In his magnum opus, The Dispossessed Majority, the great Wilmot Robertson noted:

A denationalized foreign policy has many heads and hearts, but no soul. It supports imperialism in one part of the world and opposes it in another. It upholds human rights in some areas; in others it honors and rewards the violators of these rights. It gives money and arms to anti-American governments, but boycotts pro-American governments. It was against the Soviet presence in Eastern Europe and Afghanistan, but tolerated it in Cuba, from whose airfields Russian bombers could be over Florida in fifteen minutes. It was against dealing with terrorists, but it sent arms to Iran.

Not only America but most of the world has lived to regret the day the Majority lost control of American foreign policy. There is nothing more dangerous in international relations than misdirected energy, nothing more tragic than a great nation that expends its greatness blindly. Until the special interests of the minorities and the special enthusiasms of liberals are again made subservient to the national interest, America’s diplomatic incoherence will continue to be one of the great destabilizing forces in the world social order. Vacillating statecraft encourages enemies to take risks and friends to be distrustful. A foreign policy directed by lobbies instead of statesmen is worse than no foreign policy at all.

However, being right about a generality or a trend is not nearly as impressive as foreseeing particulars of future conflicts. In revisiting Mr. Robertson’s chapter “The United States and the Middle East,” the power of his mind really shines. Written decades ago, the contours and pitfalls he describes of the area, and our relation to it, are spot on today. As our covert war in Yemen heats up and our coming president seems hellbent on raising the stakes in Syria, let’s remember a few words of wisdom:

• “From the birth of Israel up to the events in Lebanon in 1982, Zionist propaganda has so permeated and dominated American thought that, whenever the discussion has turned to the Middle East, leaders in nearly every walk of public life abandon all reason and judgement, not to mention their intellectual integrity. The same educators who insist on the desegregation of American schools have solidly supported Israel, which has segregated schools for its Arab minority. The same churchmen and laymen who preach the separation of church and state, the equality of the sexes, and opposition to any racial or religious tests for marriage have stood four-square for Israel, where church and state are one, where interfaith marriages are forbidden, and where women who worship in Orthodox synagogues are segregated behind screened-off galleries.”

• “The policy [Israel first] which has already cost America the friendship of most of the Arab world and the respect of the Moslem world may also carry a much higher price. IT was pointed out earlier that the liberal-minority coalition will only lend its full support to a war in behalf of liberal goals and minority interests. As these two necessary requirements are now present in the Middle East, American intervention is not only possible but probable.”

• “Camp David cannot possibly achieve its lofty goals because Israel will never accept a truly autonomous Palestinian state on its borders, and the Palestinian leadership, no matter what it promises, will never give up its hope of driving the hated oppressor in the sea. Meanwhile, America entered an undeclared war against Middle Eastern guerrillas.” (Note that he is here commenting on President Carter’s failed Camp David Accords, but may as well have been commenting on President Clinton’s failed 2000 Camp David Summit.)

• “What has happened in the Middle East since the end of World War II offers a valuable object lesson on the nature and extent of minority power in the United States. The national interest required the safeguarding of the oil fields, the encouragement of areawide political stability to restrain Russian military and economic penetration, and the presence of friendly, pro-American, anti-Communist governments. But all this has been given up for the sake of a numerically inconsequential American minority.”

• “The sheik in your pocket today may be the imam who declares war on you tomorrow. In the short term America may have to keep the sea lanes open for the oil, which Americans and Britons, not Allah or the faithful, discovered, drilled, pumped out of the desert sand, refined, distributed — and once upon a time, owned. But in the long term the United States must go nuclear and go beyond nuclear if it wants to work itself free of present and future oil cartels. Everyone understands that the mountains of currency flowing into Middle Eastern coffers are economically disrupting to the West. But few understand that these torrents of cash are culturally corrupting to the sellers.”

• “It was in the Middle East that man is supposed to have invented civilization. It is in the Middle East that warring Jews, Arabs, Iranians, or oil-thirsty outsiders may provoke nuclear confrontation which could bring much of civilization to an untimely end.”

James Burnham died July 28th, 1987 — nearly three decades ago, and just before the arrival of the current age. Born in a Catholic 1905, he quickly delved into Marxism in his college days. But Kapital couldn’t keep him, and he quit the party in 1940, and the next year wrote his post-Marxist, and criminally underappreciated book, The Managerial Revolution. In brief, the book spelled out how the rulers of our day are not the cliched nobles and aristocrats, nor the triumphed pioneers and businessmen, but the technocrats, the pencil-pushers and the “experts” behind the scenes in our ever more complex society.

That book, popular in its day, put Burnham on the map, and he wrote quite a few books thereafter: The Machiavellians, Congress and the American Tradition, and Suicide of the West to name just three. He became a titan within the burgeoning conservative movement — writing regularly for National Review and The Freeman and reaching prominence enough to be a target of George Orwell’s ire from all the way on the other side of the Atlantic. However, for all his new found glory in William F. Buckley’s posse, Burnham never “purged” his mind of his early influences like Niccolo Machiavelli, Max Weber, Vilfredo Pareto, and Gaetano Mosca — thus ensuring that his thinking always remained above the echo chamber of Republican politics.

But not with a bang, but a whimper, did he fall from the limelight. Largely debilitated by a stroke in 1978, he was largely left in the dust by his conservative colleagues, and one by one his books fell out of print. Though a recipient of the Medal of Freedom — from Ronald Reagan no less, today his mentions are few and far between, certainly nothing in comparison to his contemporaries Russell Kirk and Whittaker Chambers.

All the same, the man was a genius, and hugely influential in the paleoconservative realm, particularly Sam Francis — the intellectual godfather of the Alt Right, who wrote a monograph and countless essays on him. Burnham’s triumph was his ability to draw from his Marxist past to see the sociological realities of economics while simultaneously pondering the spirit and soul of Western Civilization in the classically conservative sense. All with an eye to power too. Burnham knew that no amount of material condition, religious faith, or fervent ideology meant much without power — a harsh reality so many conservatives do their best to wish away.

But don’t take my word for it. Here for the 29 years he’s been gone, are 29 of his sharpest quotes:

1. Lenin — in spite of a professed belief in a materialist theory of history — didn’t allow himself to be fooled into thinking that physical resources and power were going to decide the twentieth-century destinies of empires and civilizations.

2. It is false that socialism is “the only alternative” to capitalism. It is false that capitalism will continue. It is false that socialism will replace it.

3. Since there is nothing in essential human nature to block achievement of the good society, the obstacles thereto must be, and are, extrinsic or external. The principal obstacles are, specifically, as liberalism sees them, two: ignorance — an accidental and remediable, not intrinsic and essential, state of man; and bad social institutions.

4. If we consider the problem historically, we will recall that for the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century liberal ancestors, “the state” meant a non-democratic regime in which such conservative and reactionary forces (according to their listing in the liberal lexicon) as landlords, a hereditary aristocracy, a hereditary monarch, the army and the church had weight much beyond their numerical proportion. This was true of the regime as a whole, and to a large extent even of the parliaments within the regime, which were elected on a limited, manipulated franchise, and wielded in any case only portions of the power. Such a “state” was obviously not a very promising instrument for bringing about the liberties, reforms and general prosperity which the pre-liberals sought; in fact, the active intervention of government could be expected to push, much of the time, in the opposite direction. With the gradual extension of the franchise toward universality and the transfer of sovereignty more and more fully into the hands of elective assemblies and officials, the state could be thought of as changing its character from Bad to Good or at least promising Angel. The “state” came to seem to express more and more, at least more than other institutions, the popular or general will. It was no longer outlandish for liberals to expect their democratic state to do liberalism’s work.

5. What if the government that truly embodies the democratic will of the people turns out to be a hideous tyranny, and not the free, scientific and open society of John Dewey’s turgid prose? What if his progressively reared children, unhampered by superstition, custom and traditional disciplines but left free to develop their own free natures, turn out to be not liberals but monsters — turn out to be, let us say, the delinquent monsters that today roam the cement jungles of our great cities?

6. But a renewed conservative movement, incorporating beliefs and a program consonant with the epoch’s issues, challenges, and perils, and able to rally a mass following, has not taken form and is not in sight: a Ronald Reagan might conceivably be elected President, but will not lead a resurgence of the West. The movements outside of the broad liberal-conservative spectrum that exhibit vigor and purpose aim at the destruction, not the renaissance of Western society.

7. I do not suggest that liberalism is “the cause” of the contraction and possible, on the evidence probable, death of Western civilization. I do not know what the cause is of the West’s extraordinarily rapid decline, which is most profoundly shown by the deepening loss, among the leaders of the West, of confidence in themselves and in the unique quality and value of their own civilization, and by a correlated weakening of the Western will to survive. The cause or causes have something to do, I think, with the decay of religion and with an excess of material luxury; and, I suppose, with getting tired, worn out, as all things temporal do.

8. For the liberal ideology, the domestic jungles are the merely temporary by-products of a lack of education and faulty social institutions, to be cleared up by urban renewal programs, low rents, high minimum wages and integrated schools — in which regulations forbid physical discipline, expulsion or failing to certify every student to the next higher grade each year.

9. The backward regions of the equatorial zones are only, for liberalism, enlarged slums that will be put to rights by the standard remedies: education, democracy, and welfare in the special form of foreign aid.

10. The United States is both offspring and organic part of Western civilization. The religion of the United States, its philosophies, ideals and institutions, its conceptions of man, art, science and technology — the errors and heresies as well as the truths — are all derived from common Western roots, with merely local and secondary variations. The Western heritage is given once and for all, indissolubly; there is no parliament that can authorize the nations of the West to renounce their title, no matter how ardently or basely they may yearn to join an anonymous common humanity. They either remain Western or cease to be. Thus the United States can find its destiny only in and through Western civilization, not outside or against the West.

11. When the rural population becomes “radical” in large numbers, it does not turn typically to liberalism in the modern sense but to less polished, wilder and more violent doctrines and programs: to cheap money panaceas, rural anarchism, communism, vigilantism, racial and religious “hate” movements, and for that matter fascism.

12. It makes a certain amount of sense for a Hegelian to speak of the historic guilt of this or that race or empire, or the moral claim of that people; but it makes no logical sense for a liberal to do so.

13. When the Western liberal’s feeling of guilt and his associated feeling of moral vulnerability before the sorrows and demands of the wretched become obsessive, he often develops a generalized hated of Western civilization and of his own country as part of the West. We can frequently sense this hatred in paragraphs of such American magazines as The Nation and Dissent, Britain’s New Statesman, France’s L’Express or Germany’s Der Spiegel.

14. The liberal community not only flagellates itself with the abusive writings of a disoriented Negro homosexual, but awards him money, fame and public honors. The spokesmen of the Black Muslim can openly preach racial hatred, violence and insurrection to their heart’s content, with never a challenge from police, courts or the self-appointed guardians of civil liberties. The guilt of the liberal is insatiable. He deserves, by his own judgment, to be kicked, slapped and spat on for his infinite crimes. The shooting of a Negro in Mississippi, purportedly the act of a crazed and isolated white man, reverberates from liberal sounding boards into weeks of world headlines; the shooting of white men in Maryland by rioting Negro gangs slides back into an obscure and unread paragraph. The truncheons of hard-pressed police struggling to preserve the minimum elements of public order against unloosed chaos become Satanic pitchforks; the rocks and broken bottles of the mob, angelic swords. The force that blocks an entrance to a factory which a union leadership has declared on strike is a courageous defense of the rights of man; the force that might seek to use that entrance for its intended and lawful purpose is a cowardly blow by the hirelings of the privileged.

15. The guilt of the liberal causes him to feel obligated to try to do something about any and every social problem, to cure every social evil. This feeling, too, is non-rational: the liberal must try to cure the evil even if he has no knowledge of the suitable medicine or, for that matter, of the nature of the disease; he must do something about the social problem even when there is no objective reason to believe that what he does can solve the problem — when, in fact, it may well aggravate the problem instead of solving it.

16. It has been more than once remarked that modern liberalism, as manifest within the relatively privileged strata of Western society, bears, only lightly concealed, a heavy burden of Guilt. To uncover a layer of guilt inside the liberal breast is not, to be sure, a startling discovery. Guilt seems to be an emotion, feeling, idea, conviction — whatever it is to be called — that is very widely distributed among men. If one were not committed to a denial of any permanent human nature, one might almost conclude that it is part of man’s essence.

17. No theory, no promises, no morality, no amount of good will, no religion will restrain power. Neither priests nor soldiers, neither labor leaders nor businessmen, neither bureaucrats nor feudal lords will differ from each other in the basic use which they will seek to make of power.

18. For Nietzsche, the supermen were not the conquerors and rulers, who were in fact often as much slaves of convention and prejudice as the servile masses, but above all the supreme poets and artists, the prophets, and the wilder of the saints…. Supermen are more dangerous than H-bombs. The world can’t digest many of them, but it would be a drearier place if there weren’t any.

19. The generalized feeling of guilt toward mass wretchedness and oppression is so widespread today and so pervasive a characteristic of public rhetoric that many persons do not realize it to be a rather new arrival in history. Comparatively few people felt this sort of guilt before the present century, and virtually no one before the second half of the eighteenth century, though there has never been any lack of wretched and oppressed in this world. Nor is a feeling of guilt the only motivation there has been and can be for the attempt to improve the condition of the poor. The hardy breed of Calvinist-slanted early bourgeois, or bourgeois-minded, felt plenty of guilt, but none over the poor and wretched who, their doctrine told them convincingly, had only their own shiftlessness and extravagance to blame for their troubles.

20. The liberal’s feeling of guilt at the condition of the wretched and oppressed is irrational; irrational precisely from the point of view of the liberal ideology itself. According to liberal doctrine, the poverty and oppression are the result of ignorance and faulty institutions handed down from the past; they are none of my doing. Why then should I feel that any guilt attaches to me, individually and personally, because there are poor and the enslaved?

21. It is not necessary for me to go in person to the slum, jungle, prison, Southern restaurant, state house or voting precinct and there take a direct hand in accomplishing the reform that will unblock the road to peace, justice and well-being. Thanks to the reassuring provisions of liberal ideology, I can go about my ordinary business and meanwhile take sufficient account of my moral duties by affirming my loyalty to the correct egalitarian principles, voting for the correct candidates, praising the activists and contributing to their defense funds when get into trouble, and joining promptly in the outcry against reactionaries, who pop up now and then in a desperate effort to preserve power and privilege.

22. Americans have not yet learned the tragic lesson that the most powerful cannot be loved—hated, envied, feared, obeyed, respected, even honored perhaps, but not loved.

23. The principles of an organized society cannot be interpreted in such a way as to make organized society impossible… . Any individual right or freedom is properly extended only to those who accept the fundamental rules of democracy. How … could any society survive which deliberately nursed its own avowed and irreconcilable assassin, and freely exposed its heart to his knife?

24. Proclaiming a fight against power and privilege, Russia at home drives a great gulf between a stratum of the immensely powerful, the vastly privileged, and the great masses of the people. The only country “with no material foundation for imperialism,” in theory, shows itself in practice, brutally and — for a while at least — successfully imperialistic. The “fatherland of the world’s oppressed” sends tens of thousands to death by the firing squad, puts millions, literally millions, into exile, the concentration camp, and the forced labor battalions, and closes its doors to the refugees from other lands. The one country “genuinely against war” performs the act that starts the second world war. The nation “dedicated to the improvement of labor’s conditions” invents, in Stakhanovism, the most intense form of speedup known. The government which denounced the League of Nations as a “den of brigands” enters the League and becomes its most ardent champion. The state which asked the peoples of the world to form a popular front of democracies to stop aggressors overnight walks from the camp of the democracies to that of their sworn and mortal enemies. And yet, in spite of the reiterated predictions, from friends and enemies, of its quick downfall, the regime has endured, without a break, for more than twenty-three years.

25. The ideological movement has gone both ways: just as liberalism shifted toward socialism in its doctrine of the state and its economics, so has the reformist or democratic wing of traditional socialism shifted toward liberalism. The two have come close to meeting in the concept of what has come to be called “the Welfare State”; and there they meet up also with still other currents from radicalism, Christian socialism and even “modern,” as it is sometimes designated, conservatism.

26. From the point of view of the theory of the ruling class, a society is the society of its ruling class. A nation’s strength or weakness, its culture, its powers of endurance, its prosperity, its decadence, depend in the first instance upon the nature of its ruling class. More particularly, the way in which to study a nation, to understand it, to predict what will happen to it, requires first of all and primarily an analysis of the ruling class. Political history and political science are thus predominantly the history and science of ruling classes, their origin, development, composition, structure, and changes.

27. The complex division of labor, the flow of trade and raw materials made possible and demanded by modern technology, were strangled in the network of diverse tariffs, laws, currencies, passports, boundary restrictions, bureaucracies, and independent armies. It has been clear for some while that these were going to be smashed; the only problem was who was going to do it and when.

28. Everywhere, men will have to line up with one or the other of the super-states of tomorrow. There will not be room for smaller sovereign nations; nor will the less advanced peoples be able to stand up against the might of the metropolitan areas. Of course, polite fictions of independence may be preserved for propaganda purposes; but it is the reality and not the name of sovereignty about which we are talking.

29. Liberalism is the ideology of western suicide. When once this initial and final sentence is understood, everything about liberalism-the beliefs, emotions and values associated with it, the nature of its enchantment, its practical record, its future falls into place.

Editor’s Note: Hubert Collins brings us another in his series of hopeful images.

“The streets of France are alive with the aesthetics of identity”

Editor’s Note: Hubert Collins brings us another in his series of hopeful images.

Russian artist Boris Olshansky, active up until just a few years ago, has some of the most amazing paintings of heroic virtues and battle that I’ve seen in art history — find them here.

Editor’s Note: Hubert Collins brings us a new picture blog series on stirring or aesthetically appealing images for the Identitarian cause.

Signs of life stirring on the old continent.

Source

A few months ago Richard Spencer noted that for all the hate Libertarianism Inc. was giving Donald Trump, the late libertarian polymath Murray Rothbard probably would have liked him and his candidacy quite a bit. Now that Rand Paul has dropped out, libertarians have largely abandoned electoral pursuits, and their institutions are going a bit schizophrenic, like Students for Liberty palling around with the likes of Pussy Riot and the insufferable George Will. Some of the old figures in what was termed “Paleolibertarianism” are even moving into the Trump camp. In light of all of this, let’s remind them that one of their most adored figures had quite a bit to criticize about the Current Year of his day.

Jews

Trump, despite obviously knowing many Jews in his elite New York City circles and having an adored daughter who converted to Judaism, is not afraid to tell the Republican Jewish Coalition:

“I don’t want your money, therefore you’re probably not gonna support me.”

Similarly, Murray Rothbard, despite being Jewish and having been immensely influenced by many Jewish intellectuals (Ludwig von Mises and Ayn Rand to name just two), delighted in skewering Jewish shibboleths:

Schindler’s List is a movie which has become not only Politically Incorrect but even to be less than worshipful about, since it purports to enable us, for the umpteenth time, to Learn About The Holocaust (the latter term always capitalized to emphasize solemnity and to assert its Absolute Uniqueness in the grisly world historical record of mass murder). And yet anyone who tries to Learn About History by going to a Hollywood movie deserves to have his head examined.

The Rich

Trump has become something of a “class traitor,” (as noted by everyone from the Weekly Standard to the New York Times) railing against the super rich, the job exporters, etc:

The hedge fund guys are getting away with murder. They’re paying nothing and it’s ridiculous. I want to save the middle class. The hedge fund guys didn’t build this country. These are guys that shift paper around and they get lucky.

Murray Rothbard felt the same way. After flirting a bit with Ross Perot’s first presidential candidacy, in no small part because of its Middle American Radical trappings, but more on that later, Rothbard was livid Mr. Perot dropped out (before eventually jumping back in), and noted:

Never trust a billionaire. I have had personal experience of several billionaires, and this was the conclusion that has reluctantly but inexorably forced itself upon me. Never trust them; they are killers of the very dreams they themselves create.

And do not forget, of course, that those “several billionaires” Rothbard spoke of included the infamous libertarian Koch Brothers, who had fallen out with Rothbard decades earlier, and in a state of apoplectic shock of the rise of Trump.

David Duke

The infamous maestro of White identity electoral politics has said some nice things about Trump, much to the media’s delight. And while Trump has disavowed him, the similarities between the two men are undeniably there, and Trump sure was pleased to add Louisiana to his list of victories.

Rothbard in his day defended and even admired David Duke back when he was running for governor of Louisiana, writing in 1992:

It is fascinating that there was nothing in Duke’s current program or campaign that could not also be embraced by paleoconservatives or paleo-libertarians; lower taxes, dismantling the bureaucracy, slashing the welfare system, attacking affirmative action and racial set-asides, calling for equal rights for all Americans, including whites: what’s wrong with any of that?

War

This one is simple, Trump has heroically slammed George W. Bush’s evil and moronic wars on the debate stage with other Republicans, and Rothbard never saw an anti-war alliance he did not like.

White Genocide and the Authoritarian Right

Trump has gotten plenty of flack for retweeting something an account called “White genocide” posted, along with retweeting Mussolini quotes.

Rothbard, it should be recalled, favored the Serbs in the Balkans wars, as a child trolled his Communist family by asking, “What’s so bad about [Francisco] Franco, anyway?”, and admired Joe McCarthy, writing in the early ‘90s:

The unique and the glorious thing about McCarthy was not his goals or his ideology, but precisely his radical, populist means. For McCarthy was able, for a few years, to short-circuit the intense opposition of all the elites in American life: from the Eisenhower-Rockefeller administration to the Pentagon and the military-industrial complex to liberal and left media and academic elites – to overcome all that opposition and reach and inspire the masses directly. And he did it on television, and without any real movement behind him; he had only a guerrilla band of a few advisers, but no organization and no infrastructure.

Remind you of anybody?

Pat Buchanan and the Segregationists of Yore

Trump is constantly being compared to Pat Buchanan, George Wallace, and the like. The implicit smears aside, there is a great deal of truth to this — ever hear about the Middle American Radical?

Rothbard excitedly endorsed Pat Buchanan in 1992 and supported Strom Thurmond in his college days — not to mention his identification as a copper head.

Crime

Trump talks tough on crime — and is willing to talk about the racial and immigration dynamics behind it, do I even need to bother with a link here?

Rothbard wrote:

Take Back the Streets: Get Rid of the Bums. Again: unleash the cops to clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares? Hopefully, they will disappear, that is, move from the ranks of the petted and cosseted bum class to the ranks of the productive members of society.

Conclusion

I would like to say, in sum, the Murray Rothbard was in many ways a lot more of an “alt-right-er” than Trump is today, and probably ever will be. Rothbard personally knew and corresponded with Sam Francis, kept company with Jared Taylor, he endorsed racial separation, and as pointed out earlier, he never disavowed David Duke. Regardless, there can be no doubt that if Murray Rothbard were alive today, he would be happily riding the Trump Train.

If that’s libertarianism, count me in.

“We still advertise on billboards and magazines they’re important, but more and more we need to start advertising where people go,” so said Nicola Formichetti, the artistic director for the fashion label Diesel about starting to advertize on PornHub, YouPorn, and Tinder.

Yes, you read right, the couture fashion house Diesel has started hustling its products on the sleaziest corners of the web. In fact, it should not come as too big a surprise; back in 2014 I noted:

Currently, the only companies willing to advertise their products to viewers of pornography are companies who are in the same industry, or an offshoot, like vendors of sex toys or lubricants. But as porn becomes steadily more mainstream, this will change and the day it does is not far off. Once a single vendor of cologne, beer, firearms, cigarettes, denim, or whatever decides to flash their product on pornhub.com or one of its clones, the dominoes will fall. Since so many people watch it, the sales will skyrocket, and more companies will follow suit. Once that happens, tube sites will fall by the wayside as all major porn producers and distributors set up their own adult versions of hulu.com. Porn is here to stay.

Admittedly, I suspected the first product not of an explicitly sexual nature to break into the porn market would be Axe or some similarly crappy cologne only lonely men are stupid enough to buy, but supposedly “high end” fashion has officially won that distinction. The back and forth between the two industries has certainly been interesting, with American Apparel being something of a vanguard of our current era by featuring (barely) clothed pornstars in their ads a few years ago. That company’s bankruptcy does nothing to alter the trend.

Diesel is not publicly traded, so the number of people who will get rich off of this is not as big as it could be, but make no mistake, the money has got to be rolling in. For those of you in doubt, remember that YouPorn is the 370th most popular website on the planet, which is nothing in comparison to PornHub, which is the 64th most popular website on the planet. It’s been said that at any given second, around 28,000 people are watching porn.

And now that ostensibly respectable companies have crossed into the realm of advertising on these websites, porn has the financial safety net it has been yearning for ever since the Internet came along and the quasi-respectability it has yearned for since the dawn of time.

One wonders how much longer America can pretend that it isn’t a porn-saturated wasteland. Everyone is watching porn, but Ted Cruz’s campaign will still throw a fuss upon discovering that an actress from one of their ads has a background in softcore porn, and outed pornstars will still commit suicide out of shame.

Well, ain’t that Weimerica.

Conservatism, Inc. is a collection of white papers in search of a social base. Donald Trump, on the other hand, is a social base looking for a collection of white papers. Specifically, he seeks to defend those middle- and working-class White Americans that everyone else seems to hate. A few decades ago, they were called “Middle American Radicals” (MARs) and associated with the “New Right.” (No, not that New Right, or that New Right), or that one either.) The late Sam Francis wrote of the MARs mindset better than anyone else, and his observations hold up:

While there is much to be said for the renaissance of free market ideas led by Ludwig von Mises, F. A. Hayek, Milton Friedman, Arthur Laffer, and others, it is doubtful that the MAR coalition and its allies in the Sunbelt’s entrepreneurial regions will continue to focus on this classical liberal principle. It is more likely that MAR-Sunbelt interests require a strong governmental role in maintaining economic privileges for the elderly and for unionized labor (where it now exists), that they will also require (or demand) subsidization of construction and perhaps of characteristic Sunbelt enterprises (energy, defense and aerospace industries, and agriculture)…. [T]he classical liberal idea of a night-watchman state is an illusion . . . a MAR elite would make use of the state for its own interests as willingly as the present managerial elite does. MAR resentment of welfare, paternalism, and regulation is not based on a profound faith in the market but simply on the sense of injustice that unfair welfare programs, taxes, and stifling regulation have bred. The central focus of MAR-New Right political economy is likely to be economic growth, a value often confused with, sometimes encompassing, but not identical to the free market.

Clearly, economic growth involves the lifting of most legal and administrative restraints on enterprise—the demise of environmentalist legislation, OSHA, the sale of federally owned land in the Far West, etc. But it would also include government assistance to dynamic but underfed sectors of the economy—e.g., the space program and new technology forms. The role of government in stimulating growth is no less inconsistent with free market ideals than its role in retarding growth, and since the social forces of the New Right would have a strong interest in the former role, there is little value in their adherence to a strict laissez-faire ideology.

Kevin DeAnna, of the now-defunct Youth for Western Civilization (a MARs student group if there ever was one), used to complain that the American Right seemed hell-bent on lowering taxes on left-wing millionaires. More power to Trump if he were to build a wall on the Mexican border by using tax money plucked from the coffers of George Soros, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Michael Bloomberg, Steven Spielberg, Quentin Tarantino, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Stephen Colbert, Jon Stewart, Hilary Clinton. . . .

Fear not your desire to eat the rich.

Life at the End of History is boring. And the more boring the times, the more lucrative monetizing boredom becomes. In attempts to escape your boredom, you can give your money to sleezy advertisers watching porn, or you could give it to violent blacks by watching sports. Most of us find some way of giving it to White-dispossess-er extraordinaire Bill Gates.

For those of us who haven’t managed to completely seclude ourselves, here’s some free advice: the next time you are on Netflix, try and passively consume something a step above the Wet Hot American Summer prequels.

Che

Yes, Communism was awful, but the film depicts the life of a revolutionary. Che endures extreme poverty, starvation, isolation, in-fighting within his cadré, and unbeatable odds—all in the name of his ideas and his people. He does not surrender, sell-out, or apologize. A true model for all revolutionists.

Bronson

A celebration of masculinity, strength, and violence. The story of a proud barbarian in a society far too developed for his liking, and blessedly, it is completely devoid of any pop-psychology or syrupy social justice.

Valhalla Rising

A silent Norse warrior, a band of wanna-be crusaders, and a lost ship. Much like Bronson (which shares a director), it celebrates the male—but on top of that, you have Christian vs. Pagan tensions and a Faustian drive into the unknown.

Birth of a Nation

And finally, Hulu always has Birth of a Nation (which is actually in the public domain and can be found all over the place, at varying levels of quality).

A better ode to the south than Gone With the Wind, and a landmark in cinema history, to boot. The final word, however, has to be given to Andrew Hamilton:

Contemporary violence, rapes, murders, and black governance in the US, Africa, and elsewhere makes Birth a rather tame reflection of reality. (I said reality, not media-induced mesmerism.)

Happy viewing.

Earlier this month, the ever loathsome website Salon published a hit piece on American Renaissance by a Professor Robert Sussman. While Jared Taylor and Michael McGregor have both written excellent responses, there are still a few mistakes and misrepresentations worth addressing. As Mr. Taylor notes, Prof. Sussman makes much of a subscriber’s survey taken in 1997, so a closer look at its results, and what Prof. Sussman claims the results are, is in order.

First, there are the blatant errors. In his examination of responses regarding “Americans Who Have Advanced White Interests” he notes that Revilo P. Oliver made the list, and writes that he, “argued that Hitler should be recognized as ‘a semi-divine figure.’” The quote is completely out of context, and comes from a footnote in Dr. Oliver’s book America’s Decline in which he speculates: “It is also possible that if our race recovers its lost vigor and ascendency, a future religion may recognize Adolf Hitler as a semidivine figure.” Prof. Sussman’s error in this case is particularly curious because the late Dr. Oliver was indeed a fan of Adolf Hitler, and other, accurate, quotes could have been employed to demonstrate this. Perhaps Prof. Sussman is unaware of this fact, since he sloppily paints so many people as Nazis without fact-checking.

Also among the figures readers chose for “Americans Who Have Advanced White Interests” is Wilmot Robertson, who Prof. Sussman says, “viewed Hitler as defender of the white race.” Wilmot Robertson published and edited a pro-white monthly called Instauration for over a quarter century and wrote three books. Nowhere in the thousands of articles published in Instauration, many of which can be found online can I find an instance when the late Mr. Robertson wrote a positive word about Hitler. In none of his three books is Hitler cast in a positive light, and one of those books is about creating a White ethnostate, a topic that would provide ample opportunities to cite Hitler as an example. Prof. Sussman, of course, provides no citation or source for his claim about Mr. Robertson’s supposed Hitlerism.

Aside from these two errors, Prof. Sussman has impressively cherry-picked the results of the reader’s survey, or perhaps as James Fulford suggests, has aped the cherry-picking from William Tucker’s The Funding of Scientific Racism. From the results of “Americans Who Have Advanced White Interests” he named the following people who made the list: Jared Taylor, David Duke, Robert E. Lee, Arthur Jensen, William Shockley, Wilmot Robertson, Revilo P. Oliver, William Pierce, George Wallace, Madison Grant, and Theodore Bilbo. Readers of Prof. Sussman’s will likely think that these figures were the most popular among American Renaissance readers, but that is far from the case. Prof. Sussman seems to have plucked what he thinks are the “scariest” names from the results and omits many figures whose presence on the list would force him to think twice about his smears against American Renaissance. The top ten, in order, were: Jared Taylor, Pat Buchanan, David Duke, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Francis, Robert E. Lee, George Washington, Wilmot Robertson, Nathan B. Forrest, and Arthur Jensen. Everyone not in the top ten received less than 30 votes – less than eight percent of reader’s votes.

Furthermore, the list demonstrates an ideological diversity among American Renaissance’s readership that is shamelessly washed over by Prof. Sussman. Revilo Oliver is of course mentioned despite getting a mere ten votes, but Richard Herrnstein, a Jew, with nine votes goes unmentioned. It also goes unmentioned that George Wallace was an American veteran of WWII, and that Theodore Bilbo voted to enter that war when he was a United States senator. The fact that many pro-white figures in history were staunch anti-Nazis seems to be a nuance beyond the grasp of Prof. Sussman.

Overall, the most glaring and sustained omission on the part of Prof. Sussman is the omission of regular Jewish participation in American Renaissance. In his hit piece, he uses the word “Nazi” eight times, but “Jew” only appears three times, and each time in the context of American Renaissance’s supposed animosity towards Jews. Prof. Sussman even discusses Jews Robert Weissberg and Michael Levin, and their ties to American Renaissance, but never says that either of them are Jewish. Similarly, Prof. Sussman brings up the debate among American Renaissance writers about whether or not a White ethnostate is a good idea, but fails to mention that one advocate of a White ethnostate was Rabbi Mayer Schiller, who spoke at the first American Renaissance conference. In fact, at least one Jew has spoken at every American Renaissance conference except its most recent one. In the reader’s survey Prof. Sussman cites, Jewish writer Ayn Rand is one of the most popular fiction authors among readers, and the most popular subscription among readers was Chronicles, a magazine put out by an institute co-founded by Leopold Tyrmand, a Jew, and regularly published Jewish writers like Murray Rothbard, Rabbi Jacob Neusner, and Paul Gottfried–who has also spoken at American Renaissance conferences.

Somehow, despite all of this, American Renaissance is described as “pro-Nazi” and “anti-Semitic.” More damning still, is the fact that the relationship between Jews, white advocacy, and American Renaissance has been written about before, and does not require some kind of insider knowledge. I encourage Prof. Sussman to read Carol Swain’s well received book The New White Nationalism in America, which address this matter. There are also several free, and publicly available articles on the topic: Eugene Girin’s Race Realism and the Jews, Jared Taylor’s Jews and American Renaissance, Charles Bloch’s Race Realism: Good for Jews, Good for America, and Paul Gottfried’s The Limits of Race. Whatever you think of “the Jews”, the relationship between them and American Renaissance is nothing if not interesting and layered. Like Mr. Taylor, I await Prof. Sussman’s response, likely in vain.