Radix Journal

Radix Journal

A radical journal

Author: Andrew Joyce

Dante versus Tinder: Or, The Woman Question

“Joyfully Amor seemed to me to hold my heart in his hand, and held in his arms my lady wrapped in a cloth sleeping. Then he woke her, and that…

“Joyfully Amor seemed to me to hold

my heart in his hand, and held in his arms

my lady wrapped in a cloth sleeping.

Then he woke her, and that burning heart

he fed to her reverently.”

                                                                      Dante, La Vita Nuova

Rivalling mainstream media attention to the putative racism of the Alt-Right, commentary on the movement’s allegedly misogynistic attitudes to women, love, and sex, has increased dramatically since late 2017. Capping a series of articles on these themes appearing in Vanity Fair, Media Matters, Newsweek, and Harper’s Magazine, as well as academic coverage in such journals as Communication, Culture and Critique, and Journal of Extreme Anthropology, in June 2018 the New York Times published a piece on “The Housewives of White Supremacy,” followed one month later by the Anti-Defamation League’s publication of a study of dubious merit claiming that “Misogyny is a key element of White supremacy.” The ADL study then went viral, carrying this conclusion to a host of mainstream news outlets, as well as such distinguished, robust, and austere publications as Teen Vogue. The explosion of interest in this aspect of supposed Alt-Right ‘hate’ is, in some sense, both understandable and predictable. Endlessly bewailing the racism of the Alt-Right in the context of ongoing White decline, mass immigration, and White cultural marginalisation has obvious rhetorical and evidential limits. To put it simply, non-Whites have never had it so good. Whether this fact will gradually bleed ‘racism’ of energy as a galvanizing force for Leftism in the same way that an increase in material wealth among the working classes led to their abandonment by the Left by the 1960s, remains to be seen. Certainly, most Marxists today appear to have abandoned the proletariat as the “privileged emancipatory subject”, and have engaged in constructing new hegemonic “chains of equivalences.” This has involved championing “the feminist struggle,” “the struggle for freedom,” and the “struggle for the rights of immigrants,” all of which, they imagine, will one day coalesce in one big Struggle.

There can be little question, however, that ‘racism’ has lost at least some of its shine. Blacks, in particular, appear to be somewhat marginalized by the focus of rhetoric on migrant caravans and amnesties. The Left, always seeking to find or create new victims, also seems particularly energized in recent years by sexual politics, or rather, the politicization of the sexual. Abortion, homosexual marriage, the ‘right’ to AIDS medication, sexual harassment, real or image college rapes, and apparently unending issues of gender identity and orientation are unquestionably ubiquitous in contemporary politics and media. It therefore makes a great deal of tactical sense for the opponents of Alt-Right thought to attempt to drag the movement into this sphere, even if some of the core matters at issue are more or less peripheral to the central tenets of White identitarian politics.

One of the main flaws in these recent character assassinations targeting the movement is the blunt and facile method of attempting to interpret what is in fact a complex, varied, and nuanced understanding of relations between the sexes through historical time. This simplistic methodology begins with generalisations about the average male with Alt-Right political opinions. For example, neglecting the fact that grappling with the “Woman Question” has been a feature of Western civilisation from time immemorial (Pagans and Christians may choose Homer’s Helen or the Biblical Eve as they see fit), at least one apparently legitimate PhD has argued that the origins of modern ‘misogyny’ rest in Gamergate and the antics of 4chan. The only mitigating factor in this instance is probably that the PhD in question, an ethnic Sri Lankan named Udith Dematagoda, is unlikely to possess the requisite tools to appreciate and understand the trajectory of the female in Western history, art, culture, and politics. Less forgivable, perhaps, is Dematagoda’s gleeful but ignorant description of Alt-Right males as “maladjusted malcontents,” “peevishly dull obsessives who are prone to tantrums,” and “nihilistically perverse basement dwelling jokers.”

“You’re all nihilistically perverse basement dwelling jokers.”

The reality, of course, is that Alt-Right thought attracts attention and support from a broad cross-section of society, including men from varying professions, countries, socio-economic positions, and educational backgrounds. But dealing comprehensively with the political and cultural opinions of such a group requires significantly more effort than would be the case with a “nihilistically perverse basement dwelling joker,” and so the latter makes for a better straw man to beat with Leftist catchphrases. We are, of course, looking at much more than the reaction of bitter, single, young men to the dynamics of postmodern sexuality, and it’s therefore worthwhile more deeply considering the complexity of the issue of women, sex, and the Alt-Right. Since these issues did not, in fact, begin with 4chan, we should turn first to history.

The quasi-cannibalistic portion of Dante Alighieri’s opening sonetto from La Vita Nuova (composed around 1294), chosen to open this essay, set the tone for the entirety of the text and, also, in some respects for the trajectory of sexual relations in the West for centuries after. Regarded as a classic of literary chivalry or “courtly love,” (from whence we still derive the mocking term ‘White Knight’) the poem narrates the love of Dante (in his youth) for Beatrice, a woman he loves, admires, and obsesses over from afar. This love is characterised in quite pronounced fashion as painful, hence the vision of the personification of love, Amor, literally feeding Dante’s beating and still warm heart to Beatrice. The conventions of literary courtly love typically follow the pattern of: Attraction to the lady, usually via eyes/glance; Worship of the lady from afar; Declaration of passionate devotion; Virtuous rejection by the lady; Renewed wooing with oaths of virtue and eternal fealty; Moans of approaching death from unsatisfied desire (and other physical manifestations of lovesickness); Heroic deeds of valor which win the lady’s heart; Consummation of the secret love; Endless adventures and subterfuges avoiding detection.

La Vita Nuova fulfils only some of these, but is still regarded as the pre-eminent example of the genre. Dante first sees Beatrice when they are both nine years old, and then a further nine years passes before he sees her again. In both instances he is utterly captivated by the sight of her. For most of the poem he is consumed with the worship of her from afar, but can never muster the composure to approach her directly. He finds himself enduring a number of manifestations of extreme lovesickness, including fainting and fevers. His nervous appearance is mocked by the friends of Beatrice, and then, at the height of Dante’s infatuation, Beatrice dies suddenly, sending him into a spiral of grief and, finally, slow recovery. In this recovery, he resurrects Beatrice as a spiritual ideal, and of course she features prominently in his next work, The Divine Comedy, where she quite literally guides him to Heaven. The intensity with which this relatively short and simple tale is recounted, along with novel stylistic devices, is one of the major reasons for its enduring position in high culture. In modern times, the tale was the subject of a number of magnificent late 19th century paintings by notorious womaniser Dante Gabriel Rossetti, as well as a short but remarkable operatic piece ‘Vide Cor Meum’ (‘See my Heart’) by the Irish composer Patrick Cassidy that was subsequently in the score for the Ridley Scott films Hannibal and Kingdom of Heaven.

Dante’s La Vita Nuova marked, simultaneously, both a new departure from contemporary sexual conventions, and a return to older, primal attitudes regarding the female. Courtly love, according to most historians and literary scholars, was always rooted more in fiction than reality. It was a development fostered by poet-aristocrats who sought to imbue certain chaste women, and relationships with them, with a metaphysical aura – often with religious or spiritual overtones. In doing so, the poet-aristocrats in some sense returned to the old Roman pagan notion of pudicitia (restraint or chastity) as contributing to the spiritual elevation of the female. A woman with a high degree of pudicitia typically sought to appear modest at all times and to limit her social interactions with men other than her husband and male relatives. Psychologist Neel Burton remarks that “Pudicitia stood for reason and control, whereas impudicitia—that is, shamelessness and sexual vice (struprum, ‘sex crime’)—stood for chaos and disaster. A univira (one-man woman) was held in high esteem and even idealized, with the emperor Augustus (27 BC-14 AD) going so far as to enact a programme of legislation to promote the notion and its observance.” Sex, women, order, and the divine were inextricable:

The Romans sought to control female sexuality to protect the family and, by extension, social order, prosperity, and the state. They crystallized these notions in the cult of Venus, the mother of Aeneas, founder of Rome; and in the Vestal Virgins, the priestesses of the hearth goddess Vesta, who would be buried alive if convicted of fornication. To violate a Vestal Virgin’s vow of chastity was to commit an act of religious impurity (incestum), and thereby to undermine Rome’s compact with the gods, the pax deorum (‘peace of the gods’). Roman religion very much reflected and regulated sexual mores.

The Roman ideal of the female, of course, co-existed with a tendency among some to debauchery. It also co-existed with a stoic, ultra-rational view of sex and relationships bluntly exemplified in Marcus Aurelius’s observation that sex was nothing more than “the friction of a piece of gut and, following a sort of convulsion, the expulsion of some mucus.” Further, it drew upon the perennial, primordial, and quasi-metaphysical position of the female body in the male mind. As Jonathan Bowden once remarked in his classic chastisement of movement homosexualists:

A primal sexuality always embodies Heterosexuality. It alone relates to blood, genetics, racial causation and gender’s polarity.  All culture springs from a child’s birth – it’s in accordance with Nature.  A factor which necessitates the weakness of all alternatives: whether these are same-sex, infantilistic or paedophile, bi-polar, necrophile, coprophiliac, trans-gender or hermaphroditic, et cetera … All sexual beauty has to be female given the divinity of the woman’s body. Without it there’s nothing – in terms of Erotica’s stream of consciousness … When one considers three-dimensional art – Rodin’s The Muse, Cybele or Aristide Malliol’s study for Action in Chains – one recognises the Anima at work.  For representation of the female corpus is cardinal to mental creativity in many fields.  In Hellenistic art, the Aphrodite of Melos – more commonly known as the Venus of Milo – glistens in its marble splendour in the Louvre. But even this doesn’t do justice to the subliminal eroticism given off by this work.

Schopenhauer, of course, famously attempted a rebuttal to such assertions in his essay On Women, where he argued

Only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped, and short-legged sex the fair sex: for it is with this drive that all its beauty is bound up. More fittingly than the fair sex, women could be called the unaesthetic sex. Neither for music, nor poetry, nor the plastic arts do they possess any real feeling or receptivity.

The problems with Schopenhauer’s account include his criticism that concepts of beauty should be linked to the sexual drive (why shouldn’t it?), which is of course primed to seek markers of fertility and genetic health. Schopenhauer’s implied markers of a concept of beauty “unclouded” by the sexual drive (long-limbed, broad-shouldered, narrow-hipped) are at best asexual and genetically counter-propositional. That such an injunction should arise from an essentially anti-life philosopher who promoted suicide is probably not coincidental. His conflation of female physicality as muse and the female intellect as incapable of producing art is simply ridiculous – a sunset cannot paint on canvas, but it can inspire countless canvasses, and we do not fear to call it beautiful. But perhaps the worst condemnation of Schopenhauer’s deconstructive approach to female beauty and the sexual drive was the blatant hypocrisy behind it. In his youth, the German philosopher was infatuated, in the style of Dante, with Karoline Jagemann, even writing her love poetry. He had a number of sexual affairs with “women of lower social status, such as servants, actresses, and sometimes even paid prostitutes,” admitted to two children born out-of-wedlock, and confessed to at least one friend that he was often frustrated by a lack of sexual success with as great a number of women as he’d prefer. We might say that Schopenhauer, while correct in some of his assertions elsewhere in his essay, was personally caught in the tension between ideals and debauchery, between Dante and Tinder, and the result was a curious anti-female embitterment that in the end went beyond the rational and the reasonable.

Returning to La Vita Nuova, the advent of courtly, and later romantic, love revisited existing tensions and contradictions regarding the female in the West, and also embellished the notion of the holy, chaste, yet erotic and captivating female. Crucially, however, the courtly love ideal also undermined the need for order that had been present in pagan Rome. The rise of Christianity led to the concept of order being taken to an absolute extreme, and to a medieval culture in which marital sex was viewed as a concession, not as a right or even a gift from God. Sex and relationships were therefore scheduled to ensure the most possible procreation and the least possible pleasure. Even children conceived during a period where the couple should have abstained — mainly based on the liturgical calendar and the wife’s reproductive cycle — were considered bastards. Ironically, Dante and the courtly poets overcame this mechanistic approach to love and sex in order to elevate sexuality itself to an ideal – but in doing so paved the very path for its decline and degradation. Schultz observes:

In the history of European thinking on these matters, the gradual shift from an ideology of sex for procreation to an ideology of sex for pleasure is one of the most important long-term developments. Courtly love represents an important milestone in that shift: a secular ruling class advances an ideal of amorous relations in which making love requires no justification other than the joy and high spirits it brings the persons involved. The desire for children is not required to excuse the lovers’ pleasures. Indeed, they never think of procreation and no one expects them to do so. The institution of marriage – whether sacred or secular – is not necessary to legitimize their embraces. The joy and high spirits that lovers feel when they make love are all the justification needed.

[James A. Schultz, Courtly Love, the love of Courtliness, and the History of Sexuality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006), 157]

The notion of a culture that promotes and idealizes the female while simultaneously paving the path for her decline and degradation should sound very familiar, and the reason for this is that the ‘Woman Question,’ such as it exists, has been unresolved and is likely to remain so. What really marks the difference between our own era and prior ages is the abandonment of any need of a rationale for a metaphysical elevation of the female, and the wholesale expansion and embracing of the “courtly” literary fiction of “love for love’s sake” which has led to a proliferation of promiscuity and, in turn, the commonplace acceptance of homosexuality. Expressed in simple terms, today there are no criteria for a woman to be considered special (modesty or pudicitia) – all women are assumed to be metaphysically important and fundamentally special, regardless of background or how many previous “loves” they have cycled through.

Much of contemporary sexual politics has two lives – the lived reality and the reported fiction. Mainstream media accounts of modern sex and sexuality perpetuate the relatively unsophisticated doxa of a “crisis in masculinity.” This phrasing is deceptive because it implies that the increasingly degraded state of Western sexuality is really only bad for men, and that if men would just accept the fall of patriarchy we’d all be much happier. We can, of course, concede that certain significant aspects of the postmodern socio-cultural context are extremely bad for men. The divorce system is bad for men. The child custody system is bad for men. The sexual habits of women in postmodernity are bad for a lot of men (though it must be conceded they benefit a minority of men seeking short-term sexual gratification). We can see the results in the shocking suicide statistics among males, and the increasingly poor performance of young males at school. There is undoubtedly a crisis among males. But whether the degraded state of Western sexuality, in a broader sense, affects males so exclusively that the terminology of a “crisis in masculinity” is appropriate as an overarching explanation of modern sexual politics is less clear. The crisis may in fact be said to embrace men and women equally, and modern sexuality as a whole, because the disease is essentially systemic in the feministic foundations of postmodern liberalism, even if the mass media is simultaneously convincing women (often barely) that they are liberated, free, successful, satisfied, and fulfilling a greater destiny than motherhood and the domestic setting might offer them.

All factual indicators prove that women have ‘liberated’ themselves into despair. Eating disorders among women are rising around the world as ‘Westernisation’ (essentially the export of Cultural Marxism) embraces nations outside North American, Europe, and Australia. Women’s suicide rates are now rising faster than men’s. Abortion rates are increasing year on year, which is proven to increase rates of mental illness among women. Women have higher numbers of sexual partners than in previous eras, yet are also psychologically burdened by trading their virginity, and with it their pudicitia, for a short-term relationship, as well as regretting the accumulation of a plurality of prior sex partners. The economic impact of feminism and the export of manufacturing jobs to the Third World has also shrunk the pool of perceived marriageable men. One study found that “when towns and counties lose manufacturing jobs, fertility and marriage rates among young adults go down, too. Unmarried births and the share of children living in single-parent homes go up. Meanwhile, places with higher manufacturing employment have a bigger wage gap between men and women, and a higher marriage rate.” A problem arises when feminism convinces women they should seek high-wage employment while their instincts convince them to always “marry up” for resources – even if this scenario radically reduces their pool of potential mates. Because these women are refusing to “marry down,” they are more or less condemned to being the short-term sexual entertainment of a small number of very wealthy men and, ultimately, to die childless. Women are attempting to liberate themselves from this liberation via alcohol-induced oblivion, a fact indicated by widespread increases in alcohol consumption among women. A number of studies (e.g. see here, here, and here) have confirmed that this heightened alcohol consumption, in turn, leads into a further vicious cycle of promiscuity, sexual assault, abortion, depression, further alcohol consumption and even suicide. This is the liberated female of postmodernity, stripped of pudicitia.

Postmodernity has also stripped the female of the erotic mystery of metaphysical quality that has featured so heavily in her historical trajectory. We have moved, as it were, from Dante to Tinder. As Roger Scruton has observed, the saturation of culture with the sexual has bleached it of metaphysical speculation and genuinely erotic potential. The same enthralling female form that inspired Rodin’s The Muse or Aristide Malliol’s study for Action in Chains has been demystified and crudely embarrassed by the rutting baseness of ubiquitous pornography, the primary object of which is not to raise the female bodily form to spiritual heights but rather to subjugate and debase it. The Irish comedian Dara O’Brien once remarked that he couldn’t watch pornography primarily because it seemed “full of angry people,” a telling commentary on a cultural product that is probably as much about venting frustrations on women, and seeing them punished after a fashion, as personal sexual titillation.

Since, as Roger Scruton argues in Sexual Desire: A Philosophical Investigation (1986), sexual mystery is an important component of normal heterosexual relations, the stripping of sexuality of this component (along with cultural negation of differences in the sexes) lends it qualities normally associated with the homosexual – promiscuity, indifference to the other, narcissism, and predation.

Scruton, who deemed homosexuality a perversion from a moral philosophical standpoint, remarks on the necessary inherent tension and complementarity of heterosexual relations: “Male desire evokes the loyalty which neutralises its vagrant impulse; female desire evokes the conquering urge which overcomes its hesitations.”  Damage to the heterosexual features of loyalty and hesitation, most notably in the case of culturally sanctioned or promoted promiscuity, eventually lead to a collapse of cultural tension and eroticism in the sphere of the sexual. Scruton calls this the “decline in the sentiment of sex.”

One of the fundamental problems in postmodern sexuality is that women lay claim to all the privileges, respect, and admiration associated in earlier eras with pudicitia without fulfilling its requirements or contributing to social order (and often in fact undermining it). We witness a proliferation of scenarios in which a Stormy Daniels lays claim to being treated as a Beatrice. But the days of forlornly admiring a demure beauty from afar are surely gone, cheaply replaced by gazing at the pouting, photoshopped visage of a common trollop advertising her wares on a dating app; no longer soliciting love poems and feverish protestations of undying love, but now a succession of repetitive chat-up lines and “dick pics.” Women, or I suppose lovers of both sexes in general, are no longer experienced by each other, but consumed, with all the attending eventual and inevitable obsolescence the latter term implies. This begs the question as to the role of women in an increasingly barren, infertile culture saturated with intercourse (“the friction of a piece of gut and, following a sort of convulsion, the expulsion of some mucus”) but devoid of the sentiment of sex.

The Alt-Right’s grappling with this question has provoked the aforementioned accusations of misogyny, based on the erroneous, and often duplicitous, assumption that the crisis in modern sexuality is merely the problem of a handful of frustrated basement-dwellers unable to secure a girlfriend; “a crisis in masculinity” experienced only by the “sexually unsuccessful.” But, as has been discussed, the postmodern West as a whole is sexually unsuccessful, being more neurotic than erotic, and inducing the sexes to hate each other while producing STDs faster than it produces children. The grappling of the Alt-Right, the manosphere, and similar tributaries of thought have resulted variously in support for MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way), the bitter repudiations of the Incels, semi-ironic calls for “White Sharia,” and, at the more moderate end, a call for the return to more traditional gender roles and the (for lack of a better term) “re-domestication” of the Western woman. These strands of thought have all been denounced as expressions of hatred of women when, in fact, they are the expression (with greater or lesser success) of the desire to make women loveable, admirable, cherishable, even metaphysical again. It is a desire, if not to move from Tinder back to Dante, then to at least return to a period in which an almost spiritual respect for pudicitia lifted the female beyond the bitter descriptions of Schopenhauer.

This desire is often the case even despite the most superficially anti-woman phrasing of these various movements because, at heart, their stated goals involve restoring Woman to a state in which she was in fact admired in such a fashion. MGTOW is not so much a statement of hatred of the female as an admission that the man going his own way finds it impossible to love and commit to Woman in her present state and in the current culture. Pick-up artistry is merely the nihilistic response to Woman in her present state and in the current culture, in which the male concedes that the sentiment of sex is gone, and with it the prospect of meaningful marriage and family, but seeks to reap as much intercourse as can be obtained from the debauched and demystified females of postmodernity. The Incels acknowledge bitterly the fact they are the prime casualties of Woman in her present state and in the current culture, enduring sexual disenfranchisement as a consequence of the decline of monogamy and the economic impact of feminism. The advocates for “White Sharia,” and increased control over the behavior of women, are disillusioned by Woman in her present state and in the current culture, and are merely seeking the most radical form of reversal. Those seeking the “re-domestication” of the female are similarly disappointed with the position of Woman in her present state and in the current culture, and believe in the promotion of family values and wifely attributes as a corrective. Whether through gentle inducement or strict control, all groups are essentially unanimous in seeking the reinstatement of pudicitia in the life of Western women.

The actual feasibility of such schemes, even in the most extreme case, evades clarity. The demystification of Woman, such as has been witnessed over the last century, is unprecedented in the history of our culture. It may in fact be the case that feminism has brought the Western female to her lowest level of esteem among her male peers than at any time in history. Reversing this process, going from Tinder to Dante, seems nigh impossible. What has been seen, as they say, cannot be unseen. Any process of “remystification” in order to revive the sentiment of sex would almost certainly take generations to achieve, and would at the very least require the reintroduction of social controls concerning promiscuity, the elevation of pudicitia and marriage to a place of high socio-cultural esteem, the strict regulation or abolition of pornography as an industry, the remarginalization of homosexuality and the banning of homosexual marriages of all kinds, an end to abortion on demand, and, finally, the cultural celebration of essential gender differences.

 

The publication of this essay marks the start of a revival for Radix Journal. If you’d like to take part, please send submissions for consideration of the editor to: Hello@radixjournal.com

No Comments on Dante versus Tinder: Or, The Woman Question

Antifa: An Obituary

If you listened carefully enough to the din of broken glass and shrill Leftist lamentations, you’d have heard another sound this weekend: the death rattle of Antifa.

“What’s equality? Muck in the yard,
Historic nations grow, from above to below”
W.B. Yeats Three Songs

If you listened carefully enough to the din of broken glass and shrill Leftist lamentations, you’d have heard another sound this weekend: the death rattle of Antifa. The cheap assault on Richard Spencer, along with the damage wrought in Washington DC, does not mitigate the fact that so-called ‘anti-fascism,’ in all meaningful respects, has been dying since the mid-1990s. What we witnessed in the weekend that has just passed was the desperate actions of a spent force. What occurred was disgraceful, and we should challenge it, but we shouldn’t be unduly disturbed about future prospects. Nor should we exaggerate the threat these people pose, or our response to it. In its death agonies, Antifa has been as noisy as it was in life, and this noise may have caused the less well-informed to conclude that there was vitality yet in this old hag. The perceptive, however, will have noted that this noise only slightly masked the increasing senility of an obsolete movement that has struggled, staggered, and gasped its way to the pyrrhic victory of a cheap-shot and a few burnt trashcans. In this new era, the age of Trump, Brexit, Nationalist murmurings across Europe, and the rise of the Alt-Right, anti-fascism is politically dead.

No autopsy is required. ‘Anti-fascism’ was born with the defect that would ultimately carry it off; a deformation of its vital systems that for long periods rendered it heavily dependent on its adversaries for political oxygen. Part of this deformation arose from its internal divisions. On the one hand, a substantial element of Antifa activity consists of the peaceful, democratic type. These are the misguided vicar’s daughters and soccer moms who are inveigled into organizing, attending, or donating to ‘anti-racist’ demonstrations, music concerns, or similar public events. We witnessed much of its constituency in the Women’s March that followed Trump’s inauguration. This element has always been ideologically lightweight, and participates less out of ideological convictions than it does out of vague moral twinges and panics. The other element of Antifa has always been smaller, but is the one we are perhaps more familiar with. This is the revolutionary anti-fascist or crypto-Bolshevik wing, consisting of Trotskyists, Marxists, Anarchists, and Jews. Its members possess a tangled mess of often conflicting ideologies that are nevertheless set aside in the name of confronting the perceived fascist threat. The latter element has always frightened and disillusioned the former. The tensions between the two have marred the history of anti-fascism, which witnessed several fractures, and failed attempts at even the most basic form of ideological unification, from the 1970s to the 2010s.

The pathology of anti-fascism, present from its birth, is that it has all the hallmarks of a particularly weak parasite. Here is an entity that is conceived purely as an anti-ideology. Its stated primary foe was ‘the Fascist,’ who was understood to lie behind all societal ills. Since actual Fascists were difficult to find after 1945, and organizing explicitly against them was thus liable to have one regarded as a paranoid eccentric, ‘anti-fascists’ hastily added ‘the State’ as a secondary, quasi-substitute for the real thing. If ‘Fascists’ couldn’t be found, they would have to be invented. Language about ‘the Fascist State’ thus became ubiquitous in these circles. Eventually, this mode of language became endemic on the Left. All political movements to the right of modern liberalism were perceived, and labelled, as quasi-Fascistic, and ‘anti-fascism’ would thus provide itself with something to mobilize against. The problem, of course, was one of linguistic economics. As the Left flooded the verbal ‘market’ with its currency, this currency underwent a dramatic deflation in emotive value. The Left’s incessant invocation of ‘Fascism’ led to the term’s precipitous and irreversible decline. Anti-fascism, in the fulfilment of its pathology, began undermining the strength of its own propaganda.

The in-born pathology of anti-fascism extended to its tactical capacities, which were also stunted and retarded from birth. Anti-fascism’s founding tactical principle was that it would oppose with violence any attempts by ‘fascists’ to organize at street level. For a time, there was some vitality in this tactical emphasis. From the 1960s to the early 1990s Antifa was sporadically engaged in violent activity against Nationalist groups throughout the West and, particularly when one considers running battles with Britain’s National Front, one could argue that there was a kind of ongoing ‘battle for the streets.’ However, by the early 1990s Nationalism became aware that it had allowed itself to be relegated to the fringes of political discourse where, along with its opponents in Antifa, it became trapped in futile turf wars that made little impact on national political trajectories. There was an internal revolution in Nationalism that led to the influx of greater numbers of ‘quality’ people, and the adoption of policies, aesthetics, and approaches that began to cut into the ‘mainstream.’ Nationalists began winning electoral victories, appearing on television, and creating their own media.

Anti-fascism at first claimed a kind of victory. With much aplomb it claimed to have conclusively ‘won the streets’ and, according to many an Antifa screed, the spineless fascists had fled the field. It was only during the late 1990s that Antifa realized that it hadn’t won anything, and had been caught on the wrong foot. If the primary weapon in your tactical arsenal is street confrontation, and your opponent is enjoying unprecedented success precisely because they have abandoned street confrontation, one might expect that a tactical change would be necessary. However, anti-fascism’s stunted development led instead to stagnancy and confusion. Nationalism had gone places that anti-fascism couldn’t or wouldn’t follow. Anarchists, a sizeable proportion of the Antifa cohort, were ideologically and temperamentally disinclined to participate in parliamentary and traditional politics. Militant Antifa was thus even more starkly contrasted with its non-violent allies, and even less likely to find acceptance in mainstream society. Antifa tactics were redundant. It was thus symbolically significant when, in 2001, England’s Anti-Fascist Action (AFA) formally disbanded.

Other factions limped on, of course. In these foul residues, problematic ideological abscesses continued to fester. The movement continue to posture itself as being opposed to a ‘system’ it perceived as reactionary, ultra-conservative, and anti-working class. It escaped many on the far-Left that anti-fascism was itself reactionary by nature, being entirely dependent for stimulus on the actions or moves of its opponents. Indeed, this was the conclusion of Nigel Copsey, scholar of fascism and anti-fascism, who described Antifa as a “reactive phenomenon” that could only manifest in accordance to stimulus. Further, while Nationalists, and others labelled as fascists, began advancing structured programs for social and economic change, Antifa could advance no vision, no position beyond reactive opposition. The assertion that Nationalists and others were ultra-conservative also began to ring increasingly hollow in an age when the far-Left influenced political outcomes to a greater extent than it has ever openly admitted. Marxism, in its cultural expressions, went mainstream. Mass immigration obliterated the efficacy of national borders. Social engineering led to the slow destruction of the family. In this context, the goals of Antifa and the ‘the State’ it claimed to oppose became indistinguishable. Antifa, more than Nationalists, had more to gain from ‘conserving’ the status quo. Nationalists, the alleged ultra-conservatives, increasingly distinguished themselves by their open desire for cultural revolution; a destruction of all that is, a revisiting of what once was, and the planned construction of what might be.

But perhaps the greatest of Antifa’s internal incoherencies was its claim to support the cause of the working-class. To be sure, Antifa was from its inception a diseased protrusion of the neurotic middle-class. In particular, it drew its lifeblood from pathological or alien elements in the upper middle-class. Always directed by middle-class intellectuals, who were frequently Jewish, Antifa was staffed by a motley of materially spoiled, attention-seeking youngsters, who sought in their Jewish or Russian gurus what they could not find from disinterested, career-minded parents. These spurned children would seek to destroy the material assets and values of the world of the hated parents, substituted now with the ‘Fascist’ or ‘the State.’ It goes without saying that the real world of the worker played no part in this drama. Bernd Langer of the Autonome Antifa, Germany’s largest anti-fascist organization, once admitted: “Most of the political activists have a middle class background, few workers are involved in the movement. They are rather the exception. The working class plays no role in the anti-fascist struggle.”

Similarly, when the Sydney Morning Herald sought out members of Australian Antifa for an inside look at the movement there, the journalist might have been persuaded by Leftist propaganda to expect to find a young dock-worker or manual laborer. Instead, and more predictably from our perspective, he found dialogue with a young, “gluten intolerant,” activist who had grown up in the wealthy suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne, had been sent to an expensive university by his parents, and had developed a love affair with ‘Marxism’ at the behest of guru professors. Our young Anarchist apparently proceeded to explain his moribund political philosophy between sips of rose tea at a fashionable cafe, as he peered over a pair of designer spectacles. Antifa is the bastard child of Marx and Goldman Sachs, conceived in the Hamptons, and nursed on the psychiatrists couch.

These yawning gaps between Antifa’s proclamations of class war and the reality of its staffing, led in many instances to friction between the duped and the deluded. Particularly during the 1990s, there were conflicts between those who saw themselves as old-school class warriors and those who came from, or drew ideological succor from more newly emerged victimhood narratives. Unlike Nationalists, with their almost obsessive care for statistics, facts and news analysis, the far-Left was bogged down in barely penetrable theory and a reliance on emotional responses to perceived slights. Thus, even the most committed economic Marxist couldn’t prevent the inevitable descent of Antifa into what Nigel Copsey described as “a multicultural, middle-class mind-set, in which the deification of difference (race, gender, and sexual preference) had replaced class equality.” Anti-fascism thus found it increasingly difficult to posture as a movement with even tangential mass appeal, instead pigeon-holing itself as a mere movement of ‘victims.’ The middle-class ‘daddy issue’ set now found themselves joined by those with other resentments; the homosexuals wanting ever more attention and acceptance, the feminists seeking revenge on an explicitly male form of political expression, and the minorities nursing ethnic grievances and possessing an interest in weakening White identity politics.

Resentment can provide a certain amount of energy. But this energy is not inexhaustible, and is certainly not comparable to the drive that can arise from the pursuit of a higher vision. Once Nationalism largely ceased its public expression in the form of marches, anti-fascism switched its focus to the disruption of conferences and meetings. This is a tactic we were all familiar with. There has rarely been a major meeting of American Renaissance, the National Policy Institute, or the London Forum that has not in some form been protested against or otherwise disturbed by Antifa intrusion. However, the cost-benefit outcome of such actions have always been negative for Antifa. In a pattern very likely to have been replicated elsewhere, Copsey found that German militant Antifa comprised only around five thousand individuals who amplified their impact by travelling non-stop around the country to disrupt meetings. It goes without saying that a large amount of time and resources would be required to maintain such an effort, and this time and resources was most often wasted. While Nationalist meetings may be disturbed to some extent, this disturbance has rarely been serious. Few meetings have had to be cancelled. Nationalism has continued to grow, both in terms of numbers and political victories. While Nationalists maintain a focus on the ‘main event,’ Antifa has remained a side-show; a kind of half-time entertainment during conferences.

Another area which Antifa neglected, and which Nationalists have exploited to an unprecedented extent, was the sphere of the ‘counterpublic.’ Having abandoned the streets, and remaining excluded from mainstream media, it was Nationalism that truly embraced cyberspace. Here the limits of “physical space,” and hence “physical confrontation,” were truly thrown into sharp relief. As the internet grew, Nationalism expanded into new forms of intellectual space, pioneering both the political forum and systematic, alternative media. Increasingly, Antifa reliance on countering mostly non-existent marches, and holding concerts for migrants and other ‘victim’ classes, began to look dated. Meanwhile, by the close of the first decade of the new millennium, Nationalism was pioneering TV channels, publishing outlets, intellectual and mass-appeal webzines, and a plethora of podcasts ranging from the high-brow to the comedic. Antifa inherently lacked the creative power of its opponents, and its main expression turned to endless sober warnings to the mainstream that here was ‘fascism’ in new clothing. First they came in suits, then with cartoon frogs.

By contrast, Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin hold little comedic appeal for the masses. Nor do such figures even evoke the kind of edgy discomfort that can be elicited by a gothic bogeyman of the type that Hitler, the ultimate Fascist, had been crafted to be. Since Communism eked out its last days with sputtering cars, and against the background scent of chemicals and stale soup, it is neither darkly attractive nor particularly intimidating. Like Antifa itself, explicit radical socialism is an anachronism; a joke perhaps, but one where the punchline made sense only in a prior age. Anarchists can sport t-shirts promising “An Ice Pick for Every Trot,” but this is a weak gallows humor. As Trotsky himself might have testified, jokes and even light dissent cost lives in the ‘worker’s paradise,’ and Leftists are notoriously thin-skinned when it came to the dogma of Marxist-Leninist theory. The Anti-fascist environment is one in which everything is taken seriously, and nothing more so than the anti-fascists themselves.

It is this extremely high level of self-obsession that gave rise to such tremendous shock when, in 2016, the Antifa’s proverbial sky began to fall. With great self-assurance, the radical Left and its fellow travellers in academia and the media asserted that Brexit would never happen. What the Left failed to realize was that, as long as the principle of the secret ballot remains, and as long as Nationalists or their ideas have any means whatsoever to influence the opinions of voters exercising that secret ballot, their monopoly of the media, the colleges, and ‘the streets’ will never be enough to end our politics or assure the victory of theirs. Having failed to learn from the Brexit experience, the same smugness asserted itself on the eve of an allegedly ‘inevitable’ win for Hillary Clinton in the US Presidential elections. We now live in the age of President Trump.

The outburst of juvenile violence which accompanied the Trump inauguration should not be taken as indicative of the health of Antifa. This is not a robust movement. It is floundering tactically, and its biggest mistake has been its misguided portrayal of Trump and his voters as fascists. The Left wins when the Alt-Right and the Antifa remain on the fringes of mainstream discourse and the mainstream remains under Left-liberal ideological control (via academia, the media, and political tunnel-vision). However, in its shock and rage at Trump’s victory, the Left has been unable to move away from a discourse that paints Trump and his very substantial bloc of voters as belonging to a homogenous Far Right. What the Left risk doing by pursuing such a strategy is reshaping the mainstream, essentially splitting it in two. Trump voters will be forced by Leftist hostility into buying into the narrative that they belong with the Alt-Right. In this scenario, Antifa and the Left do our work for us. Thus, while I agree that the assault on Richard Spencer was a huge story that deserves our attention, the bigger story from the inauguration weekend was the assaults that took place on Trump supporters unaffiliated with the Alt-Right. In scenarios like these, Antifa will act as recruiting sergeants for our cause. This is the definition of a movement that has failed in every possible sense.

To conclude, I might caution against the advice given by some in our movement that we should ‘take the fight’ to Antifa, or attempt to engage them once more on the streets. By doing so, we would validate their existence once more, and run the risk of again placing ourselves on the margins. Without compromising our values, we should continue to push as deeply into the mainstream as we can, and especially focus on forging links with Trump voters, Brexit voters, and right-leaning citizens throughout the West. As the Left continues to wail at its losses, it will continue to lash out indiscriminately. This will be to our benefit. For our part, we should focus on improving our security, while allowing the Left to show its true face to the people. Our priority is winning cultural influence and political power, not confronting small numbers of social effluent. And, rest assured, we will one day be in a position to drag this fading nuisance into the light and deliver to it a long-overdue coup de grâce.


[1] N. Copsey, ‘Crossing Borders: Anti-Fascist Action (UK) and Transnational Anti-Fascist Militancy in the 1990s,’ Contemporary European History, 25 (4), 707-727.

[2] Ibid. 

[3] Ibid. 

No Comments on Antifa: An Obituary

The Jewish Question(and Some Answers)

The following is an interview I recently conducted with ‘Reactionary Jew’ and ‘The Rebbe,’two Twitter figures from a small grouping known as the Jewish ‘Alt-Right,’ or ‘JewishAlternative.’ As someone who has studied Jewish dynamics in White societies for more than a decade, I was interested by recent media attention in The Forward and elsewhere concerning Josh Seidel, an American Jew who claimed to be part of the Alt-Right. I say interested rather than ‘surprised’ or ‘puzzled’ because history is replete with small numbers of Jews who have pursued, what are from their perspective, ostensibly unusual political and ideological paths. In the most extreme cases, Jews have been pioneers of what has been termed ‘anti-Semitism.’ For example, one of the first great exposures of the anti-Gentile content of the Talmud was carried out in Germany by the 16 th century Jewish apostate Johannes Pfefferkorn. Between 1507 and 1521 Pfefferkorn acted like a kind of early modern Andrew Anglin, printing more pamphlets (in both German and Latin) attacking Jewish behavior than any other author. He demanded that Jews cease their practice of usury, and aggressively upbraided them for what may be loosely described as a range of ‘anti-social’ behaviors.

The following is an interview I recently conducted with ‘Reactionary Jew’ and ‘The Rebbe,’ two Twitter figures from a small grouping known as the Jewish ‘Alt-Right,’ or ‘Jewish Alternative.’ As someone who has studied Jewish dynamics in White societies for more than a decade, I was interested by recent media attention in The Forward and elsewhere concerning Josh Seidel, an American Jew who claimed to be part of the Alt-Right. I say interested rather than ‘surprised’ or ‘puzzled’ because history is replete with small numbers of Jews who have pursued, what are from their perspective, ostensibly unusual political and ideological paths. In the most extreme cases, Jews have been pioneers of what has been termed ‘anti-Semitism.’ For example, one of the first great exposures of the anti-Gentile content of the Talmud was carried out in Germany by the 16 th century Jewish apostate Johannes Pfefferkorn. Between 1507 and 1521 Pfefferkorn acted like a kind of early modern Andrew Anglin, printing more pamphlets (in both German and Latin) attacking Jewish behavior than any other author. He demanded that Jews cease their practice of usury, and aggressively upbraided them for what may be loosely described as a range of ‘anti-social’ behaviors.

Despite his great zeal in anti-Jewish activity, because of his origins Pfefferkorn was the object of much distrust, derision, and suspicion by his contemporaries. The same responses have been evident in relation to the small collective of Jewish nationalists seeking shade under the Alt-Right umbrella. Hostile non-Jewish responses are, given the sobering weight of grim history between our peoples, predictable, justified, and eminently sensible. The threat of infiltration, co-option, and misdirection is very real. I have composed essays explicitly dealing with this subject from a historical perspective, and I have advocated for the exclusion of Jews from the life of our movement for the sake of its ideological and material integrity. Possessing an eye for historical context, I didn’t like Seidel’s use of the term ‘Alt-Right’ to describe what he is, or what he claims to be. Seidel may well be a reactionary of sorts, and he may well be opposed to much of the agenda of the mainstream Jewish community. However, that does not make him a part of the Alt-Right, a movement which is, in the main, an outgrowth of European ethno-nationalism. He can no more be part of the Alt-Right than I can be a part of the Chabad-Lubavitch sect. The Alt-Right is not a social club. It is the organic expression of national will – the will of the best elements of the European peoples.

One doesn’t need to feel that the proverbial “all Jews” are dedicated to fighting against us in order to see that a blanket exclusion would be useful. Any suggestion of co-operation should be considered moot. A blunt ‘anti-Semitism’ that paints in broad strokes isn’t necessarily intellectually sophisticated, but it is a useful ‘shorthand’ for confronting some of our most pressing social, political, and economic issues. One might consider the analogy that our opposing forces act as a giant knife, cutting into the heart of the nation. The coterie of Leftists, anarchists, degenerates, homosexuals, self-interested elites, and others of our race make up the bulk of the blade. But with what preponderance are Jews found at the razors edge! It is almost always Jewish radicals that are found with the most cutting, most offensive, and most devastating theories and activism; theories and activism that appear designed only to divide, to separate, to tear apart. It is because of what occurs at the ‘razor’s edge’ that ‘anti-Semitism’ finds both its cold logic and shattering power.

That being said, one should be wary of being sucked into a lowly resentment of one’s opponents. One should be aware of socio-political realities without being consumed by them. Nietzsche once astutely observed that the aristocratic mind is capable of shrugging off opposition, and of always finding the means to a respect for one’s opponents. The lower mind, more fearful and shadowy, will recoil from a full confrontation with reality, preferring instead to view his enemy as monolithic, as ‘evil.’ His enemy stalks him everywhere. Like Nietzsche, I reject the concepts of good and evil, as they are popularly understood, and with that I reject the notion that all Jews are ‘evil,’ or even that there is something ‘evil’ about Jews. We have opposing interests and differing approaches and strategies to life. And I believe that these differences also have metaphysical expressions. However, I do not believe that Jews are all-powerful, and I do not believe that, in and of itself, communication with Jews is liable to leave one vulnerable to ideological deviation. Communication and co-operation are entirely different spheres.

Having laid this groundwork, I ask of readers only that the treat the following interview with the aristocratic mind-set I expect them to have. For my part, I have dispensed with soft approaches and have posed questions in a respectful attempt to get to the heart of what these individuals are in relation to us. They are clearly not members of the Alt-Right, but as strongly identified Jews what do they have to say about issues that the Alt-Right is concerned with? About identity? About the Jewish assault on Europeans? About future prospects for both peoples? One might enquire why such answers would matter. Purely on a personal level I would reply by pointing to curiosity; curiosity about truth, but also the truth that can be found even in deception, self-deception, or the sense of self that prevails in an opposing tribe. For the same reasons, I would interview the leadership of both the ADL and the SPLC if they’d dare to let me. I am sure that the answers provided in such interviews would provide food for both thought and discussion. Such interviews would sharpen our indignation, our ideological understanding, and our political senses. This one, I believe, is no different.

AJ: In the last 12 months there have been spasmodic debates surrounding the definition of ‘Alt-Right.’ How do you define it?

RJ: I perceive it as a broad-tent coalition bound together by one thing: explicitly fighting for white European interests, manifested via nationalism, either in one’s own country, or around the world. Within this label, there are many disagreements about peripheral issues (socialism vs. more libertarian economic systems, ethnic nationalism vs. racial nationalism, etc.). Some Alt-Right issues are considered important by the majority of the movement and seem almost inseparable from that core of white interests, such as the Jewish Question, traditionalist revival, etc., but are valued specifically because of how they are tied to white group interests and identity within the context of the movement. While I do think the Jewish question is (very) important, and I do believe in traditional sexual morality, I also consider those who disagree with me on both of those fronts to still be considered Alt-Right if they are fighting for explicitly white European interests. I should note that I do not consider Breitbart/Milo/PJW/etc. to be Alt-Right, since they refuse to talk in explicitly racial terms and will “condemn racism” when it comes down to it.

TR: The traditional “National Review” center-right confronted communism on a global scale and delayed creeping socialism. These two threats were stalking horses for the real enemy of the West: what you call “Cultural Marxism” (Jews would describe as “Frankism”). This Jewish Satanic heresy is the dominant paradigm of the Jewish intelligentsia and the Reformed/Re-constructivist denominations. The Alt-Right is a late-hour counter-reaction to this threat. While much of the Alt-Right doesn’t even fully comprehend this inchoate “POZ,” it has nevertheless mounted a successful intellectual assault and helped bring about the greatest political upset since Truman.

AJ: I regard the work of Kevin MacDonald as one of the primary ideological foundations for the Alt-Right. Have you read MacDonald, and do you view the critical analysis of Jewish behavior as a necessary and appropriate facet of Alt-Right activity?

RJ: I have read Dr. MacDonald’s work. I have also corresponded with him, and even spoken to him face-to- face. I learned many things from his work, and although we definitely have our disagreements, I think he tries his best to be objective. As stated above, in my opinion, the Jewish Question is not one that can be ignored, both by whites and by Jews. It is too immense and far-reaching. The consequences can be dire, for both peoples. For the skeptics out there, remember that the early Zionists themselves dealt heavily with the Jewish Question, and came to many of the same conclusions as “anti-Semites,” albeit not entirely for the same reasons. A central theme in Judaism itself, especially the traditional Rabbinic variant, is understanding our own group behavior and how that it plays out when we interact with other nations, but from a different angle. The most severe early criticism and harsh condemnations of Jewish behavior can be found in none other than th Bible itself.

TR: MacDonald’s well-researched work regarding ethnic interest provides an accurate model to explain historical Jewish behavior. However, when explaining the demonic Jewish radical Left, his theories break down like the laws of physics around a black hole. I could find only one article on Occidental Observer’s site that mentions Sabbatai Zevi or Jacob Frank, the two heretics who heavily influenced the POZ (as the article acknowledges). Rabbi Emden, the most noted pro-Christian Jewish theologian, first warned gentiles in the 1760s that the Sabbatians sought to “destroy the World”—their Satanic theology: “What is holy, unholy. What is unholy, holy”. Torah wisdom is systematically inverted by the POZ: homosexuality, transgenderism, feminism, pedophilia, obesity, pagan environmentalism, multi-culturalism, supporting Islamists, etc. They loathe the World of Creation and seek the Sabbatian Kabbalist apocalypse: all genders, races, and religions meld into one.

A great example of the lack of self-reflection on the part of contemporary Jews is the bizarre confrontation between the Reform rabbi (with his confused account of “radical inclusion”; Jewish heresy) and Spencer a few weeks ago. The rabbi had likely never seriously confronted Spencer’s viewpoint in his lifetime. Most Leftist Jews are like this in real life and sound like pod people. The most influential immigration propaganda, the “Melting Pot”; by Zangwill, actually recreated the Kabbalist apocalypse on stage. Frankfurt, of the Frankfurt School, was a hold out of Frankist ideas. Freud admitted to being a Sabbatian (as other intellectuals of the time) and seeking to destroy the West. Since the Jewish Left is steeped in heretical Jewish theology and functions often under the “Jewish interest”, it’s childish to think that any serious movement to oppose it can be conducted while ignoring the JQ. If anything, the “National Review” conservative movement debacle of the last few decades tried to sidestep any Jewish connection. So, any Jew serious about defeating this bizarro Left needs to be at peace with the research and blunt discussion of the JQ.

AJ: To what extent, if any, do you see yourself as White, or a part of Western culture?

RJ: I do not consider Jews to be white, even Ashkenazis. We have a fundamentally different identity, despite some of us having European blood. I am myself half-Mizrahi, which makes me even more “diluted” I could write an essay about the intersection of Jews and Western culture, but I’ll try to keep it brief. I’ll start by saying that I personally love European classical music, philosophy, literature, and art significantly more than I do those of other civilizations on average (sometimes second to my own), but most of that is subjective preference, and no doubt partly due to my upbringing in the US. As for Jews more broadly, European culture has certainly left its mark on us via the diaspora, for better and for worse. I’d like to keep the good parts as I see them, such as the structure of institutions, religious garb, academic methodology in multiple disciplines (with certain exceptions), etc. However, as a religious Jew, I do think it is dangerous to start thinking of oneself as “Western” as many Jews do, since we have our own unique moral philosophy that has been defined historically by specifically being not only the opposite of Greek and Roman ideals, but even strongly averse to them.

TR: White and Western. My mother converted from Anglicanism and her ancestors played bit parts in the last 1000 years of English history.

AJ: The Alt-Right is undoubtedly driven by the desire of Europeans to assert their own story and fulfil their destiny as a people. In such a context, do you think that Europeans need Jewish assistance in this effort, and what practical assistance do you believe Jews can offer Europeans?

RJ: If you’re talking about European cultural revival, no, I don’t think that is the case. Europeans should reconstruct their societies on their own terms. However, there is much to be gleaned from our successful nationalist movement, ethnostate, general history of group survival, etc. and I think that should at the very least interest Europeans who care about their group’s continuity both as a model and a warning. Dr. MacDonald has said similar things in his essay “Can the Jewish Model Help The West Survive?”

TR: Trump’s election would likely not have been possible without Jewish help. The young Donald Trump was mentored by Roy Cohn, a street-wise right-wing NYC Jew. Trump surrounds himself with a cadre of similar Jews to this day (whose very presence inoculate him against charges of being “Hitler”). Sheldon Adelson went out on a limb to provide Trump a major early endorsement in his Times of Israel. Jared Kushner’s audacious media/electoral college strategy helped capture PA, MI, and WI. And let’s not forget the contribution of Anthony Weiner’s laptop in saving Western Civilization.

AJ: European history is replete with instances of Jews using and abusing their host populations, facilitated primarily through alliances with native corrupt elites. In response, many European populations have abused their Jewish communities when opportunities to do so have arisen. Given this long, sordid, and extremely vicious history, would you agree that a total separation of our peoples is the best path to avoiding future bloodshed?

RJ: I completely agree that total separation is the ideal, and I’d love to see it happen. One can blame whoever they want to for the history between Jews and whites (I’ve seen both extremes); regardless of how one analyzes the cycle, it almost never seems to end well. Why keep trying a model that fails nine times out of ten? Additionally, regardless of the issues whites may have with Jews living in their societies, many Jewish religious leaders and committed Zionists have expressed similar sentiments due to Jewish collective survival concerns, such as the rampant assimilation and intermarriage of Jews in white societies.

TR: I’d encourage any Jew to support Israel through Aliyah.

AJ: To what extent would you agree that most Jews who look to the Right are motivated mainly by an aversion to Leftist positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

RJ: It is important to clarify the different schools of thought at play here. There are Jews who want to continue living in white societies, and see Islam as a much bigger threat in that regard than they do the white far-right. There are also Jews who see the American and European left as a much bigger threat to Israel on the international stage than they do the right. While I agree with both instances of risk assessment, I’d like to specifically distinguish myself from the “Democrats are the real(ly important) anti-Semites” camp. I acknowledge that Islam is not the only threat to the West, and the demographic decline from Africans and other groups would still be a huge issue without it. I also acknowledge that the traditional neocon narrative
of “greatest ally against Islam” is mostly wrong; Europe would be safer if it closed its borders and deported people rather than by supporting Israel more. Additionally, I don’t want Jews to continue living in the West and I don’t shy away from the JQ. That being said, I do not deny the self-interest involved; it appears that white nationalists and I have many common goals -living apart from each other, the breakdown of the post-WWII international order, and the survival of the West – so why not work with them? Even in that last one listed I don’t deny the self-interest. While I value the West as a great civilization, Israel is much better off existing as part of a broader successful and productive first-world, or “Global North” if you will. I try to be as clear and honest as I can in this regard.

TR: You could say that, but there’s also a Christian case for Israel. I’ll just take Richard the Lionheart’s position: safe access to the Holy Land is essential to Christian dignity. Correspondingly, Islamic dominion (through politics or war) over Jerusalem and Bethlehem is a central objective of Jihadis and the POZ to demoralize Christians and the West. Fifteen years ago, Palestinians took over the Church of Nativity (where Jesus was born in the manger). They desecrated it with urine and feces, used the bibles as toilet paper, took monks hostage, and stole gold antiquities. Instead of condemning this, Christians generally blamed Israel. The Jihadi’s continued their terror campaign against Bethlehem’s Christian residents for years onward. The city’s Christian population has declined from 40% before the Church takeover to 12% today.

AJ: Many in the Alt-Right perceive highly ethnocentric Jews, in positions of influence, to be their most concerning opponent. Who is yours?

RJ: To me, as a Jewish nationalist, the biggest threat is the dynamic of the status quo created by the “international community” institutions (UN/ICC/EU), fueled (and even funded) by Jewish leftist traitors, perpetuated by useful idiot academics serving the cause of Arab Islamic nationalist ideologues, and re-entrenched by the US. The fact that we can’t take further measures (such as ethnic cleansing, or even annexation with tighter “security” measures) in the West Bank is actively getting my people killed in the land where they belong. Every move we make, we have be concerned with sanctions, due to the useless concepts of “human rights” and “international law” that only draw out the conflict, cause the situation to fester, and cost more blood in the long-term because they won’t allow for a swift resolution. It’s not any one particular group, but a combination of all of these, and when you put it all together, it creates a big problem for us on the international stage.

TR: The Frankists/Cultural Marxists are the existential threat, yet a movement based upon quasi-Satanism will inevitably implode under the weight of its decadence, madness, and sadism (PizzaGate?). Many of today’s Jewish intelligentsia are the “learn nothing and forget nothing” Bourbons. They are coddled nepotism placements. Ironically, it’s the Alt-Right who have the moxie of Trotsky and Alinsky. The Alt-Right rages about hypocrisy because Israel refuses refugees while the Jewish Left foists them on the West. However, you’re projecting a rudimentary capacity for introspection upon the Jewish Left. This movement of man-children will hopefully expire soon before causing any further undo harm. The USA’s end game will be the same as Israel’s: after quelling its own internal misanthropic Left, the remaining adversaries will be Islam and the global Left (including Communist China).

AJ: As a step toward European self-assertion, I would love to see the dismantling of organizations like the Anti-Defamation League and an overall decline in Jewish influence in our societies. How would you feel about the decline of Jewish power in the West?

RJ: I can tell you right now that I have no positive feelings whatsoever towards the ADL. There are few organizations that go to such great lengths to give us a bad reputation, which is especially ironic considering what they call themselves. The same goes for the SPLC and the rest of the alphabet soup of Jewish organizations which I see as actively destroying society. Their positions on Israel are also awful (such as the ADL’s support for a two-state solution) most of the time. While I am not a big fan of lumping together forces so disparate and fragmented, however prevalent they may be, as Jewish influence, in order to make a sweeping generalization of definitive negativity, I definitely don’t think it’s imperative that we have influence in the West beyond the typical influence of a foreign first-world regional superpower (on the world stage, as befits our geopolitical situation). While we’re on the topic of self-determination and purging external influence, I’d like to do the exact same in Israel, and I sympathize with that very basic desire, which is currently a far-cry from reality in both of our civilizations.

TR: Before the refugee invasion, Europe was first prepped for Islamic conquest with decades of pro-Palestinian propaganda, thereby normalizing Jihadi terrorism. Jihadi’s were victims of oppression with whom lasting peace could be forged but for Israel’s cruelty and Islamophobia. Zionist power in the US, thankfully, has inoculated our country from Jihadi tactics. Indeed, hostility to Obama’s program of importing millions of Islamic “immigrants” helped propel Trump’s candidacy. Jewish power sometimes acts to destroy the West and at other times to help it. It takes the better part of wisdom to know which is which. That’s why it’s called “The Jewish Question”.

No Comments on The Jewish Question(and Some Answers)

On the Death of John Berger

John Berger, who died very recently at the age of 90, is probably not a familiar name to Radix readers. Like many activists hostile to our people and our civilization, Berger carved out an influential but relatively undisturbed career for himself. In this case, our deceased protagonist was an ‘art critic’ and author. Berger did not openly promote a course on ‘Whiteness studies,’ nor did he advance an agenda of White guilt. His mode of operation was more perhaps more insidious, consisting of an influential but somehow barely perceptible drip-feeding of intellectual poison into Western cultural self-confidence. He was a quintessential contributor to what Kevin MacDonald has termed the ‘Culture of Critique’ and, in his most famous TV and book project, Ways of Seeing (1972), he steadily chipped away at confidence in traditional Western cultural aesthetics, paving the way for ‘feminist readings’ of traditional art and pop culture. Ways of Seeing is now required reading for many college art courses. 

John Berger, who died very recently at the age of 90, is probably not a familiar name to Radix readers. Like many activists hostile to our people and our civilization, Berger carved out an influential but relatively undisturbed career for himself. In this case, our deceased protagonist was an ‘art critic’ and author.

Berger did not openly promote a course on ‘Whiteness studies,’ nor did he advance an agenda of White guilt. His mode of operation was perhaps more insidious, consisting of an influential but somehow barely perceptible drip-feeding of intellectual poison into Western cultural self-confidence. He was a quintessential contributor to what Kevin MacDonald has termed the ‘Culture of Critique’ and, in his most famous TV and book project, Ways of Seeing (1972), he steadily chipped away at confidence in traditional Western cultural aesthetics, paving the way for ‘feminist readings’ of traditional art and pop culture. Ways of Seeing is now required reading for many college art courses.

Berger was born in November 1926 to Stanley and Miriam Berger, secular Jews living in the heavily-Jewish suburbs of an area of London called Stoke Newington. In 1946 he enrolled in the Chelsea School of Art and the Central School of Art in London. He doesn’t appear to have impressed his instructors with artistic talent.

Although Berger’s Wikipedia entry states that his early work was exhibited in London galleries, it should be noted that his entire early promotion was a product of ethnic networking rather than artistic merit. Berger exhibited at only two art galleries during this period, the first being the Wildenstein, Redfern, which should require no elaboration. The other venue was Leicester Galleries, owned by Cecil and Wilfred Phillips. The Phillips brothers, connected by blood to the Anglo-Jewish elite, including the Joseph and Levy families, were part of a wealthy clique of modern art promoters. As well as sponsoring the work of John Berger, the gallery also gave prominence to other figures of questionable talent, but not questionable kinship, including David Bomberg and Jacob Epstein.

After his art career failed to reach any meaningful heights, Berger followed the maxim that “Those that can, do; Those who can’t, teach.” While teaching drawing from 1948 to 1955, he began posturing as an art critic and made little attempt to hide his budding affinity with Marxism. His first big break in television came in the late 1960s when Berger was given a job creating art-related content for Granada, a new Manchester-based television company owned by Sidney Bernstein. Berger would also soon present himself as a novelist.

Francis Parker Yockey once wrote that the modern craze for originality is a manifestation of decadence. It should, therefore, come as no great surprise that Berger’s 1972 novel G won the Booker Prize, owing mainly to the text’s unconventional and informal style, not to mention sexual content. The ‘plot’ is so bare that the novel’s Wikipedia entry is more barren than any other work of literature in existence. Ever-antagonistic to Western culture, Berger accepted the Booker prize before giving half the money to the Black Panthers, asserting with an empty bravado that the gesture was a protest at Booker McConnell’s colonialist past.

Politically, Berger was an avowed ‘Marxist humanist.’ He titled an early collection of essays Permanent Red, as part as a statement of political commitment, and worked tirelessly to imbue his work in the art world with the same red hue. He was keen to critique and deconstruct the pride attached to traditional art in Britain, and every aspect of his work was designed to undermine confidence in older art forms.In contrast with the presentation of traditional art shows on British television, during the filming of Ways of Seeing Berger refused to dress formally, opting instead for a ‘pop art’ shirt. Rather than adopt a serious and reverent tone, Berger would move rapidly about the screen, mocking, and pulling garish faces.

The tone of Ways of Seeing was dominated by derisiveness and opposition. As one of Berger’s interviewers later remarked, he would “compare the old masters with advertisements and solicit the opinions of mini-skirted feminists.” Experts keen to celebrate the artistic triumphs of the West were ignored or described indirectly as out-of-touch chauvinists. Berger would later state that “Our concept was, I suppose, distinctly opposed to [traditional art shows] like Civilization. Kenneth Clark was a much more erudite art historian than I was, or am. He was an expert, sharing his knowledge with those less expert. And we wanted somehow…to destructure expertise…That was our strategy.”

For the remainder of his career, Berger would advance a relentless Marxist assault on the entire Western art tradition since the Renaissance. Given a platform to address millions by the BBC, he presented oil paintings by the old masters not as the perfect capturing of light and form, but instead as perfect examples of a civilization adapted to depicting objects and people as things to be owned as private property. To Berger, all Western art was an expression of capitalist social relations. An admirer of the Jewish feminist Andrea Dworkin, whom he regarded as ‘tender,’ he advanced the feminist-pleasing argument that Western art systematically depicted women not as active subjects but as objects to be looked at and possessed. Western art was thus morally suspect, aesthetically limited, and ultimately worthy only of derision and harsh critique.

It is a sad indictment of the contemporary arts that the last twenty-four hours have seen a veritable outpouring of grief at the passing of this individual. Panegyrics have burst forth on Twitter, describing Berger as “the best ever writer on art,” and “an energy source in a depleted world.” There is, I suppose, no hindsight for the blind, and many of our people have been blinded to the accomplishments of their forebears. But Berger’s legacy will ring hollow to those with a deeper sense of themselves. I shall not be mourning his passing or paying homage to his life’s work. To me, Berger will always be an artificial ‘talent’ concocted by the Wildenstein’s, the Phillips’s, and the Bernstein’s, and given an unparalleled and undeserved platform to lecture the West on its artistic accomplishments. He was a genius, like so many of his ilk, only in shaping ways of seeing.

No Comments on On the Death of John Berger

Play the Man

Sacrifice. Everyone in the Alt Right will be familiar with it to some degree. Many of us, particularly those most publicly engaged, carry personal, professional, and financial scars that bear witness to a tour of duty in the war of ideas. Even success can be punishing. Our leaders know only too well that every push deeper into the public consciousness will be met with a more bitter and more personal response from our panicked and ruthless opponents.

“Play the man, Master Ridley; we shall this day light such a candle, by God’s grace, in England, as I trust shall never be put out.”

Hugh Latimer, 1554.

Sacrifice. Everyone in the Alt Right will be familiar with it to some degree. Many of us, particularly those most publicly engaged, carry personal, professional, and financial scars that bear witness to a tour of duty in the war of ideas. Even success can be punishing. Our leaders know only too well that every push deeper into the public consciousness will be met with a more bitter and more personal response from our panicked and ruthless opponents.

The recent targeting of Richard Spencer’s family in Whitefish, Montana, is a testament to both the moral bankruptcy of the corrupt interests we position ourselves against, and the myriad threats posed not only to ourselves, but to our loved ones also. Simply by adopting a position of ideological dissent from the status quo, our comrades near and far invite variants of social, financial, and physical violence including imprisonment, unemployment, social ostracism, the targeting of material assets, media smearing, and threats and incidences of assault. It is because of these often devastating aftershocks that “doxing” is for us so much more than a stripping away of anonymity. Doxing is instead, by virtue of its accompaniments, the post-modern equivalent of being placed in the docks, or in its worst expressions, being burned at the stake.

Dealing with sacrifice, or the threat of it, is perhaps so commonplace that it rarely provokes conscious thought. This is probably for the good, since it is never healthy to brood on sacrifice for too long when one is trying to push on toward goals and aspirations. But I believe that some reflection on sacrifice can be healthy, both in terms of inspiring a more aggressive pursuit of one’s goals, and also for the reinforcement it can bring to one’s ideological, indeed spiritual, connection with the cause.

Before proceeding any further, I should lay some cards on the table. Although writing under a pen name, I’ve been relatively open about my political beliefs in the past, and I’ve endured sacrifices for even my most tangential ties to our movement. During spells in Europe I’ve been arrested and had my home raided by police. I’ve lost jobs. I’ve been ostracized by former friends and colleagues, and even my marriage has been placed under strain at various times. In the eye of these storms, the world can seem like a very lonely place, and on some occasions one crisis seems to dissipate just as the clouds of a new storm gather on the horizon. One lives under the shadow of these clouds, and I am certain that more sacrifices and tribulations await me. But I am not troubled.

I can thank an 85-year-old man for my ability to handle most of the things life has thrown at me during the last ten years or so. Or at least the man now buried in a beautiful farmstead in rural North Carolina was about that age when he imparted to me the advice that would help me become the man I am today. My wife’s grandfather was still hale and hearty in his 80s, standing in excess of six feet with only the slightest hint of a stoop. His blue eyes still shone brightly from beneath thick, white eyebrows. In his prime he had been a champion amateur wrestler, a master horseman, and had, during World War Two, flown “over the hump” in Burma as part of a Special Forces unit. In the immediate post-war period he carried out work for the Office of Strategic Services, an early incarnation of what would become the CIA, before finally venturing into business. He was successful, retiring in his 50s with millions in the bank. In short, he was a man who had witnessed much and, by any estimation, had truly lived. He was also a racially aware man with a deep feeling for his Anglo-Celtic ancestry and the Anglo-Celtic heritage of the Deep South. He was no friend of the Jew. He shed no crocodile tears for the African. His home was draped in the flags of the Confederacy, and the Coats of Arms of his sires.

I was a young lad of twenty when I met him for the first time. Like most young men that age the only thing I had going for me was potential and, well, not much else. His legend was such in the family that I approached the event of our first meeting with some trepidation, and I heard that he had the unsettling habit of pretending not to hear very well – just so that you would be all the more awkward in trying to communicate with him. In the event, he was polite and courteous, and expressed a deep interest in my own ancestry and heritage. It quickly emerged that we shared an interest in literature and poetry. This delighted the old man, who would relish the opportunity to impress his young guest by reciting entire poems by Kipling from memory.

In the year that followed we developed a warm friendship, and despite our ages he expressed his sincere blessing for the marriage between myself (then 20) and his granddaughter (then 19). It was shortly after the marriage that I started struggling with the pace of life. College was going well for both my wife and I, but there were financial concerns and some early plans for a new home went the way that they are wont to do when conceived by mice and men. Just as our bank balance was taking a nosedive, we discovered that my wife was pregnant with what would be our first son.

While the stresses mounted in my mind, I did a good job of concealing it. I retained a garrulous and easy-going demeanour. Almost everyone I encountered failed to pick up on the fact that, at the age of 21, I was weighed down with some very complex worries and challenges, and that not even I knew how much longer I could cope without breaking in some manner. I say almost everyone because, during one Sunday family gathering, I caught the old man looking at me with deep concern. A little while later, while attempting to engage him in small talk, he motioned for me to stop talking. He started telling me a story.

He told me that during the religious tumult that accompanied the reign of Tudors from Henry VIII to Mary I, one clergyman seemed to bear witness to every ebb and flow of English religious passion. Hugh Latimer (c. 1487 – 16 October 1555) began his career in the Church as an ardent Catholic. Indeed, his Bachelor of Divinity disputation was a refutation of the ideas central to the Reformation sweeping Europe. However, after an encounter with the recently converted Thomas Bilney, Latimer underwent a dramatic shift in perspective. He later became part of an influential group of Reformers in London, gaining further influence when Henry VIII broke with Rome.

Although his fortunes would waver under Henry once more, and again under Henry’s son Edward VI, Latimer’s fate would take its final turn during the reign of Edward VI’s Catholic sister, Mary I. Under examination by a panel of Catholic commissioners, Latimer was unable to be dissuaded from his beliefs. He was quickly sentenced to death, and it was here that the old man reached the point of his tale. Confronted with the prospect of being burned alive at an execution site in Oxford, Latimer was resolute, unmovable.

He was tied to the stake along with Nicholas Ridley, Bishop of London. The base was set alight, and the flames began to rise. As the fire began to consume the pair, Ridley’s death agonies reverberated throughout Oxford. His screams became ever louder until Latimer was heard loudly but calmly uttering the immortal words: “Play the man, Master Ridley; we shall this day light such a candle, by God’s grace, in England, as I trust shall never be put out.”

Finishing his tale, the old man looked me in the eye and repeated the words, “Play the man.” He told me of times in his life when he too, in his own way, had had to play the man. Faced with death in Burma, with financial ruin on numerous occasions, or when trying to ascend the greasy pole of his career ladder, there had been times when, even if disaster loomed, it was crucial to play the man or, in more modern formulations, to ‘hold frame’; to ride the tiger.

I’ve never forgotten the example and final words of Hugh Latimer, and they have accompanied me on several of my own trials and tribulations. They have offered strength and inspiration, and have helped me cultivate a mentality of iron determination. In more recent years, however, I have come to dwell equally on the latter half of his immortal plea. In alluding to his own sacrifice and burning as the lighting of a candle, Latimer beautifully and bravely hit upon the deeper glory of sacrifice – the glory that it may inspire in others.

As our opponents bitterly strike at the family of Richard Spencer, as some of us try to find cheer in a time of unemployment, and as many of our comrades languish in prison this Christmas, I would like us to not only admire those who hold their resolve and ‘play the man,’ but also to take heart and inspiration from their example and their trials.

While our enemies believe they are scoring victories by destroying our businesses, smearing our loved ones, or jailing us, they are in fact lighting the candles that will guide us to victory. To paraphrase the poet William Henley, we will ultimately succeed in preserving a future for our people because our heads may be sometimes bloodied but will remain forever unbowed. We are the masters of our fate. And we thank whatever gods may be for our unconquerable souls.

No Comments on Play the Man

The Myth of the Right Wing Extremist

The Anglosphere stands transfixed by an elusive bogeyman: ‘right-wing extremism.’ And more than any other nation at the present time, the United Kingdom seems to be in the grip of a media-engineered moral panic bordering on paranoid hysteria. This same country, it should be recalled, banned Richard Spencer in June because he had the temerity to advocate for the founding of a White nation on lines similar to those of the State of Israel. Spencer also dared to suggest an ideal of racial self-improvement. In the view of the British Home Office, then under the authority of Theresa May (now Prime Minister), if Spencer continued making such suggestions on British soil it would not be “conducive to the public good.” Furthermore, and without any self-awareness of its own hyperbolic unreason, the same department claimed that Spencer’s positions amounted to the “fomenting” of “serious criminal acts,” “terrorist acts,” and “inter-community violence in the UK.” Spencer, according to this narrative, is an ‘extremist.’

Editor’s Note: This essay first appeared at the Occidental Observer here.

Neither man nor angel can discern
Hypocrisy, the only evil that walks
Invisible

John Milton, Paradise Lost

The Anglosphere stands transfixed by an elusive bogeyman: ‘right wing extremism.’ And more than any other nation at the present time, the United Kingdom seems to be in the grip of a media-engineered social panic bordering on paranoid hysteria. This same country, it should be recalled, banned Richard Spencer in June because he had the temerity to advocate for the founding of a White nation on lines similar to those of the State of Israel. Spencer also dared to suggest an ideal of racial self-improvement. In the view of the British Home Office, then under the authority of Theresa May (now Prime Minister), if Spencer continued making such suggestions on British soil it would not be “conducive to the public good.” Furthermore, and without any self-awareness of its own hyperbolic unreason, the same department claimed that Spencer’s positions amounted to the “fomenting” of “serious criminal acts,” “terrorist acts,” and “inter-community violence in the UK.” Spencer, according to this narrative, is an ‘extremist.

Given such an assessment, one might expect that the aftermath of an average NPI conference would be a veritable war zone. One imagines minorities fleeing the disintegrating streets of Washington D.C., pursued by radicalized and frenzied militants in trendy three piece suits. All, presumably, against a cacophony of explosions and the distant drone of an Aryan war chant. Like many forms of madness, this strain of political dementia has its darkly humorous aspects. However, the political and cultural expressions of this socially-engineered panic are no laughing matter. In many cases, the legislative actions undertaken in such contexts are oppressive, tyrannical, and a dire threat to our most cherished freedoms. The myth of the ‘right wing extremist’ is ultimately a rather calculated tool, regularly employed with the sole aim of stifling White voices.

The myth is built on a foundation of disingenuousness and moral perversion. Ever-amplified, the myth of right wing extremism is regularly and artificially boosted by government and media, while violence arising directly from Leftist terrorists, or indirectly from Leftist pet projects such as mass immigration, prompts only silence, evasion, or logically gymnastic apologia. Even a cursory glance at the relevant statistics reveals a stunning neglect of the Leftist threat both historically and in contemporary contexts. According to a 2001 report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Energy, Leftist extremists were “responsible for three-fourths of the officially designated acts of terrorism in America in the 1980s. From an international perspective, of the 13,858 people who died between 1988 and 1998 in attacks committed by the 10 most active terrorist groups in the world, 74 percent were killed by Leftist organizations.” (Editor’s note: At the November, 2016 NPI conference it was leftist antifas who assaulted Aryan Gondola, the cameraman for Emily Youcis, while shouting “die, die, die.” Many attendees were afraid to leave the building during breaks for fear of similar assaults and with the expectation that the police would do nothing. Thorborne Richardson recounts several other assaults by leftists at this event. And at last year’s NPI conference, an attendee was also assaulted by an antifa. Despite an arrest, no charges were filed.)

Hypocrisy is rampant. While affable, and clearly non-violent, figures like Richard Spencer receive continent-wide banning orders, highly volatile groups like Black Lives Matter are indulged with fawning press coverage, and treated with kid gloves by government, academia, and law enforcement. This despite the fact that while BLM may posture as having a purely political and community-based agenda, the same can also be said of those Black Leftist groups of the 1970s that gave rise to terrorist groups like the Black Liberation Army and the Republic of New Afrika. By indulging Black agitation, feeding Leftist paranoia about ‘rigged’ elections, and stoking a panic over the ‘extreme right’ folk devil, the media-government symbiote is stirring a witch’s brew of anti-White resentment that threatens to erupt at any moment.

In just one example of what can happen when these ingredients are brought together, one might consider what happened when the Black Liberation Army (1970-1981) joined forces with Leftist terror group the ‘Weather Underground’ (1969-1985), the brainchild of Jewish radicals John Jacobs, Eleanor Raskin, Mark Rudd, David Gilbert, and Kathy Boudin. In October 1981, in the village of Nyack, NY, Boudin and several Black associates, fuelled by a joint desire for ‘class war’ and the ‘appropriation’ of White wealth, robbed an armored Brink’s truck of $1.6 million. In the process, they murdered one Brink’s guard and critically injured two others. The 2001 report commissioned by the Department of Energy further recalls that, “At a police roadblock five miles from the robbery, they killed two police officers and wounded a third.”

In order to shed light on the hypocrisy underpinning the myth of the right wing extremist, and while not excusing violence in any form or from any quarter, the aftermath of the events described above need to be placed in some kind of comparative context. In particular, it should be noted that even this single act alone, perpetrated by the alliance known as the May 19th Communist Organization (M19CO), exceeded in violence the entire criminal career of a group known as The Order, also active in the 1980s. The media and judicial treatment of both groups in the aftermath of their respective criminal activities is incredibly telling.

Kathy Boudin, who was heavily involved and present during the Brink’s robbery, is now an adjunct professor at Columbia University, having previously enjoyed a stint as Scheinberg Scholar-in-Residence at New York University School of Law. Mark Rudd wasn’t involved in the Brink’s robbery, but was heavily implicated in the attempted bombing of a servicemen’s ball in March 1970, a prospect that was only averted because the device exploded prematurely, killing its manufacturers – Jewish Marxist terrorists Terry Robbins and Ted Gold, along with Diana Oughton, the gentile girlfriend of Weather Underground co-founder (and now retired professor of education at the University of Illinois–Chicago) Bill Ayers. Rudd went on to be a mathematics instructor at Central New Mexico Community College and is now retired. Eleanor Raskin is now an adjunct instructor at Albany Law School, and an administrative law judge at the New York State Public Service Commission. Other notable Weather Underground figures include Naomi Jaffe, a Jewish former undergraduate student of Herbert Marcuse who participated in the infamous Flint, Michigan War Council (1969) that plotted a series of bombings and murders, including those targeting judges and congressmen. Jaffe currently lives comfortably in New York where she directs an organization devoted to women’s issues and ‘anti-racism.’

Nor should we neglect to mention the later years of the Black terrorists. An excellent example is the early Black Panther Party leader Eldridge Cleaver. Cleaver, a compulsive criminal, once advocated for the rape of White women as “an insurrectionary act,” and having followed his own advice remarked that “it delighted me that I was defying and trampling upon the white man’s law … defiling his women.” He derided what he called “white pigs,” and added “we encourage people to kill them.” Cleaver died a free man in 1998. An extremist and criminal by any definition of those terms, he was never banned from entering Europe, and even lived in Paris during the 1970s, after his vision of living in Africa ended in an ignominious departure from Algiers. Rather than being subject to serious media critique, during their heyday both Cleaver and the Black Panther Party were the darlings of liberal intellectuals. For example, the composer and conductor Leonard Bernstein is just one member of the Left-liberal cultural elite known to have held Manhattan fund-raisers for them. Posthumously Cleaver would receive fawning academic tributes, the most absurdly bucolic emerging from a Professor Richard Rose of the University of La Verne, who described Cleaver as a “gentle spirit.” One is reminded of similar sentiments recently expressed after the death of Fidel Castro, a figure who ended a speech marking the 40th anniversary of the Cuban Revolution with the words: “Socialism or death!”

Perhaps more important than the benign fates of these anti-White Leftist terrorists is the fact that their legacy has been one of rose-tinted recollection, white-washing, and ideological triumph. These terrorists produced a political theory that sought to pose every one of their criminal acts as an ‘anti-imperialist,’ ‘anti-racist’ struggle; and they were the first to articulate the formulation of White guilt-inducement known as ‘White privilege.’ Their comfort in middle age and beyond reflects the victory of the ideas they conceived in their youth; ideas that led to the theft of millions of dollars, at least seven major bombings, and the deaths of innocents. Expressed in simple terms, these terrorists and their contemporaries are triumphant because they convinced society, or at least its most influential elements, to adopt their terminology, their ideology, and their moral schema. Expressed in more complex terms, we might refer to the teachings of Naomi Jaffe’s mentor, Herbert Marcuse, who wrote that:

Once a specific morality is firmly established as a norm of social behavior, it is not only introjected – it also operates as a norm of ‘organic’ behaviour; the organism receives and reacts to certain stimuli and ‘ignores’ and repels others in accord with the introjected morality.(1)

The meagre judicial treatment of these terrorist figures, and their comfortable later lives, are thus both a sign and a symptom of the corruption of social morals and norms. The moral norms that currently prevail preclude a rational response to ‘stimuli’ like Leftist terrorism.

In the context of a society given over to a corrupted mentality, one would expect responses to vary not according to scale of violence and the extent of threat, but according to disturbances to the introjected moral schema. Rationality is dispensed with. In such a society, extremely violent Islamic terror can evoke less intense responses than threats from and toward abstract protagonists. We are all familiar with the side-stepping of Muslim bombings and beheadings in favor of public handwringing over ‘shared values’ and the putative need to guard against ‘hate.’ Note how the debate is lifted from emergency rooms and placed in the philosopher’s chair. Equipped with this understanding, we should not feel any sense of surprise that the fates of the ‘Weathermen’ contrast sharply with those of The Order, a smaller, less lethal, and less influential group whose members were afforded quite different treatment by the media, government and judiciary.

By espousing an ideology with White identity at its core, as opposed to the anti-White ideology of M19CO, The Order was in direct conflict not only with the law but also with the prevailing moral schema. Its fate would reflect that. The group’s leader, Robert Mathews, was surrounded by the FBI in December 1984. A decision was taken to fire incendiary rounds into the home in which Mathews had barricaded himself, resulting in him being burned alive. Of the remaining members, David Lane was sentenced to 190 consecutive years in prison, his main crime being that he denied the civil rights of Alan Berg, a Jewish talk show host. Lane was subjected to long periods of solitary confinement before dying in prison in 2007. Bruce Pierce was handed a similar fate, having been sentenced to 252 years on the same charges, dying in prison in 2010. Richard Scutari was given a 60 year prison sentence in 1986 and remains incarcerated. On a cultural level, matters are much the same. David Lane’s ‘Fourteen Words,’ impelling the survival of Whites and their progeny, are unable to be articulated in public. In stark contrast, the ‘White Privilege’ meme, concocted by the Weathermen, Black radicals, and their New Left associates, saturates every aspect of contemporary culture and politics.

To be clear, the argument presented here is not that the right wing extremist is entirely mythic or fictional because figures committing crime in the name of White identity have never existed. They have existed, but the facts tell us that they are both extremely rare and often very much disengaged from the heart of the movement. Despite recurrent breathless claims, such as Kurt Eichenwald’s Newsweek article claiming that right-wing extremists are more dangerous than ISIS, the reality is far different. FBI agent Michael German, who spent years undercover with White identity groups, and is certainly no friend of our ideas, has remarked that “There are millions of racists in the United States. There are hundreds of thousands of people who are with organized white supremacist groups. Very few actually commit acts of violence.” The argument presented here is rather that the ‘myth’ of the right wing extremist is always greater than the sum of his parts, whereas the Leftist extremist is always somehow less than the sum of his. Furthermore, because it is moral infraction more than violent threat that lies at its heart, the myth of the right wing extremist envelopes even the most non-belligerent advocate of contrarian ideologies. The violent Leftist, the anarchist, the Black ‘liberationist,’ on the other hand, is forever a ‘gentle spirit.’

Disinformation is crucial to the maintenance of the myth. The Southern Poverty Law Center is one of the world’s leading producers of propaganda in this regard, primarily through its Intelligence Report and Year in Hate and Extremism. In the words of Alexander Cockburn, SPLC President Morris Dees “has raised an endowment of close to $100 million, with which he’s done little, by frightening elderly liberals that the heirs of Adolf Hitler are about to march down Main Street, lynching blacks and putting Jews into ovens. The fund raising of Dees and the richly rewarded efforts of terror mongers like Leonard Zeskind offer a dreadfully distorted view of American political realities.” Such distortion is a defining feature of the myth of the right wing extremist. Faced with increasing violence from immigrants and ethnic minorities, interested parties in government, the media, and academia have been forced to heighten the level of distortion still further, in order to maintain the pretense that a greater threat emanates from the Right.

In recent weeks, Spencer-free Britain has had its introjected morality triggered continually by wave upon wave of engineered ‘news.’ The Guardian, a bastion of Left-liberal smugness, has been at the forefront in provoking a falsehood-fuelled social panic about the Right. In late November it led with a piece claiming that “a top counter-terrorism officer has said police fear the threat of far-right violence is growing and poses a similar danger to communities as other forms of extremism.” In actual fact, the officer in question responded to loaded questions in the wake of the death of murdered MP Jo Cox with only cautious and non-committal statements on the Right, and stated that “currently just under 10% of all Prevent [a government ‘anti-extremism’ education program] referrals relate to the extreme right wing.” It is understood that these involved teenagers engaging in stickering and handing out pamphlets. Far from posing a “similar danger to communities as other forms of extremism,” the officer further elaborated that “the overriding threat remains from Daesh-inspired groups,” that is to say, groups derived predominantly from the Guardian’s much-cherished immigrant populations.

Faced with a White identity movement that remains, frustratingly for its opponents, law-abiding and peaceful, we can expect an elaboration on existing tactics. The meaning and definition of words like ‘terrorism’ and ‘extremism’ will themselves be expanded to encompass non-violent entities and individuals in an effort to drag them into hastily constructed spheres of illegality and, thus, deeper social opprobrium. The banning of Richard Spencer from the UK as an ‘extremist’ is an excellent case in this regard. Another is the prison sentence given to Joshua Bonehill for harassing a Jewish MP on social media.

The phenomena outlined above should be sufficient for us to dispense with any lingering hopes that the political and cultural contest we are engaged in is governed by ‘fairness.’ In this Great Game, the rules are constantly changing, the goal always elusive. I often feel that our victory will not be in the form of a majestic sweep to power, but will instead resemble the achievement of a victor marked by his powers of will and endurance. In this scenario, we drag ourselves over the finish line with bloodied fingertips. Despite the purity of our intentions, the merit of our cause, and the honor in our motivations, I fear that there will be sacrifices along the way. There will be more smears, more falsehoods, more libels, and more oppressions. Glory will come to he who can shoulder them and move ever forward. I opened with Milton. I’ll close with him:

Awake, Arise, or for ever be fallen


(1) Herbert Marcuse, ‘Essay on Liberation,’ 1969.

No Comments on The Myth of the Right Wing Extremist

Why Trump?

One need not reflect long on the state of contemporary America to appreciate the necessity of Donald J. Trump. Just as every construction must be preceded by a destruction in…

One need not reflect long on the state of contemporary America to appreciate the necessity of Donald J. Trump. Just as every construction must be preceded by a destruction in some form, Trump has taken aim at some of the most stubborn and ill-advised received wisdoms of the modern age. His candidacy has witnessed the shattering of taboo shibboleths on immigration and the ethos of American foreign policy.

Most significantly, the Trump campaign has brokered a new spirit of defiance among the White masses, brow-beaten and exhausted by the silent diktats of political correctness and a slavish adherence to the political status quo. Trump’s ‘truths’ are, in a sense, revolutionary.

He has created a pathway for voters to openly acknowledge that their government is corrupt, that globalist interests have too much power, that law and order is a national priority, that they have a right to maintain the traditional character of their nation, and that in the sphere of foreign policy it is a moral good to place the interests of America first.

These ‘truths’ have been present in the corners of American political sub-culture for some time, but Trump’s personality, perserverence, and resources have made them mainstream. Why Trump? Because he may just unlock the future we have all been striving for.

No Comments on Why Trump?

Type on the field below and hit Enter/Return to search