawings of ordinary people with empty stares, nothing special, including a woman with an Islamic headscarf. Nothing special! Well, until a few go rogue and blow up your people and you're carrying out still warm corpses and picking up blown off limbs. That is bound to be a little jarring.
I doubt any of this surprises the grotesque-séducteur Michel Houellebecq, who way back in 2000 called Brussels a "terrorist haven" in his little-known novel Lanzarote. In his more recent best-seller, Submission, Houellebecq has this to say about Brussels:
I had been especially struck by the dirtiness and sadness of the city, as well as the palpable hatred, more even than in Paris or London, between the [ethnic] communities: in Brussels one felt, more than in any other European capital, on the verge of civil war.(2)
One does not get the impression Houellebecq's insights have been taken to heart by Europeans however. The mainstream reaction to the new wave of Islamic terrorist attacks across Europe seems weaker every time. After the solemn mass gatherings of the Charlie Hebdo attacks and then the collective horror of the Paris attacks, Europeans seem rather numbed by the Brussels attacks. The memes the mainstream have produced range from wimpish expressions of universalist piety (e.g. France or Tintin symbolically crying for Brussels, or #JeSuisBruxelles) to the puerile (e.g. Brussels' iconic "peeing boy" statue urinating on the terrorists). Impotence begets impotence.
The Economist, reputed to be the most thoughtful expression of globalist orthodoxy, proclaimed Islamic terrorism in Europe to be "the new normal." The expression is striking. One doubts whether Charles Martel or even Winston Churchill would ever have considered it "normal" for Europeans to be regularly mass-murdered by Muslims in their own homelands. But the situation certainly is "new," and even a few normies will be disturbed by The Economist's regularly updated charts showing that Islamists have been responsible for about 90% of terrorist killings in Europe in recent years. (Most of the other 10% was caused by Anders Breivik, whose attack was incidentally motivated by opposition to Islamic colonization.)
Two uncomfortable facts emerge:
1) Virtually all of this terrorism would have been prevented had the policy of replacing indigenous Europeans with Muslims not been instituted.
2) 90% of terrorism in Europe today stems from a minority group representing 10% of the population.
That certainly looks bad for the universalist egalitarians. Their attempts to "contextualize" these facts have been rather comical.
For example, the Jewish run liberal "explainer" site Vox assured that the link between terrorism and Islamic immigration was "a myth, propagated by Western political leaders who wish to halt immigration or, at least, exploit popular fear for their own electoral gain," as the terrorism is mostly committed by "fellow Europeans," as opposed to foreigners.
Now, the writer is either very stupid or more likely he really has a lot of brass in thinking we really are that stupid. One could retort: "I don't think this means what you think it means." If our Muslim "fellow Europeans" are still so prone to murder European en masse even in the second and third generation, well that really shows how unwise our immigration policies have been, leading as they have to an apparently permanently increase the risk of terrorism.
The same kind of stupid, self-incriminating arguments were made by multiculturalists after the Rape of Cologne: Look, the "dusky" men who did this aren't recent arrivals, they've been here for generations!
I have also been struck at the intellectual intolerance and shrillness of the mainstream. Suppose you say: "Look, we've really got a lot of intractable problems with this immigration business, failing to integrate let alone assimilate the Muslims. Why don't we take a breather, be cautious, and have a moratorium on further immigration?" Oh, the shrieking that ensues! I suppose, for someone who is in a hole and in denial, the suggestion that one should stop digging is a kind of blasphemy.
Another weak, but very convenient, response is to argue that we can't stop the further inflow of Muslims settlers into Europe because that would alienate Muslims already here and cause them to mass-murder Europeans. Hence, the Le Pens and the Trumps – who are the only ones whose policies would have prevented Islamic terrorism – actually are the cause of the terrorism! The mainstream really doesn't seem to see any problem in their claim that Muslims are "fellow Europeans" of an evidently very special type, given that if one offends them by opposing immigration they are prone to go off like firecrackers.
Now, the liberal response to all this is not completely futile: Expansion of the proto-totalitarian surveillance state, "liberalizing" Islam through censorship and state-employed imams, and improving socioeconomic conditions for Muslims in Europe ("gibs"). Don't laugh, these measures will work, to an extent. Islamic terrorism still kills a relatively small number of people in the West, so the current trend is perfectly sustainable for a while still. And I believe senior American Jewish Committee official Stephen Steinlight was basically correct in gloating back in 2001 that for most Muslims: "MTV [owned by Sumner Redstone], for better or for worse, will prove more powerful with young Muslim immigrants than the mullahs." If Christian America could accept gay marriage by legislative fiat without a hitch, I suspect many Muslims in the West will continue to be seduced by gangster rap and other forms of degeneracy.
But such liberal measures are undesirable for nationalists and indeed freedom in general: It is quite obvious that mass surveillance and renewed attempts to enforce liberal ideological orthodoxy through censorship, justified by the fight against Islamic terrorism, will also be used against European nationalists and Identitarians.
Furthermore, these liberal measures  while they may indeed reduce terrorism to tolerable levels – will never address the underlying issue of inequality and the obvious sub-optimality (to put it lightly) of multiculturalism.
It is rather similar to the liberal response to black violence. That minority's astonishing share of murder and rioting across the West has long been a deep source of embarrassment. The liberals argue that more gun control and welfare are the solutions. And they are partly right. In Europe, blacks are far less violent than their American cousins, probably because easier access to welfare makes them more docile and harder access to guns makes it harder to act upon the occasional murderous impulse (and most "thugs" presumably don't have the intelligence or time preference to pursue a less convenient form of murder).
Thus, the black murder rate (along with that of society as a whole) in Western Europe is an order of magnitude less than in America. The Nanny State, in coddling blacks with welfare and protecting them from themselves by taking away their guns, really does work.(3) But again, that misses the point. In London, 54% of street crimes are committed by blacks, as are 46% of knife crimes and almost half of gun crimes. That's despite the fact that blacks only make up 13% of London's population. Just like in America, what an interesting coincidence . . .
Sure, the liberals' measures may make multiculturalism tolerable, but nothing they propose or have achieved suggest that multiculturalism is desirable or that there is any truth to "equality."
The Brussels attacks showcase multiculturalism's intractable problems. But the problem, at root, is not Islam as such, but a multiethnic society. Islamic terrorism is the religious expression of an ethnic problem. The terrorists in all the recent attacks have overwhelmingly been Arabs, often brothers or couples, a clear sign of clannishness. Theirs is a very tribal culture with more agency than blacks, but their community is the obvious relative social failures and losers of Europe.
That is a deadly combination. A minority of these; rootless, alienated, and humiliated – coming from a brutally honorbound culture – seek to redeem themselves by finding meaning in Islam and the struggle against the West. A West which, under Zionist influence, has been engaging in constant aggression against the Islamic World and destroyed several Arab nations, including Iraq, Libya, and Syria. These terrorists are a rather pathetic lot. Socialized, organized, and egged on by the Islamic State, they are just organized enough to kill a few dozen hapless, effeminate Europeans. They are not strong, we are weak.
The liberals' proposal of a totalitarian multiculturalist state(4) would only address the religious/ideological consequence of the problem, not the underlying ethnic cause. Sure, Big Brother and Big Mother can make things manageable. But, at best, they will create a chaotic ethnic mush where no group has enough coherence to have identity, solidarity, or agency, a Brazil. And the underlying ethnic problem in Europe will steadily get worse. Things may be manageable today. But already non-Europeans are estimated to make up about a third of births in Western European countries. What happens when indigenous Britons become a minority in the 2060s? What happens when, before the end of the century, Africans and Muslims become the majority in Germany, in France, in the Netherlands, and in Belgium? Not only will such societies be objectively horrible for the natives – for obvious reasons – but who is to say the liberals' multiculturalist totalitarianism would be enough to keep things in line?
The politics of the Middle East and North Africa are dominated by conflict or rule surrounding the place of Islam in their societies. As the population of Europe becomes Levantine and African, there is reason to believe we will have these same conflicts.
Our own people do not understand this. The brighter ones, by a cognitive sorting, will tend to live and work with people of a similar level of intelligence and economic class. As such, they will tend to only interact with the minority of well-performing blacks and Muslims and segregate themselves from the more obviously problematic ones. Thus, they escape the consequences of their own multiculturalist beliefs.
The personal hypocrisy of multiculturalists is often disgusting. One Brussels resident I know – while an ardent hater of nationalists – insisted after the Islamic terrorist attacks of fleeing to his own homogeneous European country . . . by car.
But the multiculturalists are not exactly stupid. I met one senior German official recently, whose job admittedly depended on believing and mouthing orthodoxy, who was quite cognizant of the situation. I faithfully paraphrase: "We can do it! Oh sure it will be tough. Actually, the 2 million refugees coming into Germany may not seem like much for a country of 80 million, but they already form a huge percentage of the 20 to 30 yearold age bracket (maybe 10%). Well anyway, in the long run, White people will be a minority in Germany, just like in America." I was flabbergasted. These people rule Germany! If any Israeli or Chinese or North African Arab were to express such attitudes – welcoming the physical replacement of their own people in their historic homeland – I suspect he would be lynched in a hurry.
People like Steven Pinker on the left and David Frum(5) on the right argue that we have never had it so good, so why should we change anything? Well, technology may have made us more comfortable and maybe this will continue to be so, but I think it is downright irresponsible to assume there will never be great upheavals. History is the story of the rise and fall of empires, races, nations, and civilizations, a chronicle of crises. How arrogant would a German citizen of 1910 be, if he asserted: "Science and economic growth will solve all our problems. I certainly don't need to worry about politics!" What a century he had in store for him to dispel such illusions.
A typical Panglossian today: Well, in the past decade Turkey, Brazil, and even Sub-Saharan Africa have had lot of GDP growth (thanks to Western technology and global resource demand), so really we're all the same and bound to converge economically! Stark Trek, here we come!
The panglossian has the mental horizon of a goldfish.
There's a sucker born every minute.
While we await the Götterdämmerung, life and death go on. For the liberals, the trail of corpses left in the wake of black murderers and Islamic terrorists are a supernatural mystery. They are something best not thought of. But if one must take heart, look at the faces of our people – Léopold, Olivier, Patricia . . . – who have been murdered and maimed. What a small price to pay for the wonders of diversity! A necessary sacrifice to that cruel and insatiable god, I name thee: Equality.
[1]Note: Is there is a single harmonious, cohesive, and egalitarian "global city"? This fact  and its obvious causes  really doesn't seem to sink in with the liberals.
[2]Michel Houellebecq, Soumission (Paris: Flammarion, 2015), 278.
[3]Incidentally, I suspect the violent crime rate had been going down in recent years  though not equalizing across ethnic groups thanks to smartphones and the Internet have a soothing effect,
every individual selfmedicating their own preferred dopamine hits through our digital content communism. More "nigger tech" means less "nigger moments."
[4]Ponder this: The standard response by Western leaders to both Islamism and nationalism is to affirm our "values" like "democracy" and "human rights," which presumably also include freedom of thought and speech. Yet  paradox!  those who do not share in the orthodoxy (e.g. nationalists, including those who accept the democratic system) will not be allowed to participate in the "democracy" or enjoy "human rights" like freedom of speech. Ponder that! It is a sad statement on human affairs that, as we progress scientifically and materially, we seem to regress politically to selfevidently absurd and selfcontradicting doctrines.
[5]I am struck at the two's similar physiognomy.
March 21, 2016 10:13 pm March 21, 2016
No Comments on Le Mépris
Today, Europe, the birthplace of the most magnificent civilizations to have graced this Earth, inspires only contempt. A prominent recent example was that of U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama in…
Today, Europe, the birthplace of the most magnificent civilizations to have graced this Earth, inspires only contempt. A prominent recent example was that of U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama in a lengthy interview with Jeffrey Goldberg[1] of The Atlantic. In it, Obama blames European leaders for the chaos that followed his launching a war against Libya:
"Free riders aggravate me," he told me [Goldberg]. Recently, Obama warned that Great Britain would no longer be able to claim a "special relationship" with the United States if it did not commit to spending at least 2 percent of its GDP on defense. "You have to pay your fair share," Obama told David Cameron, who subsequently met the 2 percent threshold.
"When I go back and I ask myself what went wrong," Obama said, "there's room for criticism, because I had more faith in the Europeans, given Libya's proximity, being invested in the follow-up," he said. He noted that Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, lost his job the following year. And he said that British Prime Minister David Cameron soon stopped paying attention, becoming "distracted by a range of other things."
Obama is of course not the first American president to have expressed frustration with the soft, war-averse, welfare-addled, nagging, and comfort-addicted smugly "post-historical" Eloi the Europeans have become since the Second World War. But his annoyance at Great Britain and France is striking insofar as these two are the last Western European nations to make any pretense of being even middle powers. The rest – Germany, Italy, Spain, et al – don't even try.
From an Imperial-American perspective like Obama's, that makes dealing with Europeans useless, frustrating, and downright boring. This was evident in Obama's first term when he decided to skip a soporific European Union summit in Madrid and decided to cancel the established practice of yearly EU-U.S. summits. Obama is bored by Europe. And who could blame him? He can see that European leaders – a contemptible bunch – saw him mainly as an opportunity for a photo-op to appear fashionable in their respective media.
And Obama does not have the same ties of blood and civilization which bound previous American presidents to Europe. He is a self-described half-African "mutt" raised in Muslim Indonesia and minority-majority Hawaii. Obama is in a sense the first post-American, nay, the first "cosmic" President of the United States.[2] He is the first president whose wife could use the aura of the presidency in favor of an African rap video to promote college education, even as that bubble appears close to bursting under the sheer weight of student debt, again and always in the name of the lie of equality and the absurdity of universal upward social mobility.
Obama is also the first non-white president, the first "post-European" president. He writes in his autobiography of having dumped his white girlfriend on racial grounds and of being alienated during a trip to Europe: "And by the end of the first week or so, I realized that I'd made a mistake. It wasn't that Europe wasn't beautiful; everything was just as I'd imagined it. It just wasn't mine." No surprise then that Obama gets along better with Jay-Z and Beyoncé than he does with European leaders. Contrast Obama's repeated snubs of British leader Gordon Brown with the, admittedly mostly sentimental, rapport between fellows Anglos Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.
But Imperial-American distaste for Europe goes beyond Obama's personal preferences. Francis Fukuyama commented on Europe's decadence with a fine line in his famous "end of history" article: "the countries of postwar Western Europe . . . those flabby, prosperous, self-satisfied, inward-looking, weak-willed states whose grandest project was nothing more heroic than the creation of the Common Market."[3] Well said.
Fukuyama seems to imply that it is precisely the fact of democracy – or at least of consumer, bourgeois, welfare, death-fearing comfort-craving democracies – which is the source of European weakness. Comfort and self-indulgence lead mechanically to Europe's decline: The fall of the colonial empires, the collapse of the birthrate to sub-replacement levels, the end of conscription, and the decline of military spending to almost negligible levels. Europe is today irrelevant and European leaders, while conscious of Europeans' catastrophic demographic decline in the world and therefore of political power, have no other plan than to cling ever-more-strongly, like a security blanket, to the European Union and its universalist ideology. As though a superpower could be made of a confederacy of weaklings. Mark my words: France will be an Islamic Republic long before the European Union becomes a Weltmacht.
But this begs the question: Why has Europe grown so weak whereas the American Empire, also a kind of democracy, remains so strong? Contrary to some, I am rather bullish on the prospects of the American Empire, at least in the medium term.
Individualism, egalitarianism, and the multiculturalizing of America have of course led to problems for the power structure: American capitalism and the welfare state are addicted to debt; the myth of equality promotes unsustainable student and mortgage debt (especially the imperative of lending to minorities regardless of their income, for to discriminate would be "racist"); average educational performance is declining; and finally, patriotism has become so weak that the military is unable to find recruits, while those that do volunteer are increasingly, as a special report of drafted by U.S. generals solemnly reported, "too fat to fight" or indeed too stupid to fight.
Despite all this, the ability of the American Empire to absorb shocks and adapt to these trends is remarkable. Partly, this is due to the fact that America is more plutocratic than Europe's democratic little nation-states. Americans, until Donald Trump, at least, had basically no effective say in their political process and acquiesced to things like collapsing wages. The U.S. Army no longer has soldiers, but these were passé anyway, and can be more than made up for, at least concerning the Islamic World, with drone terror and assassination bombers.
The American Empire's power, I believe, is a reflection of two powerful trends: 1) The power of cognitive elitism. 2) The debilitating effects of individualist-egalitarianism in other countries, carefully promoted by the American Empire in, at the risk of sounding too fancy, an anarcho-tyrannical foreign policy.
Sure, America is getting dumber and dumber. But the country, or, at least, its globalist hubs on the west and east coasts, are attracting the "best and brightest" from across the world too in a world-wide brain drain. If a nation's innovation is determined, not by the middling, but by the "smart fractions," then this gives America a decisive edge, even as the American average slides to Mexican levels of cognitive ability, socio-ethnic cohesion, and civic virtue.
The power of the United States in the world and I do not just mean the government, is then truly remarkable. (Judeo-)American power is measurable in the numerous industries and power networks the United States possesses which are really in a class of their own:
• Aerospace and military power with the Military-Industrial Complex and the U.S. Armed Forces.
• Cultural power with Hollywood, pop music, prestigious print media (The New York Times), and the Ivy Leagues (U.S. academic societies setting the trends across the Western world).
• Cultural and espionage power with Silicon Valley, notably Facebook and Google, the latter enjoying a very close symbiotic relationship with the U.S. military and ruling class (e.g. former Google CEO Eric Schmidt is working for Hillary Clinton and the Pentagon).
• Economic power through the sheer size of the economy, Wall Street, and the dollar's role as a global reserve currency.
These attributes, along with being one of the top two economies in the world, give the American Empire incredible power in the world, of which European nations are merely cultural and political satellites. The European democracies, when they are not obsessed with filling their bellies, are distorted by multiculturalist ideology and Imperial-American power. European societies are as much victims of brainwashing by the Hollywood-Ivy League establishment as Texans or Virginians are. Craven European governments, usually satisfied with the mere appearance of power in the media limelight, also enjoy a quick taste of power through collaboration with the American Empire, whether this is through NATO conference calls or participation in the Five Eyes, a global surveillance network which puts the Stasi to shame.
In fact, one should not think of the American Empire as simply an American phenomenon, but rather the reflection of the power of globalist oligarchs who have, for all intents and purposes, captured the American political process (e.g. George Soros, Carlos Slim, Sheldon Adelson, Haim Saban, Rupert Murdoch) and use the American state as a vector for that power. These oligarchs have no loyalty to America. Their holdings typically go beyond America. Indeed, the Empire's power nodes to some extent also go beyond America (e.g. London's The Economist enjoys a niche of a certain influence and is incidentally owned by the multinationals Cadbury and Schroders, and the Rothschilds).
To know who rules America, look at who owns the media and who finances the politicians, particularly their favored candidate, Hillary, who while largely-financed this year by decidedly-privileged Middle Easterners, demanded that white Americans "recognize our [sic] privilege." You can bet she will never tell those bankrolling her campaign who just happen to be of Middle-Eastern extraction to "recognize their Jewish privilege."
Notice that Hillary, in terms of industries, has largely been financed by feminists, banks, Hollywood and other media, and universities, that is to say, by the very illusion-making cultural industries who have made it their duty to brainwash Americans with the lie of equality and induce self-hatred in European-Americans. As though the ideological power of egalitarianism has metastasized and has taken on a life of its own, reinforcing itself still further by seizing the political process itself. This is rather symbolic, just as the Democratic Party's success reflects the strength of the lie of equality in the minds of Americans, so their leading candidate is actually materially financed by the purveyors of that lie.
The power of the historic American nation-state is founded upon a divine alignment of fortuitous factors: America's isolation and therefore security from the rest of the world, with (mostly) harmless Canadian and Mexican neighbors; the sheer size and wealth of the North American continent; the fact of having been founded by representatives of European civilization, the most dynamic in the world, and more specifically by Englishmen, the most dynamic people of that civilization, with their particular laws and customs.
The rest is history. After the founding, America grew in wealth and power at an astonishing exponential rate. Americans were democratic, individualist, self-starters, but they were, unlike postwar Europeans, not faithless and depressed.
The oligarchs have hijacked the American state and core European-American nation, and harness their power to its own ends, creating the American Empire.
America is also weakened by individualist-egalitarianism, but she is just big enough to dominate the world, at least until China really makes her appearance (hence the importance of the Chan Zuckerberg Project). There is much talk of the "BRICS," but really, for the most part, these are not credible rivals. Russia, while sovereign and influential in her regional sphere of influence under President Vladimir Putin, is experiencing a typical slow European demographic decline. India is overrated geopolitically. Brazil's future "will always be bright," as General Charles de Gaulle said. Meanwhile, South Africa is obviously an affirmative-action BRIC.
The American Empire is just big enough to be hegemonic if it systematically corrupts other nations with the individualist-egalitarian poison, through a powerful strategy of, in Gregory Hood's inspired expression, "geopolitical dysgenics." This can be considered a kind of very sophisticated "divide and rule" strategy, dividing societies even within themselves, and thus rendering them harmless. Europe's weakness is no accident, but the fruit of the consistent policies – sometimes conscious, sometimes not – of the American Empire, aimed at destroying or subverting all potential rivals.
This began with Woodrow Wilson, who famously conditioned German surrender in the First World War on the destruction of the Prussian military and autocratic monarchy in the name of "democracy." (Of course, German "democracy" was not extended to allowing the Germans to choose their own system of government, or rejecting unjust debt obligations under the Treaty of Versailles, or allowing Austrian or Sudeten German self-determination, or . . .) Prussiandom, like the Samurai ethos, is odious to the bourgeois, as is all martial spirit of honor and sacrifice.
A nation whose people does not recognize even the notion of "betters," who put individual caprice before common good, who praise comfort above all, and whose politics can be summed as "belly-worship," is harmless. Hence, why the American Empire has been so assiduous in promoting this: Through a relentless barrage of fashionable media and academic propaganda, through economic incentives, and when all else fails – as in Germany and Japan – by "equalizing" these too-proud nations through live incineration, atomic explosions, or hordes of communists rapists. After the Second World War, the United States consciously handed over Eastern Europeans over to communist tyranny, conveniently reducing the Western Europeans to American imperial dependents. In the case of Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, or Syria, wrecking the nation by fomenting ethnic civil war is another tried-and-tested technique.
Thus, America is disintegrating through egalitarianism and individualism. But the Empire remains hegemonic because these forces are paralyzing all potential rivals even more. Fukuyama hinted at this too, after noting the impotence of Europeans remarking we were "likely to see the 'Common Marketization' of world politics [. . .]. Indeed, as our experiences in dealing with Europe on matters such as terrorism or Libya prove, they are much further gone then we down the road that denies the legitimacy of the use of force in international politics, even in self-defense."
The American Empire has acquired sufficient momentum, one could even say "escape velocity," by achieving just enough scale to be qualitatively superior to rivals and sucking up the best and brightest of the world into globalist industries and power networks. In this, a European nation-state – that "masterpiece of history" – is but a small fry. Of course, China is just around the corner. If that super-nation of 1.4 billion achieves even modest South Korean economic performance, her economy would already be twice the size of America's. And the Chinese, healthily ethnocentric and controlling their own media, are not displacing themselves through African or Islamic colonization and are open to notions of improving the race.
I am greatly enjoying the Trump phenomenon. But I do have one fear: That actually his policies – of pausing Muslim immigration, stopping (obviously dysgenic) illegal Mexican immigration, and a pro-American foreign policy – would merely put the American Empire on a more sustainable footing. But I don't want to be a killjoy: We're riding this wave and if we win in America, I've no doubt Europe too would soon be free. And central to that must be an explicit rejection of individualist-egalitarianism.
A new set of values must become hegemonic: One which rejects our slow decline and gradual extinction, in favor of the systematic promotion of the growth and flourishing of our nations, one which praises quality over quantity, public good over private interest.
[1]Jeffrey Goldberg is a well known Zionist and Israel-firster, notable for having served in the Israeli Defense Forces. Obama previously gave a lengthy "policy" interview with the Jewish liberal "explainer" Ezra Klein of Vox. Obama certainly knows the spectrum of respectable opinion in America well.
[2]For this reason, I assert: The cosmic actor Obama will be much more fondly commemorated by the globalist media masters than, say, the hapless, white, ostensively Christian cuckservative George W. Bush, who after he had done their dirty work in destroying anti-Zionist Iraq, was soon dropped like a hot potato. This was embodied in his humiliation by Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents Dinner, an indignity Obama has never been subject to.
[3]I am struck by the similarity between Fukuyama's contemptuous expression on postwar Europeans and that of Belgian Rexist leader and SS-Standartenführer Léon Degrelle: "The small, miserable Europe of today, of this impoverished Common Market, cannot give happiness to men."
Could It Happen Here?
No Comments on Could It Happen Here?
For years, the system has been stacked against our movement, to put it mildly. We have been doing our best to figure out how to get our issues before the public—issues like immigration and the demographic transformation of the United States. We ask: How could *it* happen? How could a political movement arise that would ignite the imaginations of White America, depose the corrupt donor class in the Republican Party and the corrupt politicians in Congress, and generate a populist uprising among those Peter Brimelow calls the "historic American nation"?
This essay is based on a speech given at NPI's 2016 winter conference, Identity Politics.
The Donald Trump phenomenon is amazing. I've never seen such enthusiasm for a politician—ever. His rallies are overflowing with emotion. This scares a lot of people because it conjures up images of populism, and even fascism. There's something about crowds of cheering White people that terrifies America's elites, especially when the speaker is criticizing their long-standing immigration policies.
We have become inured to an arrangement in which major party candidates are vetted by the media and the donor class before being put up for election. It's a top-down system that more resembles an oligarchy than a democracy. Donald Trump has not been vetted.
Trump has said some incredible things—things I never thought I would hear from a politician with a real chance to win it all: birthright citizenship, Mexican criminality, a moratorium on admitting Muslims, an immigration policy that meets the needs of Americans, to name but a few. Without Trump in the GOP field, we'd be choosing between candidates' methods of balancing the budget.
For years, the system has been stacked against our movement, to put it mildly. We have been doing our best to figure out how to get our issues before the public—issues like immigration and the demographic transformation of the United States. We ask: How could it happen? How could a political movement arise that would ignite the imaginations of White America, depose the corrupt donor class in the Republican Party and the corrupt politicians in Congress, and generate a populist uprising among those Peter Brimelow calls the "historic American nation"?
Among the forces stacked against us, most prominent have been the mainstream media, which reflect academic culture and political culture generally. The media, academia, and the bureaucracy have been engaged in a top-down revolution, in which the moral and intellectual high ground has been seized by people hostile to the traditional peoples and cultures of the West.
The top-down nature of this revolution cannot be overemphasized. There was never a demand by a majority, or even something close to a majority, from any Western country for a complete transformation, to the point that White people will soon be minorities in societies they had dominated for hundreds and, in the case of Europe, many thousands of years.
The mainstream media environment is closed off to our message that Whites have interests, just like everybody else; that identifying as a White person who wants to advance these interests is normal and natural; that race is real; that there are real racial differences in traits important for success in a modern society and that there is no magic wand to change these traits; and finally and most importantly, that immigration and multiculturalism carry huge costs in terms of social cohesion, social conflict, trust, and willingness to contribute to public goods, like healthcare, welfare, and public infrastructure.
The only type of person who could get through this elite consensus is someone who is, first of all, a celebrity, but also wealthy and willing and able to fund his own campaign—in other words, someone like Donald Trump.
Political celebrities have an enormous ability to shape public debate because the media cannot ignore them. Trump is not going to speak about racial issues in the way we would. He would be foolish to do so, and it is strategically wise for him to repudiate our support. But his statements on immigration, his violations of the pious platitudes of political correctness, his advocacy on behalf of American workers, and his condemnation of Angela Merkel's policies and the ongoing refugee disaster in Europe have been energizing to say the least.
Trump's courage is infectious, and he is disinhibiting people. More people are standing up to political correctness like never before, and seeing Trump as a symbol of their defiance. At Rutgers University, students chanted "Trump, Trump, Trump" repeatedly when Black activists tried to disrupt a conservative speaker.
What the establishment fears most is a highly visible, personally attractive, honest, populist candidate who cannot be shut out of the media, and who has enough money to run a viable campaign. Certainly, the Republican Party—the party dominated by the Chamber of Commerce and the Israel Lobby—richly deserves to die, unless it can appeal to the real interests of its base—middle- and working class White America.
As I mentioned, the U.S. now better resembles an oligarchy than a democracy. In fact, a recent paper by two Princeton political scientists shows that an oligarchic model fits U.S. politics better than a democratic one, as demonstrated by policy issues, where elites in business, politics, the media, and academia hold starkly different attitudes than the majority of Americans on issues like immigration. In turn, the attitudes of the Chamber of Commerce, the neocon establishment, and the Republican Jewish Coalition on immigration are not even remotely connected to the attitudes of the GOP base. According to the Pew Research Center, more than 90 percent of GOP voters oppose an increase in immigration, yet a restrictionist policy has never been supported by elites in the Republican Party. Indeed, elites favor something like Marco Rubio's Gang of Eight bill, which would have doubled legal immigration and given amnesty to untold millions.
The anger is palpable, and the Trump candidacy is the most hopeful sign that the present oligarchy could be circumvented at the presidential level.
Neocons would much prefer Hillary to Trump. After all, she voted for the Iraq war and was instrumental in promoting the intervention into Libya. She supported sending arms to Syrian rebels and likened Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, to Hitler. She wholeheartedly backs Israel, and has her own set of rabidly pro-Israel foreign-policy advisors, including Robert Kagan, who advocates military intervention and democracy creation throughout the Middle East as a moral imperative. Clinton's main donor is Haim Saban, a rabid Zionist who has said that his only issue is Israel.
Needless to say, Bill Kristol and the neocons would not lose any sleep if Hillary Clinton became president. In fact, I suspect they would prefer Hillary to any Republican candidate except Marco Rubio, who has the ideal blend of subservience to neocon foreign policy and enthusiasm for mass immigration.
On the other hand, Donald Trump opposed the Iraq war and has supported Vladimir Putin's policy of supporting the Assad government in Syria. As is well known, Assad and Putin are very high on the neocon hate list. Trump has told the Republican Jewish Coalition that he doesn't want their money because with their money comes control, and he has pledged to be neutral on the Israel-Palestine issue. Because of this blatant conflict with neocon thinking, Bill Kristol has been in the lead in floating third-party candidates to run against Trump should he get the GOP nomination.
Lately, Kristol and other neocons have proposed plans that would deny Trump the nomination even if he has a plurality of the delegates, knowing full well that this would give Hillary the election as millions of angry Trump voters would stay home. This would mean at least four more years of the Left in charge: Supreme Court appointments, crackdowns on politically incorrect speech, and the continued immigration of millions of future Democrats, which would make "conservatism" electorally impossible. For neocons like Kristol, the rhetoric of "principles" and "ideals" is a masquerade. Their real interest is an aggressive U.S. foreign policy serving the interests of Israel.
And for the neocons, a Trump-led GOP would be Armageddon, as their influence in the GOP would be finished. So expect a fight to the death.
But even on its own terms, it's obvious that principles like "limited government" may fail to secure fundamental interests. The reality is that Trump voters are focusing on the big issues: immigration, first and foremost, but also trade. And Trump has, like no Republican since Pat Buchanan, criticized the policies that have devastated U.S. manufacturing and the White middle class.
It is extremely gratifying to read that evangelicals are supporting Trump, even though he does not have a history of being pro-life or opposed to gay marriage. For far too long, too many of our people have gotten sidetracked on issues that are simply not critical.
Immigration, more than any other issue, reflects fundamental interests in the ethnic composition of the United States. It is an enduring Utopian ideal that constitutional government and individual freedom can survive the importation of millions of people from radically different cultures—cultures that often possess hatred toward the peoples and cultures of the West. This has been a common defect among liberals going back to the 19 century—the belief that other people will become "just like us" when they come to the United States. To the contrary, concepts like liberty and constitutionalism have very deep ethnic roots, going back thousands of years in Europe.
A great irony is that self-styled "conservatives" don't want to even countenance the idea that importing millions of non-Whites has resulted in increasing pressures directed squarely at some of their sacred "principles," in particular very high chronic levels of welfare use and demand for public services in some immigrant groups. In other words, non-European immigrants want "big government" and lots of free stuff, and they could not care less about "conservatism." A recent report, summarized by F. Roger Devlin, showed that over three-fourths of Hispanic households with children used some form of welfare, whether immigrant for not. And such people will be a voting majority if things don't change.
Another very basic principle that conservatives adhere to, and which is under threat from immigration, is freedom of speech. Multiculturalism has resulted in pressure for controls on speech and thought resulting from the need to placate aggressive minorities, who don't take criticism kindly, no matter how factually based it might be. It is fair to say that the Left, which during the 1950s championed free speech for Communists, is quite comfortable with controls on free speech now that they are in power. This is especially the case in universities and the media, where violators of multicultural decorum are routinely harassed and fired. Intellectual rationales for curtailing speech critical of the multicultural ideal are already common in liberal academic circles, awaiting only one more liberal appointment to the Supreme Court. (The death of Antonin Scalia is extremely important in this regard; it is thus difficult to take seriously neocons like Bill Kristol, who prefer Hillary over Trump, when they claim that they care about much else than Israel's national security.)
In Europe, police-state controls on thought and behavior intended to buttress the multicultural revolution, which is really an anti-White revolution, are firmly ensconced. In the UK, Germany, and elsewhere, people have been investigated and in some cases arrested for Facebook and Twitter posts simply opposing migration and the transformation of their societies. Recently Twitter set up a committee, which includes the ADL and various Social Justice Warriors, in order to better police its content. The ADL is notoriously opposed to free speech, and in general the organized Jewish community throughout the West has been a major force in placing penalties on speech related to race, ethnicity, and immigration. It is no surprise that these same groups have been hostile to Trump, especially because of his statements on Muslim immigration and refugee policy. Such organizations have been in the forefront of promoting a multicultural and non-White America, and they see Trump, correctly, as a man who brings into question the elite consensus on these issues.
It is predictable that the response to incidents such as the mass sexual assaults in Cologne would be enhanced police surveillance and the curtailment of civil liberties. We are living in societies that are not only dominated by the ideology of multiculturalism but are budding police states as well. In response, many people, especially women, will be intimidated and choose not to attend public events or public facilities like swimming pools. This is not the culture we want to live in. Principled conservatives should be horrified at this—and therefore be open to Trump's proposals on Muslim immigration.
And it will likely be worse in the second generation. The data show that second-generation children of migrants are vastly more likely to commit crimes. By the second generation, poorer immigrant groups become susceptible to radicalization by ideologies that rationalize their low socioeconomic status and sense of alienation by making them out to be victims of White racism and privilege. These ideologies are acquired from universities, schools, the media, politicians and ethnic leaders.
In the long run, multiculturalism can't exist without powerful social controls on speech and behavior, and conservatives need to wake up to this reality. As ethnic conflict continues to escalate throughout the West, increasingly desperate attempts will be made to prop up the ideology of multiculturalism with sophisticated theories of the psychopathology of White ethnocentrism, the ideology that any and all bad behavior or underachievement by non-Whites is caused by pervasive White racism (including the now fashionable concept of "microaggression"). There will be police state controls on non-conforming thought and behavior.
Although terrorism and the recent mass sexual assaults in Germany certainly focus the public's attention on the costs of massive unselected immigration, the far greater problem is the loss of a traditional sense of national identity as bound up with a particular people and culture. Citizenship becomes a hollowed-out legalism—what is often termed the "proposition nation" concept of citizenship, dedicated only to abstractions like freedom, democracy and limited government, rather than the identity and interests of a particular people. The origins of the "proposition nation" concept are discussed extensively in my book The Culture of Critique. This ideology is now well established among political and intellectual elites throughout the West. A belief in America as a White, European civilization was strong in the 1920s; it was on the defensive in the 1930s; and it disappeared, more or less, completely after World War II. It was not a natural death but the result of a prolonged assault by the intellectual Left. It is now maintained, not by the free flow of ideas, but by imposing costs on dissenters, such as job loss, ostracism, and lack of access to the mainstream media.
The sad reality is that the suicide of the West has become a moral imperative in elite circles, a testimony to the enduring and unique appeal of moral principle that has been so characteristic of the West, at least since the 19th century—apparent, for example, in the anti-slavery movement, where anti-slavery activists were successful by highlighting the suffering of Africans, and in the recent outpouring of empathy in response to the photos of the migrant child washed up on the beach in Turkey.
Every war, at least since the Civil War, has been justified on moral grounds. I know of no other culture that is so susceptible to such arguments. Will Israel apologize out of guilt for what they are doing to the Palestinians? Will Muslims apologize for their expansion in Asia, North Africa, and parts of Europe? Of course not. Instead, Whites feel the need to endlessly apologize for driving Muslims out of Spain!
Some moral crusades are justified. But so many cases, such as the Iraq war, which was promoted by neocons and the Israel Lobby, moral sentiments are manipulated cynically by elites who pursue very real and very immoral interests. Right now, these moral sentiments and proneness to empathy are being cynically manipulated in the service of displacing White America.
The outcome of present policies is an utterly predictable decline in social cohesion, with far-ranging costs in terms of increased conflict and crime, and a lessened willingness and ability to contribute to public goods. Each of the national healthcare programs in Europe was enacted when these societies were homogeneously White and citizens had a sense of being part of a common culture reaching back far into the pre-historic past. It is well known that people in ethnically diverse societies invest less in social capital; they cooperate less; they are less prone to engage in volunteer work; and there is less trust among citizens. We should keep in mind that evolution occurred in small ethnically homogeneous groups. The hunter-gatherer mentality, which is a critical strand of European culture, evolved in small, face-to-face encounters, where trust and moral reputation were absolutely critical.
The problem is that now Europeans are being asked to participate in their own suicide in order to maintain their reputation as moral, upstanding citizens and avoid being called "racist." So many of us shudder at the thought of being ostracized and humiliated as pariahs simply for expressing a sense of identity. This is testimony to the ability of the Left, with its power in the media and educational system, to create morally defined in-groups, which are ultimately suicidal for the peoples and culture of the West. Our task is to create a counter culture—one that is based on science and truth, to be sure, but one that is also deeply moral and emphasizes the righteousness of protecting our people and culture.
Thilo Sarrazin has already warned Germans about the deeply immoral consequences of non-European immigration in his book Germany Abolishes Itself. Sarrazin documented the slow pace of integration of Turkish immigrants into German society and economy, their disproportionate reliance on government welfare, and their higher fertility. Most importantly, given the (genetically influenced) lower IQ and academic achievement of the new immigrants compared to native Germans and other Western societies, there will be ethnic stratification in which ethnicity becomes correlated with social class—a poisonous situation, indeed. Ethnic stratification has always existed in the U.S. because of African-Americans, but immigration from Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East simply makes it worse. This results in the racialization of politics, in which people vote along racial/ethnic lines, with the migrants and their descendants much more likely to vote for the parties of the Left, with their generous welfare policies and promotion of immigration and affirmative action. And the Left, having abandoned its White working-class base, views immigration as the key to its political success.
The racialization of politics is a critical process of our time. Even a dyed-in-the-wool Marxist, who seeks to view all social phenomena in terms of the "class struggle," could not fail to see that the political fault lines are fast becoming based on race. The vast majority of Republican votes are from Whites, and around 60–65 percent of European-descended Whites vote Republican. This is likely not a ceiling. In fact, the White Republican vote is regularly increasing by 1.5 percent in each presidential election cycle, and Trump may well attract many more Whites, especially working-class Whites, who either stayed home in 2012 or voted Democrat.
In the 2012 election, White Americans of all social classes, both sexes, and all age groups voted for Mitt Romney and his sidekick Paul Ryan, both of whom represented almost parodies of Republicans as plutocratic, Ayn Rand-reading members of the Chamber of Commerce. Even White "Millennials" (age 18–29) and the White working class, which has gotten absolutely nothing from the Republican Party, voted for Romney/Ryan. At the same time, an average of around 80 percent of non-Whites voted Democrat. It's becoming obvious to everyone that the much-advertised era of racial harmony isn't going to happen any time soon.
The racialization of politics reflects what I have termed implicit Whiteness. Despite the current cultural programming featuring Blacks and Whites as best friends in Bud Lite commercials, White people are gradually coalescing into "implicit White communities" in multicultural America—that is, communities that reflect White identity, but which "dare not speak its name."
Research on ethnocentrism has shown that people often have unconscious attitudes that they do not express explicitly. Unconsciously, the vast majority of Whites have the usual stereotypes about Blacks, but they would never say so explicitly, at least partly for fear of the consequences. Parents' choice of schools and neighborhoods (their "revealed preferences") reflect this widespread racial hypocrisy. Parents, including liberal parents, act on their implicit attitudes, and there is a profound gap between their implicit attitudes and behavior (where they show in-group racial preference) and their explicit attitudes (where they piously express the official ideology of egalitarianism).
In effect, they are creating implicit White communities. They do not explicitly state that their choice of friends, neighborhoods, and schools derives from racial preference, because that conflicts with their explicit racial attitudes and with official ideology. And when explaining why they vote Republican, they talk about "limited government," opposition to the welfare state, and lower taxes. In turn, Republican candidates often appeal to them in exactly these terms.
The problem is, Whites often believe in their rationalizations and hold them dearly. They thus resist asserting their real, fundamental interest in preventing the demographic transformation of the United States. The beauty of Trump is that he is cutting to the core issues—issues like immigration—which are implicitly White issues and, if addressed properly, could resist or even reverse the demographic transformation ("Make America Great Again").
White Americans are gradually coalescing into political and cultural affiliation as Whites, and this trend will continue to strengthen in the future—identities such as being a Republican, a NASCAR racing enthusiast, an evangelical Christian, a country music fan, or even a National Review-reading conservative in love with "limited government." All of these are associated with the political Right in the United States.
But there are also implicit White communities on the Left. One such group are the affluent, well-educated Whites that Christian Lander talked about in his famous blog, Stuff White People Like. They love farmers' markets, expensive bicycles, and driving Priuses. More disturbingly, they idolize Blacks as cultural heroes; they adopt Black children; and they vote for the likes of Bernie Sanders. They passionately believe in a future world in which everyone will be nice; they passionately believe in a United States where everyone should be welcome because, after all, people are the same everywhere. These White liberals are highly prone to racial guilt complex. Landers had a very funny blog on how they feel guilt for not recycling. "Look in their eyes. All they can see is the bottle lasting forever in a landfill, trapping small animals."
So imagine the guilt they would feel in voting for Trump—or explicitly opposing Muslim or non-White immigration. The headline in Huffington Post after Trump won New Hampshire screamed: "New Hampshire goes racist, sexist, xenophobic"; after South Carolina, it pictured Trump giving a fascist salute. Surely none of these morally self-righteous White people could possibly vote for Donald Trump without unending guilt.
For such White people, their White identity is entirely compatible with the dispossession of Whites via immigration and multiculturalism. Many of them look forward to a non-White America, even as they continue to associate with other Whites down at the local Whole Foods or at their church supper. They are collaborating with the elites that are dispossessing White America, and they feel morally righteous in doing so—exactly as they were told in their sociology class in college and in the mainstream media every day.
Of course, the "Stuff White People Like" Democrats will rationalize their voting with morally uplifting platitudes that make them feel well-educated, intellectual superior, and in tune with the brightest minds in academia, Hollywood, and the editorial board of the New York Times. In my view this is a potentially fatal weakness of a great many European-descended people, resulting from our evolutionary history. This weakness is endlessly exploited in the media and educational system.
And of course, quite a few of these people live in predominantly White areas like New Hampshire, Iowa, or fancy suburbs of major cities. These people are relatively removed from the downsides of immigration and multiculturalism, and in the suburbs, they can hire a nanny and get their lawn mowed cheaply through Hispanic labor. It's easy to be moral and principled when the costs aren't yet personally apparent, and when you still feel connected to your predominantly White community. But if present trends continue, moving away and insulating yourself from diversity won't be an option for millions of Whites. In South Carolina, Trump was strongest in counties with the highest non-White populations; this is consistent with research showing that diversity results in greater White racial consciousness, and showing that Trump is the implicitly White candidate.
Because of the deluge of non-White immigration, the Republican form of implicit White identity attracts a majority of Whites, and this majority will increase in the future. But the affluent NPR-listening Whites are still a force, and without them, the Democrats would be in serious trouble, at least until there is a non-White voting majority—a scenario that has infinite appeal to our enemies.
The Trump candidacy may or may not work out, and even if he becomes president, it would be a very tall order to put in place the fundamental changes that need to be made. However, the anger against the establishment that he is tapping into will just continue to become worse if he does not win and things keep going the way they are going. The anger will be especially strong if people have good reason to think that the presidency was stolen from Trump by devious tactics at the convention, or by some bogus third-party candidate put forward by establishment Republicans and "conservatives." If Trump loses, we have to hope he starts a third-party movement that could destroy the GOP forever and lay the groundwork for a new kind of politics in the future. It's only a matter of time before Whites identify and organize explicitly as Whites, just as every other group does.
For our part, we have to keep on doing what we are doing. There are many signs we are getting stronger and that our message is being heard, and it is gratifying to say the least to see so many young, smart, and educated Whites gravitating to our cause—like so many of you here this evening. We must understand that our message is based on science and the realities of human behavior—and, more important, it is morally righteous. We have every reason to look forward to the future. Indeed, we should project the image of confident, optimistic warriors—exactly the image that Donald Trump projects. We know that the transformations that are occurring are evil, and that they were engineered, not out of love for humanity, but out of a narrow self-interest of certain groups, groups that are possessed by a hatred toward the traditional peoples and cultures of the West. And we know that these transformations are supported by so many of our own people, possessed by a misguided, suicidal idealism.
These changes are well advanced, and our enemies remain wealthy, powerful, and determined. But there is a morally righteous anger in so much of White America that Trump is tapping into. Sooner or later this will have cataclysmic consequences.
← Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 32 Next →