Radix Journal

Radix Journal

A radical journal

Author: Radix Journal

In The Arena

There’s a reason Bane started his war on decadent Gotham by blowing up the football stadium immediately after the national anthem. The circuses part of the equation has always been as important as bread. And as the System increasingly fails to deliver a lifestyle previous generations could take for granted, circuses become even more critical to keeping everything going. 

There’s a reason Bane started his war on decadent Gotham by blowing up the football stadium immediately after the national anthem. The circuses part of the equation has always been as important as bread. And as the System increasingly fails to deliver a lifestyle previous generations could take for granted, circuses become even more critical to keeping everything going.

But there’s always an implicit threat to the social order presented by such spectacles. Dominant athletes tend to come from groups outside the core demographic of the society. Gladiators in ancient Rome could become huge celebrities and, supposedly, objects of sexual desire for aristocratic women. However, they were still slaves. And when slaves, usually recruited from the ranks of defeated enemies, are informally at the top of the social ladder despite being legally at the bottom, a deep perversion sets in.

In American sports, many of the top football players, basketball players, and other athletes are simply thugs. The fate of every team, no matter how skillfully assembled by the front office, partially depends on which player is going to commit some inexplicably stupid crime during the off-season despite being paid millions of dollars. These are the exact people European-Americans have to arrange their entire lives trying to avoid. And yet even though men work jobs they hate and waste hours commuting every day just to live away from diversity, they spend their weekends and money watching mostly black teams throw a ball.

Sports, of course, are a natural and healthy part of anyone’s upbringing, for both men and women. And it’s always a good thing to watch people from your community compete. But any connection to community has long since been severed. Not only are professional teams simply assemblages of random individuals from around the world but college and even Olympic and world cup teams have no connection to the peoples they ostensibly represent.

It’s useless to bemoan the frivolity of “sportsball” and just tell people to stop. After all, it was the rivalry between the “Blues” and the “Greens” which plunged Constantinople into chaos and almost overthrew the Emperor Justinian 1,500 years ago. Like the poor, the superfans will always be with us.

Anyone reading this already knows the costs. The desire of White South Africans to participate in international rugby tournaments was one of the factors which broke their resistance. Now, White players are being forced out of sports where they traditionally dominate in the name of “diversity,” i.e. eliminating Whites. Southern college football coaches are notoriously contemptuous of Whites and integration for the sake of winning football games is partly what broke the White South. Boosters at a number of these Southern schools essentially pimp out White girls for visiting black athletes. The feminist hysteria about “rape culture” would be beneficial if it had the inadvertent side effect of destroying college football. Unfortunately, just as feminists didn’t care about Rotherham, they’re still mostly concerned with going after White fraternity members rather than black rapists.

It seems like a lifetime ago, but it was only 2006 when The Boondocks aired “Return of the King,” an episode about what would have happened if Martin Luther King had lived. Aaron McGruder was heavily criticized for Lèse majesté against America’s King, as the episode featured King cursing out his frivolous and degenerate people. Though King says he is “moving to Canada,” McGruder imagines King’s tirade finally getting through to American blacks, who become dedicated left-wing activists whom Whitey can no longer buy off with trinkets. Angry blacks organize politically, protesters surround the White House and Oprah is elected President of the United States (in 2020). Perhaps most importantly, McGruder’s closing montage features NBA players refusing to take the court “until the troops are brought home.”

Having turned on the White working class as part of the problem, progressives have always thought American blacks would serve as the foot soldiers of their revolution. Black athletes have been regarded as especially promising propaganda tools if only they could be lured away from the pleasures of money and fame. From Mohammed Ali to the Black Power salute at the 1968 Olympics, journalists are eager to celebrate the politicization of sports. Dave Zirin, who made a career of this, is practically giddy at what is happening in the NFL with blacks refusing to stand for the national anthem.

It is already beyond Colin Kaepernick. As this is written, it’s being reported entire teams may decline to stand on the anniversary of September 11. High school teams are joining the protests. And unlike in the case of John Rocker, few will pay any real price for this, aside from losing an endorsement here and there. After all, the President has defended Kaepernick even as Hillary Clinton condemns a huge chunk of the American population as “irredeemable.”

Ostensibly, the justification for the protest is the same thing we always hear – America not living up to its “founding ideals,” police brutality against blacks, etc. Leave aside for a moment that these “founding ideals,” at least the modern egalitarian interpretations of them, are garbage. There is no scenario where African-Americans will achieve on the same levels as Whites.

Race is a biological reality and the complaints and screams of a hundred thousand parasitic journalists and academics won’t change that any more than the fasts of Glenn Beck will make Ted Cruz the Republican nominee. This protest movement, could, in theory, go on forever as “equality” will always be unrealized. And it doesn’t bode well for the stability of The Republic when athletes can’t even make the pro forma gestures of respect towards the symbols of state.

Leftists are smirking at White discomfort about this, with Zirin specifically claiming the “Alt Right” is enraged at Kaepernick. He’s got it backwards. Come the Revolution, we’ll name a street in the ethnostate after him. Probably the one with the most crime, the way America does with MLK.

Contra Zirin, we don’t want business as usual when it comes to professional sports. We don’t want the multimillion dollar subsidies for stadiums given to plutocrats pushing degeneracy. We don’t want our children looking up to scum as role models. We don’t want the only form of tribalism and identity practiced in White America to revolve around whether “our Negroes can beat your Negroes.” And we do want White people to understand blacks will continue to regard you as a kind of enemy, even if you raise them within your own home as White goobers did with Kaepernick.

Yet there’s more to it than that. It’s easy to snicker at blacks complaining that they are essentially high paid slaves when it comes to professional sports. But in some ways they are right. Why should they be stuffed into suits for post-game press conferences instead of dressing like they normally would? Why should they be penalized for trash talking and swearing on the field when that really is a celebration of their culture? Why should we continue to pretend college football players at Division I universities are actually “scholars?” Most importantly, why should black athletes feel anything but contempt and resentment towards the fat businessmen in the luxury boxes who pay their salaries or the White carb-cucks wearing their names on their backs? Incidentally, Kaepernick’s jersey is now the top selling jersey in the NFL.

What’s more, the mostly White people who can afford to go to these games and order the expensive cable channels really do regard black athletes as a form of property. In the past, you could imagine being loyal to a franchise which has some tie to a community. At least then you would have some kind of tie to individual players, at least until they were traded. That has long since passed.

Today, people build fantasy teams composed of different players on different franchises, with players regarded as interchangeable, their only value being their stats. Instead of young White males dreaming of becoming a professional ballplayer, many now seem to be acting as if they want to be the guy in the front office dealing with players as property. The general manager is higher in the power structure than the athlete, but he has less dignity and certainly less heroic appeal to most people.

It’s been said as a society declines, its heroes change. Initially, heroes are military, political or spiritual leaders. Then they become great athletes. Finally, they become celebrities or artists of uncertain accomplishments. Sports, whatever else one may say about it, is not about egalitarianism. An athlete is still more admirable than Kim Kardashian or some other living justification for nuclear winter.

Competition, athleticism and yes even fandom are important elements of our social life. We can’t do without them. We need to seek new outlets for them. Sports provides the one context where a modern average American can meaningfully talk about concepts such as victory and defeat, struggle and sacrifice, achievement and glory. As a substitute for war, it has sublimated the heroic virtues and in a healthy culture, it can enhance them. In our society, much like public service, it’s just a racket preying on our decadence.

Because we recognize this, we want professional sports, as constituted today, to utterly collapse. We want the culture to crack. We want White superfans to constantly be lectured about Black Lives Matter by affirmative action sociology majors on ESPN, to feel embarrassed about the athletes they are paying for their kids to see, to stop donating to their damn college athletics programs, to feel ashamed of themselves for wearing a jersey like a six-year-old boy.

Obviously certain sports like hockey (a kind of last stand of implicit whiteness) or attending your son’s high school football games are far less harmful than shoveling money to the NFL. In the long run, the ideal solution would be segregated sports, the same as we had throughout most of American history. If Black Lives Matter continues on its current trajectory, they’ll be advocating for that the same way there are calls from blacks for segregated college housing.

Fandom can be healthy when it’s aspirational – just like you have to actually know something about music to really appreciate a concert, you tend to most enjoy watching the sports you have some experience playing. But when it’s an excuse for inaction, when it’s a subsidy for people who despise you, when you are literally outsourcing your manhood in the same way some financier outsources American jobs, it’s despicable.

Yet our rebellion can’t just be about turning off the TV or watching sports that are more politically correct to the Alt Right. One of the trends which should be most encouraged in our broad cultural scene is the push for fitness, combat training, and learning to fight, using physicality as first step to spiritual and mental discipline. If the stereotypical conservative is some fat low T cuck with bad facial hair in a cheap suit, we need to look and act differently. The whole point of the Alt Right isn’t just to be an alternative policy program or political philosophy but to become a subculture which can eventually become the mainstream culture. Rejecting mainstream culture, turning away from the “porn and football” cucked consumerism of outsourced masculinity and building or adapting alternatives is a necessary step. But if we really want to become who we are, we need to put ourselves in the arena and build an athletic underground.

(Besides, considering how the Alt Right articles which get the most clicks tends to be about infighting, I’ve often half-seriously proposed we should start broadcasting MMA fights between feuding movement figures via subscription. Revenue from religious arguments alone could fund us for years.)

More importantly, we need to crack the culture. Let’s push this movement. Let this whole rotten edifice break apart. Let the cultural fragmentation of this media-saturated Third World disaster accelerate. Let these White men trudging to some stadium named after some corporation every Sunday reclaim their masculinity and their identity.

The spectacle of sports, especially pro football, is one of the few things holding the Hollow Empire together. And the sooner it splits culturally, the sooner we can reconquer it or break it apart, and reclaim a destiny for ourselves.

No Comments on In The Arena

Irredeemable

Sun Tzu famously advised leaving a line of retreat to your enemies even when you have them surrounded. After all, you don’t want them fighting to the bitter end. You want them to see there is an alternative to death. 

Sun Tzu famously advised leaving a line of retreat to your enemies even when you have them surrounded. After all, you don’t want them fighting to the bitter end. You want them to see there is an alternative to death.

Hillary Clinton has provided us no such option. Her recent comments should not be a subject for laughter or mockery. They are a deeply ominous warning to every one of us.

Everyone’s having a good time snickering at her speech about half of Trump’s supporters being a “bucket of deplorables.” It’s so awkward and cringe-inducing it reminds you of Mitt Romney complaining about “trickle down racism,” another case where a politician tried to express moral indignation through a term obviously conjured up by a committee of political consultants. Clinton can’t even be outraged without seeming utterly fake.

Yet Hillary Clinton has a soul of a sort. We got a glimpse into the black pit residing within this infernal crone when the cameras caught her laughing about the torture and slaughter of Muammar Gaddafi, who was stupid enough to trust the word of the U.S. Government. The consequences of Clinton’s policy in Libya have been an utter catastrophe, unless it really was her goal to deliberately destabilize the Middle East and flood Europe with mass Third World immigration.

Where Hillary really showed her hand was in characterizing “some of those folks” as “irredeemable.” “Irredeemable” means there is nothing they – we – can do to be regarded as part of American society, to be citizens like everyone else with certain inherent rights. As Clinton put it, we are “not America.” We are simply an enemy to be destroyed.

At some level, we already know this. The National Press Club is willing to host anyone in the entire world, except White people who don’t hate themselves. To the American government and the corporations which control the Internet,we are on par with the Islamic State. Throughout the “free world,” patriots are arrested for what they say online or attacked in the streets by pro-System thugs. Stating the fact – the indisputable, undeniable reality that race is real and that people are not equal – is career ending, regardless of your prestige or accomplishments.

We are hated for who we are, for our immutable, unchangeable characteristics. We aren’t just the Alt Right, we are the only alternative to the entire System, the one group which can never be assimilated or accepted by them. Unless you consciously decide to work for your people’s destruction, you are an enemy, a kulak, an unperson. All Whites are racist, all non-white failings can be blamed on racism, and there is no salvation in this new theocracy. That is the essence of what it is to be “irredeemable.”

But there’s a contradiction at the heart of this new anti-White American creed, the rot which threatens to break apart the whole System. The one group characterized as “not America,” Trump supporting European-Americans, are also the group which keeps the whole failed experiment limping along. The group most likely to support Trump, the Scots-Irish, are also the one group who identify simply as “American.” Those whom the elite call “not American” are the most American in any meaningful cultural sense. And the non-white “new Americans” fetishized by Hillary and her media don’t want any part of the historic American nation.

Even with a black president, outrageous government benefits, and an all but official state ideology of multiculturalism, nonwhites feel less patriotic towards America than whites. Whites disproportionately bear the costs of America’s wars. Whites are not the ones offended by the American flag, who want the Founding Fathers’ names taken off schools, who see American history as a long Narrative of shame and oppression.

As the white majority decreases, nonwhites will feel less pressure to make even token gestures of solidarity with the American nation. Increasing black and Hispanic political power won’t increase American unity, but further the centrifugal process already underway.

Even if American founding principles are defined entirely in terms of the “struggle towards equality,” it’s not going to win anybody over. Why should blacks or Hispanics feel loyalty towards a Republic founded by men who today would be called “irredeemable” by Hillary Clinton? It makes far more sense for them to feel loyalty to their own race and to pay rhetorical tribute to some universal ideal of equality which transcends American identity. They also have more to gain in terms of material benefits by claiming continuing oppression. If a specifically American identity survives, it will be because the “new America” of non-whites will be framed as a victory over the old European-America. Black South Africa is the obvious model for what is on the way.

Rotted as we are by both spiritual and material poisons, our people could probably be coaxed to acquiesce to our extermination, as long as it was done gradually. But it’s unclear the American Left can allow this. The only thing holding the Democrats’ coalition together is hatred of the core European-American population. This hatred has to be kept at a fever pitch to ensure black and Hispanic voter turnout and support for the Democratic Party.

Thus, White identity is a political necessity not for the American Right, but for the Left. It will be forced on Whites whether they like it or not. Issues like reparations, apologies for slavery (and, someday, immigration laws), demands to remove “problematic” historical symbols and memorials, alleged racial bias in law enforcement, and racial disparities in income and education will constantly be sources of agitation. They will always be portrayed in frankly racial terms, with whites pressured for more redistribution of wealth and resources even as the American economy grows more unstable and debt dependent.

And this is, gradually, inevitably, turning into hatred for Whites as such. The undercurrent of Hillary’s “irredeemable” comment, something now explicitly defended by the media, is that racially aware whites deserve no political representation, no place in polite society, nothing but contempt and hatred. At the same time, the racial identity of every other group is to be praised. Nothing is even offered to defend this double standard anymore except snark and signaling.

This is a suicidal strategy. It increases the expectations among nonwhites to unrealistic levels. As we see with the carnage in the cities and attacks on police officers, it constantly threatens to spill out of control into violence and rioting. There’s also the threat White and Jewish leftists will lose political control of their black and Hispanic pets, who will refuse to vote for the likes of Hillary Clinton much longer. If not united by a common foe, the militant left cannot coexist with Clintonian corporate liberalism for long, as we saw in the 2016 Democratic primaries.

The only tactic they have is to double down on incitement against the European-American population. What Raspail called the conflict between “the Fatherland and the Republic” in France, the contradiction between the egalitarian premises of the System and the reality that whites created and sustain the West, will define the politics of the next century in America and Europe.

The foundational principle of the modern anti-West is the idea you can replace the entire population of a country without cost to its institutions, social stability, and level of civilization. This principle, as we see every day, is wrong. And just as failed socialist regimes turn to outlandish theories about “wreckers” and saboteurs to explain the failure of their system, so will Cultural Marxists turn on us. The more “White racism” is pathologized, the more unhinged and hysterical will be the witch hunts for the racial dissidents ostensibly ruining everything.

Some Whites will cuck, some whites will collaborate, but an ever greater number will begin to realize they have no choice but to fight or die. As we are seeing with the current media surge for the Alt Right, we are ideally placed to take advantage of the Left’s strategic necessity for a White boogeyman. We will serve their short-term interests until the precise moment we can either take power or break free of their filthy System.

We face an opportunity, but also a terrible danger. Leftists used to bemoan the so-called “eliminationist” rhetoric of the American Right as inherently immoral because characterizing electoral opponents as enemies to be destroyed is a sanction for political violence. Now, characterizing half of all Trump supporters as de facto enemies of the state is taken as a self-evident good, and the only quibbling is about just how many undesirables need to be purged.

Even the “redeemable” half of Trump’s supporters are, according to Hillary, desperate for change but it “doesn’t really even matter where it comes from.” Their views are also not really worth consideration.
Do not underestimate what is coming if Hillary Clinton is president. As “Decius” predicted in his widely circulated “Flight 93 Election” piece, an extreme policy agenda “will be coupled with a level of vindictive persecution against resistance and dissent hitherto seen in the supposedly liberal West only in the most ‘advanced’ Scandinavian countries and the most leftist corners of Germany and England.”

The law is always just a reflection of power, not power itself. The First Amendment or the Constitution will not save us.

Hillary has put us on notice. From the street level antifa to the shitlib journalists, from the plutocrats to the current President, we are the enemy. No tactics are off the table.

Yes, it is White genocide. Yes, they really do want to destroy us. And yes, you are going to have to decide which side are you on.

No Comments on Irredeemable

The Coming Legitimacy Crisis

The wrecking ball that is the Trump campaign has already smashed through the Republican Establishment and “movement conservatism.” The next target is the System itself. And this requires blowing apart the indispensable support of the occupying government—the lying press. 

The wrecking ball that is the Trump campaign has already smashed through the Republican Establishment and “movement conservatism.” The next target is the System itself. And this requires blowing apart the indispensable support of the occupying government—the lying press.

Ezra Klein (Is there an echo in here?) says the election is not between Left and Right but between “normal” and “abnormal,” which explains the media’s increasing willingness to dispense with objectivity and openly attack Trump. More importantly, Klein admits that the press is “afraid” of Trump because he “is a threat to the free press as an institution.”

Of course, the “free press” is anything but. As we are learning from the Soros leaks, the Narrative of White dispossession promoted by the lying press is simply a product, bought and paid for. Western reporters scream for citizens who criticize mass immigration to be jailed. The Fourth Estate acts as an instrument of repression, serving the interests of those in power, hunting down dissidents and comforting the comfortable.
Journalism is about as “subversive” as late-night comedy. Reporters are enforcers for the political and cultural regime. And certain journalists can be explicitly identified as morally culpable for everything we face.

The lying press is screeching because Trump calls reporters “liars” and “scum” at his rallies, and his supporters are taking notice. One attendee was taking photographs of people in the press pen at a recent Trump rally, leading to kvetching from the journalists about the lèse-majesté of a random citizen doing the same thing they do to Trump’s voters.

After all, thanks to the media’s hate campaign, it’s Trump supporters who are constantly attacked by leftists around the country. Meanwhile, those of us who constantly have the entire mainstream media and quasi-government intelligence agencies trying to destroy us are portrayed as ruthless oppressors because we occasionally send a reporter a cartoon of a smug frog. Spare us the moral indignation or the lectures about how a “free press” is a check on the state. Reporters are far more interested in attacking individual Alt Right supporters than they are exposing government corruption or the crimes of those in power.

Indeed, nothing exposes the myth of the “adversarial press” like journalists’ relationship with Hillary Clinton. As of this writing, it has been 262 days since Clinton held a press conference. The Clinton Foundation’s nature as a “pay-to-play” influence-peddling operation is so overt and blatant even outlets like The Huffington Post are having to act embarrassed about it. And Clinton is now incorporating the neoconservative foreign-policy advisors who gave us the Iraq War into her team. Her corporate liberalism is precisely the kind of inherently corrupt and shadowy edifice you would think reporters LARPing as Woodward and Bernstein would want to deconstruct.

Instead, on the rare occasions Hillary emerges from whatever protective cocoon they have her in, she’s applauded by journalists. There’s a vast cultural establishment protecting Hillary like some kind of Imperial Guard. From Hollywood celebrities to academia, from Jeff Bezos’s Washington Post to Carlos Slim’s New York Times, all the institutions of the Great and the Good have formed a protective bubble around her. And Trump is taxing their resources to the limit. Whether it’s from a supposed comedianne, a journalist, or some political “insider,” every article carries that same insufferable hectoring and scolding tone Americans are increasingly tuning out.

Even if they pull it off, who is the System left with as a frontman . . . er, -person? Hillary Clinton is a sick old woman, even if some of the more spectacular health rumors are exaggerated. The vast majority of the American people find her untrustworthy. The policies she has supported have been a disaster. Most Republicans believe she should be punished for committing crimes that would have led to jail time for any low-ranking national security staffer or intelligence officer who did the same things. She only has a political career because she hung on to Slick Willie like grim death for decades, giving us the ultimate example of a supposed feminist and “strong woman” who is utterly dependent on a man for everything she has ever “accomplished.”

Though political rallies don’t actually tell us much about how the vote will go, they do tell us Hillary Clinton has few passionate supporters excited about her candidacy or dedicated to what she represents. And what does she represent anyway?
If Trump wins—though there are obviously dangers about him becoming a safety valve—the Alt Right will have increased freedom of action. But if the decrepit hag somehow limps across the finish line with a heavy assist from the media, she’ll be illegitimate from day one in the eyes of many Americans. The brand of #CrookedHillary will last beyond November, whatever happens.

And this illegitimacy will extend to the entire system. Already, thanks to Trump’s charges, his supporters will (accurately) blame the media if the would-be God-Emperor is finally Stumped. Each Trump haymaker calling the System into question may be costly for him in the short-term, but is beneficial in the long-term for us. Charges of voter fraud will circulate widely, as will talk of secession. Having pulled out all the stops to defend their System, the lying press will own it. The System’s ability to survive a crisis, should one arrive, will be dramatically reduced.

It’s not that anything fundamental will change. However, the System works best when power is concealed. Under President Hillary, it will be harder to disguise how we are ruled like peasants by a corrupt and sociopathic political class, propped up by its media servants. The Jewish role, the real “third rail” of American politics, will be more overt and obvious than ever before.

Ultimately, journalists are courtiers. They rely on stability and a predictable power structure. Revolutions are bad for courtiers. Klein seems to believe Trump is going to start rounding up reporters or destroying their outlets. It’s more likely we will see The Great Shuttening accelerate if Trump loses, cheered on by the “free press.”

The real reason Trump is a threat to the press is because he’s calling the policy consensus into question and creating the possibility of a populist force overtly hostile to the media. He also provides legitimacy to dissident outlets most reporters would rather see destroyed. In the Information Age, all politics is a media war.

If Trump wins, the press is neutered. If Clinton narrowly wins, the press is exposed as shills. The only way they can preserve their position is if Trump is so roundly defeated journalists can pretend that his rise was a massive fluke.

The Lügenpresse recognizes something fundamental is at stake. In an extraordinary confession earlier this month, Jim Rutenberg of The Old Grey Lady admitted journalists are throwing out “the textbook [they] have been using for the better part of the last half-century, if not longer. . .

You approach [Trump’s candidacy] in a way you’ve never approached anything in your career. If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that.

But dangerous to whom? What is the wonderful policy consensus that Dangerous Donald is challenging and which the press is now sworn to defend?

We are now witnessing the wholesale destruction of German society, and possibly all of Europe, by Angela Merkel’s utterly unnecessary decision to admit an unlimited number of “Syrian” refugees to her country. The vast majority are young, male, uneducated, unemployable, and hostile. Even now she refuses to confess that she has done anything wrong, mindlessly repeating “we can do it!” without ever giving reasons why we should. Mainstream journalists never treat this as an act of criminal lunacy or sadistic treachery, but as a responsible, statesmanlike policy only opposed by creepy “extremists.” Clinton is never challenged on whether she still admires Merkel.
The ostensible cause for this refugee crisis is instability in the Middle East. The period of chaos began with America’s utterly unnecessary and insanely costly invasion of Iraq, an invasion championed by the same neoconservative “experts” now decrying Trump and lining up behind Hillary. Europe’s southern defenses against mass immigration were destroyed by the overthrow of Gaddafi, a policy championed by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The catastrophe in Syria, and the rise of the Islamic State, was also a creation of our government. And it’s becoming increasingly clear a second Clinton Administration would move us into an another unnecessary confrontation with Russia.

America’s middle class is well into a collapse. Many cities are literally in flames. Universities turn out mentally crippled degenerates. The financial situation is obviously unsustainable, with skyrocketing rates of debt and dependence and a potential crisis looming when automation meets the mass of unskilled immigrant workers. Most importantly, our leaders take as the fundamental premise of all their policies that dispossessing and then replacing the traditional ethnic population of every Western nation will have no ill effects whatsoever and that questioning The Great Replacement is not something that can even be debated.

The only two possibilities are that “our” leaders are astonishingly stupid and incompetent or they are deliberately trying to destroy Western Civilization. Either way, it is a question of our survival or theirs. And regardless of what happens in November, the battle will be taken to a new level of intensity.

Trump has already done what we needed him to do. So for all the reporters reading this, you do what you must. For we have already won.

No Comments on The Coming Legitimacy Crisis

I Was Never Red-Pilled: The Case Against the Metaphor

Those on the alt right often talk about being “red pilled.” Although the term is popular in our circles, I was surprised to see that the concept even has its own Wikipedia page, which refers to the choice between “embracing the sometimes-painful truth of reality (red pill) and the blissful ignorance of illusion (blue pill).”

I’ve always instinctively hated this analogy. Recently, I’ve begun to think about why and have come to realize that it concedes way too much to the conventional wisdom.

 

Those on the alt-right often talk about being “red pilled.” Although the term is popular in our circles, I was surprised to see that the concept even has its own Wikipedia page, which refers to the choice between “embracing the sometimes-painful truth of reality (red pill) and the blissful ignorance of illusion (blue pill).”

I’ve always instinctively hated this analogy. Recently, I’ve begun to think about why and have come to realize that it concedes way too much to the conventional wisdom. More importantly, I think that it is bad marketing, and would urge that we stop using the phrase altogether.

First of all, to say one has been red pilled means that the alternative, the blue pill, has some plausibility. One never says “I used to expect free ice cream in the mail every day, but now I’ve been red pilled and accept that’s never going to happen.” It’s an absurd statement, because if you ever believed such a thing there is something wrong with you.

As long as I have given any thought to these issues, I cannot recall ever believing that all races and both sexes are genetically interchangeable. Every native Norwegian looks completely different from every Congolese, and neither would ever be mistaken for a Korean. Somehow, we are to believe that these isolated populations, that bred only with one another for thousands of years and diverged so much physically, are exactly the same on the inside. It’s an absurd assumption, even before you get to data on things such as crime rates and IQ and look at the record of historical achievement.

Blank slate feminism is even more absurd. We are supposed to accept the idea that humans are the only mammalian species without behavioral differences between the two sexes, and believe this despite all lived experience and the logic of evolutionary psychology. Just as in the case of race, you do not have to delve into the scientific literature about sex differences (although you should anyway) to understand the absurdity of elite wisdom.

The other thing that the red pill analogy concedes to liberalism is the idea that its vision is somehow appealing. I find a world where there are no behavioral differences between my mother and father, son or daughter, horrifying. I’ve overheard women brainwashed by Sex and the City talk openly of sleeping around, and found nothing appealing about this. Similarly, the denial of IQ and other hereditary differences between individuals and races tells us that every human accomplishment owes nothing to the inherent capabilities of the great creators, but only to historical accident, which some time long ago determined that some groups would be advantaged while others would be oppressed. Little wonder that communists were so full of hate and killed tens of millions of people. While they dreamed of a utopian future, the cost of their fantasies was an intense hatred of everything in the past and present.

Until recently, every civilization in human history believed in sex differences, and few would have denied that race or ethnicity mattered. The idea that diversity is a societal strength would have struck most of our ancestors as completely bizarre. Yet these views were considered common sense, not some difficult truth that individuals had to struggle towards. This shows that there is nothing inherent to our ideas that make them painful truths; it’s all a matter of perception, created by current social conditions.

Why, then, has the red pill analogy had memetic success on the alt right? The answer lies in the fact that we are social creatures. The only reason that our beliefs seem like hard truths is because publically accepting them makes one a social pariah. People don’t even like privately believing socially unacceptable things, as doing so creates a psychological distance between them and most of their peers.

Many of you probably found accepting the ideas of the alt-right to be difficult and mistook the fear of social ostracization for pain stemming from accepting truths that are inherently harsh.

From a more objective perspective, giving up religion, with its promise of eternal bliss, should be much harder than accepting human biodiversity(HBD). Compare losing a celestial paradise to accepting that blacks will never be good at algebra. But nobody says that they were “red pilled” and became an atheist, because not believing in God carries no social sanction in educated circles.

All of this helps explain why the red pill analogy is bad marketing. It concedes that the other side has views that are realistic and pleasant. We convey the message that joining our movement is something difficult, and implicitly remind people that they’ll be socially ostracized for expressing support for our views.

Leftists understand the concept of social proof. Because humans have a desire to fit in, Hollywood tries to convince them that all the cool people are socially liberal, sexually free anti-racists. It’s why the media talks about all the outrage being generated after a public figure makes a politically incorrect remark, instead of presenting the comments in a neutral manner. This also explains why a great marketer like Trump talks about his supporters composing a “silent majority,” even though the evidence suggests that they are neither.

We should likewise do our best to emphasize the ways in which people through their actions show that at some level they know the truths of which we speak. For example, no normal father would be happy with his daughter becoming a slut, or attending a majority black school. We should stress the similarities between our beliefs and those of different cultures and previous generations, not portray ourselves as a group of outcasts who arrive at positions that all psychologically normal people reject.

Smart political marketing involves presenting your movement in a relatively positive light and exaggerating the support that your ideas currently have. The red pill metaphor does neither. Worst of all, it reminds people of the possibility of social isolation, which they inherently fear much more than they do any abstract scientific or political argument. Our views are well grounded in science, having a natural appeal and the potential to create a happier and healthier world. Our memes should reflect what is best in our vision, not emphasize the most powerful psychological obstacles to our ultimate victory.

No Comments on I Was Never Red-Pilled: The Case Against the Metaphor

Shorting the Republican Party

No thanks to its former leadership — and all thanks to Trump and those who support him — the Republican Party is on the cusp of a major political victory that promises to crush the Left, and the Democratic Party, for the foreseeable future.

No thanks to its former leadership — and all thanks to Trump and those who support him — the Republican Party is on the cusp of a major political victory that promises to crush the Left, and the Democratic Party, for the foreseeable future.

The only real threat is the constant simmering of opposition within the party (“the traitors within the gates”) that could weaken, divert, and distract efforts in the vital weeks ahead. This is despite strong efforts by Trump to unify the party by selecting conventional conservative Mike Pence as VP and endorsing Paul Ryan.

Of course, the best response would be a Republican “Night of the Long Knives,” but that would obviously be too messy and would alienate some parts of the GOP that are at least going along with Trump in the run-up to the election. So, for the time being, Trump is forced to tolerate this treachery and try to contain it.

In order to do this, it is important to understand what drives the anti-Trump Republicans, so that their disingenuous arguments can be countered and their murky motivations exposed.

There are several well-known reasons. For example, the Alt-Right has long pointed out the “Cuckservative” problem, namely that many conservatives are in fact hollow in their beliefs, having imbibed core liberal and leftist values — like globalism, atomization, political correctness, etc. — that undermine their opposition to liberal political positions. Trump cuts directly across these shared Cuckservative and Liberal values in several important ways.

Others in the Republican Party oppose him for reasons of tone and temperament. This is essentially class politics, as Trump, although immensely rich, well-connected, and stylish in his own way, evokes in his demeanor and virile manner, the lower classes, rather than the “refined” elite.

Another version of this is religious distaste, with Trump seen as too “worldly” and materialistic, and lacking humility and due deference. His meme sobriquet of “God Emperor” — bestowed because it rings true to a large degree — reveals a Nietzschean dimension to Trump. The “invention” of a god implies the death of God. This rubs some Christians the wrong way.

Next, there is the Zionist agenda. Trump’s common sense foreign policy — e.g. avoiding needless conflicts in the Middle East — threatens Israel’s interest because they have benefitted the most from the destabilization of the Middle East through Neo-Con interventionist policies. Many Jews dislike Trump mainly on this basis, while others fear his invocation of a strong American identity that, inevitably, is implicitly White and Christian, even though Trump lacks racial awareness and strong religious views.

All these reasons are simple enough and well-known on the Alt-Right, but there are also less obvious reasons, related to subtler psychological factors. For example, many of those who oppose Trump do so for the simple reason that they have backed the wrong horse too strongly and got badly bruised in the process.

Normally, when there is a contest in a political party — especially an establishment party like the GOP — it is a rather sedate and subdued affair that gently builds to a unifying acclaim. Important people in the party take sides, of course, but they generally keep the door open to other candidates, especially candidates with a chance of winning. This means that even if their preferred candidate is defeated they don’t lose too much political capital, and can easily adapt themselves to the slightly different new order.

Trump’s campaign, however, threw out the form book and upset all the calculations. Rather than just preferring their own candidates, those opposed to Trump were panicked by his unconventional appeal into attempting to slam the door on him. When Trump nevertheless managed to break through each door, in turn, these party worthies were put into both an awkward and disempowering position. They had got it wrong and had then doubled down on their error — and had been forced to bend the knee nonetheless. They thus found themselves devalued and disempowered within their own party.

The best analogy to demonstrate what is going on is the financial market. Trump has effectively crashed their value as politicians, so they now have two options: (1) to hang in there and slowly rebuild their political value, taking their place behind those who realized the Trump train was winning and jumped on board, or (2) they can try to short the Republican Party, which essentially means contributing to a Hillary victory.

In finance, shorting is the practice of selling investments, not currently owned, at the present price, while paying for them at whatever price they are at an agreed future date. If that price is lower the deal makes money, if not, it loses.

Right now the anti-Trump movement in the GOP has lost possession of the party and their only way to get it back is by a process of successfully shorting the party. By opposing Trump, despite his overwhelming primary victory, they are effectively selling their remaining, diminished stake in the party at a relatively high value, in the hope that they can pay the costs for this at a much lower rate in the future.

The main value that they are getting in this transaction is the illusion of moral posturing and being seen as selflessly principled. The main cost, however, is the opprobrium that generally attaches itself to those in party politics who break ranks, divide unity, and throw away victory. Their hope is that once Trump fails, the cost to themselves of shorting the party — political opprobrium — will be much less than the value of their supposed “principled” opposition to Trump.

Such a transaction, if it comes off, will see them accrue political capital, and be in a strong position to once again buy into the party when it devalued by defeat. But it essentially means that they are partisans of defeat, and as such are protected from the full consequences of this by Trump’s reluctance to start a political bloodbath so close to the election.

If they miscalculate, as they have before, and Trump wins — as I think he will — then their attempt to short the party will greatly lessen the value of their moral posturing, while greatly increasing the costs of their political betrayal.

In that case, we can expect to see them wiped out, which might make one or two of them, at least, think about hedging their bets.

No Comments on Shorting the Republican Party

Idiocracy Now?

These days there are so many occurrences, mostly favorable to the awakening of our people, that it’s easy to lose track. This positive  trajectory can be downright intoxicating. But we must also keep the big picture in mind and, more than this, inscribe our work in eternity.

 

These days there are so many occurrences, mostly favorable to the awakening of our people, that it’s easy to lose track. This positive trajectory can be downright intoxicating. But we must keep the big picture in mind and, more than this, inscribe our work in eternity.

No one can predict the future with much certainty. But we can know what historical forces will be at work in the coming centuries, as these forces will be reflections of human psychology, and this psychology will have significant continuity with our own. Thus, to look into our own souls is to gain insight into the future.

Let me be more specific. In this article, I want to discuss two historical forces which have increasingly affected our world: cognitive sorting and dysgenics, occurring in both cases, for the first time in human history, on a global scale. These two forces are interacting with one another in a complex and dynamic dialectic. Let me summarize my thesis: humanity in general, and our societies, in particular, is becoming more stupid and ethnically fragmented. However, the negative consequences of this are being attenuated by the technical innovations of the second phenomenon: the emergence of a multi-racial, global cognitive super-elite (e.g. Google). Both phenomena are evil so far as our people are concerned: the first means our deterioration and replacement, the second means rule by an alien and hostile elite.

Cognitive sorting is an established phenomenon in the modern era, most famously documented by Charles Murray in The Bell Curve. The more intelligent members of a society tend to converge in the cities, tend to marry with one another, and generally form a sub-group within the nation. Alexis de Tocqueville had noticed a similar phenomenon in the France of his day and in previous centuries, as the nobles ruined themselves, and the more gifted members of the bourgeoisie connived to steadily rise despite aristocratic privileges and prejudices. We might call this the inevitable meritocracy of intelligence.

Today, national borders and racial pride having been dissolved, this phenomenon is taking place on a global scale. In the Western countries in particular, the intelligent create desirable locations and institutions, whether in terms of their agreeableness or resources. People across the planet then conspire to enter these locations and institutions, succeeding in proportion with their ability.

These institutions include all the elite globalist power nodes which dominate our world. The phenomenon is most visible in Silicon Valley and the Ivy League universities, which have largely been taken over by disciplined Asians and nepotistic Jews. A “Jeurasian” super-elite is forming, with inclinations and interests significantly opposed to the traditional European majorities across the West. In practice, the only really ethnically organized element in this super-elite is Jewish. (Compare Bill Gates and Warren Buffet’s promotion of multiculturalism in their own country, with Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban’s support for ethno-nationalism in theirs.)

The second phenomenon is global dysgenics. Within nations, the intelligent, pursuing an individualist strategy of well-being, tend to have fewer children than the poor. Between nations, the more-or-less failed societies of Latin America, South Asia, the Middle East, and especially Africa (which is expected to grow to a fatal 4 billion this century) are having more children than the more successful ones of Europe, North America, and East Asia. Southern and Eastern Europe and East Asia, in particular, have catastrophically low fertility rates.

Indeed, virtually all of the technological innovations of today continue to be accomplished almost entirely in North America, Europe, and East Asia. Facebook and Google, while aggressively pushing multiracial propaganda upon the entire planet, have themselves failed to find many competent blacks and Mestizos: 2% of their workforces are black, while over 30% are Asian. Richard Dawkins has noted that the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims barely produce any scientific papers and, he fails to add, the performance of Sub-Saharan Africans is even worse. Black scientific geniuses to this day mainly exist in television entertainment and advertising propaganda.”

The results of all this, logically, is a degeneration of humanity to more primitive forms. In practice, we witness the phenomenon of combined and uneven development: the innovations of the most gifted parts of humanity are attenuating the consequences of this degeneration and, to some extent, lifting up the less gifted with technology they could never produce themselves.

Even societies which should objectively have a very low level of civilization can rise a little. In much of Africa, tribal nepotism and incompetence are too severe for governments to even be able to maintain basic infrastructure such as telephone poles. The Jeurasians have a solution however: mobile phones for all. Similarly, extremely violent societies such as Brazil or South Africa can artificially reduce crime – not by increasing social trust or reducing the barbarism of the inhabitants – but by the proliferation of security cameras.

This is the phenomenon of “convergence” – evident in the “emerging world’s” economic growth – which short-sighted materialists in the mold of The Economist are very smug about. But they omit the fact that this convergence is never complete. The Iron Law of Inequality remains unconquered.

These two phenomena are then in interaction: the concentration of human intelligence, which is leading us towards transhumanism, and the degeneration of human material, which is leading us back to Africa. I did not invent any of this. Lothrop Stoddard, whose work really does seem to age well, noticed this phenomenon a hundred years ago in The Revolt Against Civilization: The Menace of the Under-Man.

In a word: mongrel Under-Man vs. mongrel Super-Man.

Liberals, in their infinite arrogance, believe that there is nothing to worry about. We have lived since the 1960s in an “affluent society” and they assume that technology will simply solve all of our problems. We will always be comfortable, and that’s what matters. We needn’t think about the implications of long-term trends like demographics (unless, of course, our masters have told us to worry about an alleged long-term trend, such as climate change). A German in 1900, with that forceful pride of the bourgeois fin-de-siècle, European Man having conquered the world and apparently Nature, could be guilty of the same misguided arrogance. The same misplaced belief in a naïve progress.

But history is nothing but a string of surprises. We cannot predict the next world crisis – economic, environmental, energetic, military . . . – and when that crisis comes, a society’s survival will be determined by its character, not merely technological trinkets. Technology will show diminishing returns as America becomes Brazilianized and Europe becomes Afro-Islamized. And really, besides the significant gains of IT, one does not get the impression that technology has much changed human life since the 1960s (the energy sector, in particular, has been rather slow to change, despite all the hoopla about renewables, biotech has also been slow to develop).

Feckless boomers appear particularly guilty of this, with politicians like Bill Clinton, Frans Timmermans, Joschka Fischer, and Carl Bildt being downright enthused at the prospect of minorityhood in our own lands. To be fair, one cannot fault boomers in general for having awful values and ideas. Imagine if you were raised in a world where your only access to information was television and newspapers in the hands of liberal-universalists and anti-gentiles. Imagine if you’d been brainwashed in this manner for 50 years and this conditioning had been reinforced by the agreement of the entire society. Well, you’d also have trouble adjusting to a genuinely inconvenient truth.

The basic force underlying these two phenomena, cognitive sorting, and dysgenics, is individual intelligence. Each try, in his selfish way, to pursue his well-being by joining with other intelligent people and by avoiding an investment in children. These strategies are completely short-sighted and destructive. Against this, we will have to oppose other principles: group identity and solidarity with the next generation, so that our people don’t degenerate. Against the selfish intelligence of individualism and the sentimental falsehoods of egalitarianism, we oppose the collective intelligence, and love, of ethnocentrism. We do it for love.

No Comments on Idiocracy Now?

Donald Trump’s Bad Language

David Goldman (best known by his pseudonym “Spengler”) popularized the phrase, “It’s Not the End of the World. It’s Just the End of You.” The Kristols, the Cucks, and the Cruzes are freaking out because Trump presents the real possibility of the end of them. They are right to be afraid. And #NeverTrump—even taken to the point of supporting Hillary—is a logical response. Our world isn’t ending, but the comfortable bubble in which they reside is in danger of being popped . . . perhaps it has popped already. 

Ross Douthat—who got an early look at Donald Trump’s speech accepting the 2016 presidential nomination of the Republican Party—prepared us for what was in store.

The Trump we’ve come to love is a man who just gets up there and let’s it rip, speaking spontaneously from the heart. The Republican National Convention was a time for something more formal. And in its structure and style, Trump’s speech was very much like what we are accustomed to. Lacking a strong through-line, thematic development, and extended arguments, it was a series of self-contained “beats”—short paragraphs on specific issues, which act as applause lines, and which can be rearranged, added and subtracted depending on priorities and time.

In this way, I was disappointed that Trump (and his speech writer, Stephen Miller) didn’t bring greater poetry and panache to the occasion. This was a Trump speech after all. Isn’t this the man who builds 100-story towers out of pure gold?

But that doesn’t mean his speech was not radical. It was. The most memorable part—which will define the address in history—was his announcement of a new “credo”:

The most important difference between our plan and that of our opponents, is that our plan will put America First. Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo.

“Americanism” has meant many different things. Here, it is a placeholder for “nationalism.” (I would not be surprised if the N-Word was in the text in the first draft.)

It was, undoubtedly, this implied nationalism that made liberals, leftists, cuckservatives, and libertarians squirm, sit agog with fear, and point and sputter at what they were watching:

(You can find similar outrage across the cuckosphere.)

On one level, reactions like this are totally out of whack. Yes, the speech was a bit “dark” (the meme repeated by seemingly every liberal commentator), but so are the times we live in. Seventy percent of the population feel like the country is on the wrong track!

So why was there a freakout over a speech that included promises to protect American workers, cut taxes, and appoint conservative judges? Haven’t we heard all that before? Why was there a freakout over a speech that followed Ivanka Trump’s suggestions of relieving student-loan debt and offering longer maternity leave to working women?

David Goldman (best known by his pseudonym “Spengler”) popularized the phrase, “It’s Not the End of the World. It’s Just the End of You.” The Kristols, the Cucks, and the Cruzes are freaking out because Trump presents the real possibility of the end of them. They are right to be afraid. And #NeverTrump—even taken to the point of supporting Hillary—is a logical response. Our world isn’t ending, but the comfortable bubble in which they reside is in danger of being popped . . . perhaps it has popped already.

Many in the RNC, no doubt, secretly want Trump to lose, as it would offer them the opportunity to say “we told so,” reset the rhetoric, and go back to the days of Dubya, Romney, and McCain.

The Left, too, has benefited greatly from opposing the “conservatism” that Trump is destroying. This is what they are used to and what they are good at attacking. Trump is disrupting business as usual, and there will be casualties on both side.

So here is what he really said.

Conservatism, Inc. is Dead

Sam Francis famously called conservatism “the movement that doesn’t move.” It is certainly one that has accumulated a mountain of wealth, given to it by a handful of patriotic industrialists and millions of little old ladies in the Midwest writing $25 checks every Christmas.

“Conservatism,” as a functioning movement of operatives in the Washington, DC, Beltway, is glued together by shared memes and terminology. With precious few cultural or political achievements to show for their efforts, conservatives are united around “religious freedom” . . . “the culture of life” . . . “helping people help themselves” . . . “fighting terrorism” . . . “defending the Constitution” . . . “opposing Obamacare” or some other portmanteau they vaguely associate with the Soviet Union.

On Thursday night, Trump defenestrated most of this.

In his entire speech, there was but one passing mention of “the Constitution”:

We are also going to appoint justices to the United States Supreme Court who will uphold our laws and our Constitution.

Notably absent were Ted Cruz-style gushing about “faithful devotion” to the legal document.

Trump made one mention of “freedom”—another word that is rarely defined but which gives conservatives a warm feeling in their tummies. But Trump used it in the context of trade deals and protectionism:

I pledge to never sign any trade agreement that hurts our workers, or that diminishes our freedom and independence.

When Trump says “freedom,” he clearly does not mean what George W. Bush means when he says “freedom.”

“Liberty” was never uttered.

By resisting conservatives’ language—and winning all the same—Trump has revealed to conservatives their irrelevance, for language is ultimately all they’ve got.

The Religious Right Was put in Its Place

Trump did not use the words “unborn” or “abortion” and did not once touch on the subject. Earlier in the evening, Peter Thiel’s discussion of “fake culture wars [that] only distract us from our economic decline” hammered the point home. (I’ve written about the “fake culture war” here.)

One of Trump’s more interesting messages came in a moment of self-deprecation:

I would like to thank the evangelical and religious community because I’ll tell you what, the support they’ve given me, and I’m not sure I totally deserve it.

This line was apparently improvised, as it did not appear in the text sent to journalists. It can be read in two ways. On one hand, Trump is admitting that he’s not exactly a Christian paragon. On the other, he’s demonstrating that the path to victory no longer lies in Ted Cruz-style moral righteousness.

A politician can be good for the Religious Right without being one of them. That is what Trump is offering. Southerners mostly love him; millions of Midwestern Christians and Mormons (subscribers to The Blaze, no doubt) fervently hate Trump. What’s clear is that, finally, a man can be the Republican nominee without taking the Religious Right too seriously, evoking John Winthrop, and declaring one’s allegiance to Biblical law.

The Alt Right is “culturally Christian,” without embracing the gooeyness of the megachurch. It’s no surprise that Trump is our candidate. I am pleasantly surprised, however, at the degree to which Christian conservatives have gone along with his candidacy. Perhaps they recognize the failures of the Bush era? Perhaps religiosity was a mask all along?

The Neocons and Bush Family Were Put Out to Pastor

Peter Theil, too, spoke for the Alt Right with his calls for space exploration, as well as with his unequivocal opposition to America various foreign wars:

Instead of going to Mars, we have invaded the Middle East. We don’t need to see Hillary Clinton’s deleted emails: her incompetence is in plain sight. She pushed for a war in Libya, and today it’s a training ground for ISIS. On this most important issue Donald Trump is right. It’s time to end the era of stupid wars and rebuild our country.

Trump also mentioned the Iraq disaster, though more obliquely:

After fifteen years of wars in the Middle East, after trillions of dollars spent and thousands of lives lost, the situation is worse than it has ever been before.
This is the legacy of Hillary Clinton: death, destruction and weakness.
But Hillary Clinton’s legacy does not have to be America’s legacy.

Note that Trump references the last 15 years of foreign-policy making, even though he only mentions the name of Hillary Clinton. Trump didn’t go off on Dubya like he did during the South Carolina debate, but he made it clear that this period of conservative history is over. (Even Jeb can’t bring himself to endorse his brother’s wars.)

The neoconservatives oppose Trump, not only because he doesn’t speak their language—of “nation-building,” “spreading democracy,” and the “Next American Century”—but because his foreign-policy outlook would jeopardize billions in private contracts, federal funding of military bases and operations, and think-tank sinecures.

Can you blame Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer and their ilk when, earlier this year, Donald Trump told them rather explicitly that he was going to end their way of life?

My goal is to establish a foreign policy that will endure for several generations. That’s why I also look and have to look for talented experts with approaches and practical ideas, rather than surrounding myself with those who have perfect résumés but very little to brag about except responsibility for a long history of failed policies and continued losses at war. We have to look to new people.

“New people” likely refers to those who don’t put (((echoes))) around their Twitter usernames to feel like oppressed victims, whether they be Jewish or not.

Robert Kagan’s support of Hillary Clinton might signal a major realignment of this group of numerically tiny but enormously influential Jewish intellectuals. Kagan’s wife, Victoria Nuland, works for the Obama administration and played a major role in creating the disaster in Ukraine.

Power is Good

Candidates of both parties love to talk about being the son of a mailman or bartender, and relish getting themselves photographed wearing a plaid shirt and hunting jacket. Everyone’s an outsider with small-town values.

Conservatives in particular love to wax on about their hatred of power; how the state is a necessary evil and at its best when it governs least.

Trump is making a different kind of pitch altogether.

Nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it.

Trump is leading a populist movement not in spite of the fact that he’s an oligarch but because of it. He has, indeed, turned oligarchy into a kind of populism. The candidate who is able to buy and sell other political candidate is the only candidate who can never be bought.

And finally, there was . . .

I AM YOU VOICE.

. . . which was in all-caps in the text. This simple phrase expresses Trump’s fundamentally different concept of the meaning of democracy. As Carl Schmitt noted, “democracy” means popular rule. It does not mean voting, parliamentary debates, or liberalism. Trump is establishing himself as Tribune of the People, as the Napoleon of the Current Year.

For decades, there has been a pent-up demand for White identity politics. When and how this would come into being was the only question. No on would have predicted that it would arise in the person of Donald J. Trump.

No Comments on Donald Trump’s Bad Language

Reflections on the Alt Right

I’ve been involved with the Alt Right, on and off, for the last seven years, before the term was anything more than a phrase used by a few obscure bloggers. Being in the Quicken Loans Arena as Trump accepted the nomination Thursday night, I couldn’t help but feel proud of the part I did, however small, of bringing about his coronation. The concerns we have been expressing about demographic displacement are now completely mainstream and have clearly influenced conservative powerhouses such as Drudge and Breitbart, without which Trump would have been unlikely to win the Republican nomination.

I’ve been involved with the Alt Right, on and off, for the last seven years, before the term was anything more than a phrase used by a few obscure bloggers. Being in the Quicken Loans Arena as Trump accepted the nomination Thursday night, I couldn’t help but feel proud of the part I did, however small, of bringing about his coronation. The concerns we have been expressing about demographic displacement are now completely mainstream and have clearly influenced conservative powerhouses such as Drudge and Breitbart, without which Trump would have been unlikely to win the Republican nomination.

At this moment of triumph for our movement, there is probably no better time to take stock of where we’ve come from and where we’re going.

Back in 2009, when I first became involved with the movement, we were unknown even among the educated class most interested in politics. When Richard Spencer, formerly of The American Conservative, left Takimag that year to start the website AlternativeRight.com, only a handful of people on the mainstream right even noticed. His move was completely unremarked upon by mainstream journalists and the Left, with the only exceptions being a few organizations specifically focused on exposing “hate.”

In the last year however, it is difficult to find a major newspaper or news website that has not done a feature on Richard Spencer and the “Alt Right,” with some of them writing multiple times about the phenomenon. To name a few you may have heard of: CBS, NBC, ABC, the New York Times, and BuzzFeed. The movement has been a particular obsession of the Washington Post, which has mentioned it on its webpage over 30 times since the beginning of 2014. Googling “Alt Right” and “RNC” and limiting the results to the week of the convention gives nearly 100 results, including articles in The Nation, Salon, and, of course, the Washington Post.

Seven years ago, those of us in the movement paid a great deal of attention to how we were portrayed in the blogs and reports of the SPLC, as they were the only ones giving us regular attention. At the RNC, however, I asked a few old friends what the SPLC was doing now that the mainstream media has taken over their job. We no longer pay them the slightest attention.

More important than press coverage has been the increase in our influence over American conservatives. When Alternative Right was founded, there was something of a concrete wall between “us” and “them.” The kinds of conservatives that appeared on Fox News either did not know of us or, if they did, were horrified by our ideas. Earlier this year, however, Breitbart published a sympathetic explainer on the Alt Right. Individuals whose day jobs put them in good standing with “Conservatism, Inc.” now regularly write anonymous articles for us by night. Throughout the week of the RNC, young people from the Alt Right, mainstream conservatism, and the pick up community socialized together as fellow soldiers in the same cause. A few old-time publications such as The Weekly Standard and National Review remain hostile, but their influence has been usurped by “Alt Right Lite” sites such as The American Thinker, Brietbart, and even The Daily Caller.

Commentators noted throughout the Republican primary that Matt Drudge was tipping the scales for Donald Trump. A Business Insider article argues that Drudge was the one man who could have stopped the billionaire from becoming the Republican nominee. For someone concerned with traditional conservative causes, Trump was on most issues to the left (at as things gauged in 2016) of establishment candidates such as Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio. The only reason that Drudge supported Trump is because he, like us, places more of a priority on reversing demographic trends and opposing political correctness. Perhaps this is because he actually reads websites like this. At the very least, there is second-hand influence, perhaps through his friend Ann Coulter and from websites like Breitbart. Regardless, it seems clear that the Alt Right has had an influence over the conservative movement, particularly through the Drudge-Breitbart network, without which Donald Trump would not be the Republican nominee for president today.

While Peter Brimelow and Jared Taylor run excellent websites full of articles articulating many of our positions, most of handwringing in the media about the movement has focused on the young, largely anonymous, army of Twitter users. The fact that such a large portion of our movement is anonymous makes our success all the more remarkable.

What will the next seven years bring? While it is impossible to know for sure, there are reasons to be optimistic.

When I first became involved with the movement, I saw a hopeless task in front of us. I wrote not because I thought it would change the world, but because I was sick of suffocating political correctness and the denial of biological realities and needed an outlet to express how I felt. But we planted a few seeds, and two presidential cycles later, we had an influence—however small and indirect it might be—on who became the Republican nominee for president.

The growing influence of the Alt Right is not the result of access to large budgets or important gatekeepers. Rather, we have the better arguments, both empirically and morally, and met an emotional need that Whites have after a lifetime of hearing themselves blamed for all the misfortunes of history. The fact that there are important biological differences between the two sexes and the human races is indisputable, but the implications of these findings have been suppressed by the Left and their conservative enablers. Morally, there is no answer to the question of why every group besides Whites is allowed to advocate on its own behalf, or why Whites are the only group morally required to be demographically displaced in their own countries.

Our positions are both obvious and emotionally compelling to young people feeling alienated and defeated by what politics and the larger culture have become. In an environment of demographic transformation and ever more stifling political correctness, all it took was a few obscure voices in the wilderness to help spark the Trumpian revolution.

This should make us optimistic about our ability to influence the future. If our success is the result of the logical and emotionally compelling nature of our ideas, then the exponential increase in exposure of the last few years should continue to bring people into our movement at an even faster pace. It helps that much of the media presents us as a youth movement, which will make it seem all the more appealing to the college students and professionals we need to attract.

We should have two main goals over the next few years. First, we must continue to rout what remains of the old “conservative movement.” We beat the “cucks” this election cycle, but they still have access to money and institutions and, perhaps most importantly, the favor of a mainstream media that wants them as the house opposition. Those involved in conservative institutions should continue to push as far against the envelope as they can on issues such as race, genetics, identity, feminism, immigration, and Islam. Special efforts should be made to hire and promote individuals with similar views. The recent explosion in media coverage for the movement should make it much easier to find qualified individuals sympathetic to the Alt Right in the next few generations of right-wing journalists and activists seeking to make names for themselves. In May, Ann Coulter retweeted the following from the VDare account:

Second, we must encourage more people to come out and identify with the Alt Right openly. No movement will ever succeed if people are too scared to express support for it. As a movement of Internet trolls, we already frighten the Left. Just imagine how they will feel when we are a community of college activists, attorneys, journalists, academics, and successful entrepreneurs!

To get to that point, we need to continue mainstreaming what were once unthinkable ideas and create the conditions under which those who are with us become unafraid to have their real names connected to their politics. Certain individuals who have the least to lose should be encouraged to go first: people such as the independently wealthy, academics with tenure, and individuals so prominent that they cannot be denied a public platform. These pioneers would create space for others to begin to identify as members of our cause.

Seven years ago, the thought of the Alt Right influencing Republican presidential politics was absurd, as was the idea of Donald Trump as a realistic candidate. Yet we have seen that history does not sit still. The influences that have propelled the rise of our movement—militant feminism, demographic transformation, political correctness, and Islamic terrorism—are only growing stronger, and there is no reason to believe that mainstream conservatism will begin to provide any plausible plan of resistance to these forces. While we will remain relevant regardless of what happens in November, a Trump presidency would embolden our side in ways that we can only begin to imagine. The Alt Right should be proud of how far it has come, but not forget that our battle is only beginning.

No Comments on Reflections on the Alt Right

Who Are You?

When was the last time someone asked you who you were? Or, more precisely, when was the last time you asked yourself what it means to be *you*? Growing up, and well into my teenage years, I had the luxury of knowing my now since-passed relatives who themselves grew up during a time when not knowing who you were was either seen as evidence of mental illness or worse, suspicion that you may be a Communist sympathizer or some other anti-American ideological supporter.

Editor’s Note: This article first appeared on the author’s site here.

When was the last time someone asked you who you were? Or, more precisely, when was the last time you asked yourself what it means to be you? Growing up, and well into my teenage years, I had the luxury of knowing my now since-passed relatives who themselves grew up during a time when not knowing who you were was either seen as evidence of mental illness or worse, suspicion that you may be a Communist sympathizer or some other anti-American ideological supporter.

Today things have changed dramatically and not all of them have been for the better. Indeed, many of these changes have been to the detriment of the American Country and its traditional founding stock – American Whites of European ancestry. If you count yourself among the legions of leftist progressive ideologues you’d likely find it easy to answer the question ‘Who are you?’.

Predictably, you’d likely claim you’re a supporter of progress, equality, liberty, religious freedom (or freedom from religion), homosexual rights, rights for the mentally ill transgendered community. You may passionately and aggressively proclaim your support for anarchism or communism and identify yourself as an anarcho-syndicalist or Marxist. You might also see yourself as a subversive of the state apparatus, militarized police, and institutional racism. You probably count yourself a devout practitioner of Kropotkin, Gramsci, or Alinsky.

Likely, you haven’t reflected on why you’re so open with beliefs that just 25 – 50 years ago would have landed you in jail, unemployable, and socially ostracized. Then, the State was against you. Now, you’ve got its full support.

However, it’s likely that you’re not any of those things or at the most, you’re probably somewhat socially left and fiscally centrist or conservative. You’re reading this article and you found your way to this publication so this seems like a safe assumption. And if you were paying attention to the last sentence of the previous paragraph some things are probably starting to click in your mind – albeit they’re likely making you uncomfortable.

That’s alright. Many of us were in your shoes at one point too and we felt just as uncomfortable. Looking back, I now know the discomfort you’re likely feeling – discomfort I felt too – was the result of my reluctance to admit that there’s something deeply wrong with the America I see around me today and one which, while growing up, now no longer exists.

Today, if you’re any bit politically active – whether it be on social media or in your public life – and if you’re anything less than a Marxist or you dare commit the heinous act of claiming you’re not interested in the things the Left is selling you’re automatically labeled a racist, bigoted, homophobic, misogynistic, covert Klu Klux Klan supporter. You’re also probably secretly gay, suppressing homoerotic tendencies, hate your Christian upbringing, or worse (but to the jubilant glee of your detractors) – you probably had your girlfriend stolen by some successful Black Idris Elba look-alike. Oh, and you’re also White. That’s the crucial component.

If you have any of these subversive non-leftist opinions and you’re Black you’ll just get called a ‘House Nigger’, ‘Uncle Tom’, or a race traitor. But that’s it. On the other hand, if you’re any of these things (which means you’re also all of them implicitly) and you’ve been unlucky enough to be born the descendant of European immigrants from anywhere on the European continent (i.e. you’re a White male) you’ll be talking to your boss in the morning telling him why he’s getting all these calls demanding he fire you for being a racist hateful bigot who wants nothing more than to murder Muslims, lynch Blacks, and oppress women.

You’ll probably get death threats, your children, if you have any, will likely be questioned by their school’s counselor and Child Protective Services as to whether you’ve sexually harassed them, beat them, or worse not taught them about their implicit White privilege. Your wife, if you’re lucky enough to be married in a country with astronomically high divorce rates and a culture that abhors heterosexual marriage, will be pressured on her social media accounts, at her job if she works, and get nasty emails and threats herself – likely wishing she is swiftly raped by a non-White male.

Your life will become stressful, your mind will become clouded, and your once peaceful life with your two children and your happy beautiful wife will seem like a fairy tale.

There is something deeply wrong with America. But what? And why?

You may have felt it but you pushed it to the back of your mind because for all intents your life was pretty great. But you made one fatal mistake. You had an opinion, a belief, a set of political principles which put you at odds with the established and entrenched Cultural Marxist left that has become the American education, Academic, and political system. And you’re White.

The what and the why of what’s at the root of the American rot as well as how you’re connected to all this is inextricably linked to the core principle underlying the title of this article.

Identity

Up to this point what you’ve just read, if you’re still reading, has been what can only be described as the psychological and social equivalent to a defibrillator charge to your mental chest. If there was an easier way to talk about these things this country would likely not be in the predicament it’s currently in, I’d likely not be writing this article, and this publication would likely not exist. If this is a bit too much for you to take in all at once I encourage you to take a break, hug your kids if you have any, kiss your wife if you have one, or take a walk outside.

A point of note before we continue. You’re likely reading, or rereading through this, and probably saying, “Okay, well show me the evidence… these are some pretty strong and provocative claims you’re making!”. There will be no links, no sourced articles, nor any screenshots linking back to support anything I’ve already written or will write hereafter.

I assure you, the information, data, demographic reports, social media archives, and public videos are all available if you’re willing to put in the effort to seek them out. It is important you seek this information yourself, willingly, and come out the other side having learned everything a growing community of like-minded individuals now know all on your own.

There are those out there willing to point you in the right direction but ultimately you have to have the courage and perseverance to take that first step. None of this information needs to be sought out on ‘fringe’ websites like InfoWars or some obscure lunatic’s blog shouting about some clandestine group proclaiming “Mulder was right!” All the data and other things I mentioned above are available free of charge on government websites like FBI.gov, the Bureau of Labor and Statistics (BLS), and Census records to name a few.

What Is Identity?

There are a few ways to describe it and I’ll start from most abstract to least abstract.

  • The logical representation of predicate and subject:
  • A = B
  • A pseudo-logical explanation of the word identity:
  • ‘There is a thing “A” such that it represents “B”
  • The phenomenological definition:
  • The human individual, as a conscious subject equipped with memory, imagination, and sensation, collects and categorizes their lived experiences such as they appear to him and from this forms a complex basis of subjectivity (i.e. understands himself as a subject) which he then ties to himself and thus ties his existence to the physical and psychospiritual world (i.e. the non-material psychological world of the mind).

If you’re not used to seeing things written in this manner, don’t feel discouraged. You’ve likely been kept in the dark about a lot of things which were common knowledge to many Americans of European descent. Bear through it because there’s not really any better way to go about this.

Where Does Identity Come from?

Identity as a linguistic symbol derives from one’s observation, and thus recognition through this observation, that his own self, being a physical thing in the world along with other physical things, is a special kind of distinct thing.

In creating a word identity, we establish a symbol by which we may move towards creating meaningful knowledge of other subjective beings (again, this just means someone who sees themselves as a subject – not to be confused with subjective in the arbitrary sense) who have also distinguished themselves as special kinds of things. Thus, from the word to its meaning, the concept of identity is ushered forth into the experiential world of human existence.

In observing, and recognizing through observation, the concept of identity applied to, and by, a human subject particularized subjective identity springs forth from the consciousness of the human subject. Identity now becomes dualistic in that it is both concept and subject.

In other words, when we look at the world and see ourselves as distinct from other things in the world, we apply this distinctiveness to ourselves and from this we’ve now made ourselves a single (particular) subject. Now, there’s this thing we call identity which we understand as a concept and this thing we call identity which we understand as our identity.

How, To What, and How Many Levels, the Concept Identity May Be Applied?

Application may be as an affirmation of one’s own understanding of their self, their understanding of others, or as a representation of a unification of many subjective identities into one universal particular identity among many particulars. This extends from the individual and the family unit all the way up to the Nation.

The universalization of many into one particular among many distinct (particular) groups constitutes the creation of the concept of the other.

The Other is the negation of the I. The I is the subjective understanding you create which you then claim is your identity. It is an implicit and explicit exclusion of what now becomes called the Other. I am not you and you are not me. Though the I (you) and the other (me) may share similar constitutive parts of each subjective identity no two others (people) may be the same I such that they are an identical I.

The more similarities two others share the less likely they are to come into conflict. As a result, it is not surprising that human societies have traditionally been seen and documented grouping themselves around others who share similar characteristics, religious beliefs, physical traits, a common language, and skills.

What Does It Mean to Deny an Identity; To Undermine an Identity?

To deny the identity of another is an explicitly hostile act constituting an attack on their very existence. Such an act is an existentially fatal attempt to revoke their psychospiritual existence and thus render them both alive and dead.

When one denies the identity of another they are signaling to the denied that they are somehow mistaken in their observation of their external surroundings, that their consciousness is somehow faulty, and that what they have constituted as their special ‘kind-ness’ is incorrect.

Such an act is disorienting both mentally and physically and will render anyone lacking the sufficient will to reaffirm their subjective identity against the claims of a now proclaimed hostile other immobile and subject to the manipulation and in the worst case scenario, mental and physical enslavement through fear or submission. The more fervent the exclamations of denial the likelier the denied will succumb to the hostile other and ultimately be rendered subservient.

Can We Live Without an Identity?

It does not seem possible to live without an identity. Conscious existence necessarily demands both the concept itself as an objective reality and the resulting creation of identity as a subject. Whether or not this is an objective fact or merely the conditional result of human faculty is irrelevant and either way, the outcome is still the same. Identity exists and serves a life-preserving function. To undermine identity as a concept or as a concept applied to a subject wherein the concept becomes subject is necessarily life-denying.

How can one not categorize the world? Language itself stands as an explicit display of the reality of identity given language is one kind of contingent symbolism whose purpose appears directly linked to the preservation and continuation of human existence in its many forms.

Can Existence Itself as A Concept Survive Without the Existence of the Concept of Identity?

The answer to this question seems an obvious ‘no’. But, this may be the result of an implicit linguistic bias towards the word ‘existence’ as a symbol for life itself. The question we must ask ourselves is can we conceive of identity without any sort of linguistic symbolism? Since it is unlikely that any human being can recall a time when they did exist yet did not have the use of language – even the most rudimentary and limited vocabulary would suffice to constitute ‘the use of language’ – and since human beings are necessarily of the category animal we can look to other animals who have no known language system or other faculty for symbolic representation for an answer.

Take as an example any individual animal which we call rabbit. Certainly, it is beyond discussion that these animals lack any kind of symbolic system with which they consciously represent their world to themselves or other rabbits. However, we can observe when one of the rabbit’s natural predators approach, or some other creature it is unfamiliar with, they flee in the hopes to survive. Though they lack any sort of language, symbol, or system of representation there still exists an unconscious identity with the approaching creature and the need to flee. Whether they experience the concept of fear as human beings experience it doesn’t matter. What does matter is were they capable of similar symbolic representations conscious beings have, it is conceivable they would likely do as we do and create an identity with a concept and an other – in this case the concept of fear (or flee) with an approaching unknown or predator as the subject tied to the concept.

If we assume the above is incorrect then we must also conclude that the rabbit would end up being the meal of the approaching predator or some other possible ill fate in the case of an approaching unknown. Thus, existence necessarily requires identity, at least practically, and in the case of human existence it certainly seems necessary for any meaningful existence beyond fleeing threats and foraging for food.

Towards a New Identity

So, who are you? What does it mean to be you? How do you know yourself? What values, ideals, principles, virtues, beliefs, and experiences make you, you? Are you comfortable proclaiming them in public? With your name attached to them? What about your address? Your place of business? What about your employer?

It’s at this point that someone thinking themselves quite clever would point out that 25-50 years ago certain groups of people wouldn’t have been able to do any of those things either. This creates the false illusion that the American way of life 25-50 years ago was a place for those values or identities.

This is a crucial aspect of the concept of identity itself. Part of what constitutes our identity and breathes life into it are the communities and soil with which these identities are attached. America in the 1930’s to the 1950’s was in no way a place for Communist identities, Marxist concepts of illusory and utopian egalitarianism, or the radical waves of subversive feminism all of which were advocated for, and composed of, predominantly Jewish Marxists and progressives.

Given the only mandate of State governments at the founding of this country in its Constitution was that they be Republican governments, that just as the creators of the founding system didn’t want their system to fall back into what they were trying to rid themselves of in the first place so too does it stand to reason that the right to free speech as a right granted to bar political retaliation for criticizing the government does not extend to speech which is antithetical to the core doctrines of the government. That’s a fancy way of saying Marxists and Communists don’t get 1st Amendment protections.

The reason being is their identity is one of total opposition to the one which was here when they brought their identity with them from wherever they came. It wouldn’t be rational for you to let me come into your home and then allow me to kick you out. It doesn’t make sense to make room for identities which seek to undermine and destroy the host’s identity either.

This is where we are today. For the past 80 – 100 years there has been an ever-increasing campaign against the traditional identity of this country in favor of something which renders its adherents submissive, dull, unimaginative, and free to be molded in whatever way is suitable. The eradication of traditional, and evolutionarily evolved gender roles, monogamous and healthy loving marriages, child rearing, hard work, civic service, a nationalistic pride for your kin and soil, and a willingness to defend these things with your life if need be.

Instead, if you’re not content with the illiberal Marxist ideology of subservience and prostration you can choose between the many hosts of terrible food, low-quality but highly branded entertainment devices, or your choice of overpriced ‘elite’ clothing. This is what your choice is today in America if you want an identity. Anything else and the system comes crashing down on you like a jackhammer on a nail.

Your National Identity, Cultural Identity, Ancestral Identity, and your Historical Identity has been stolen from you and replaced with consumerism and left versus right wing fiscal policy. If things don’t change and people submit to this theft, then what was once the American Dream will be an American afterthought – if it’s remembered at all.

Now, both European and American histories, cultures, nations – their identities – are being threatened with a massive hostile invasion feigned as refugee immigration from the Middle East for both and economic immigration from Mexico in the case of America. And if you dare speak out you’re labeled, again, Islamophobic. The major issue here is just how hypocritical and blatantly anti-White this entire phenomenon is. Only Whites are demanded to relinquish their culture, heritage, and ancestral lands. Imagine if Whites demanded land in Africa!

So, as a result, millions of White Americans have risen up, risked blood and limb, and thrown their support behind Donald J. Trump. His promises to return America to its greatness, build a wall on the Southern border and deny Muslims entry into the United States has signaled a reawakening currently underway in the United States. Of course, the liberal punditry across the nation has feigned ignorance as to why his rise was so swift and unpredicted but then that would mean admitting to their own plans otherwise.

There have been many great thinkers throughout the history of Western civilization who have remarked that all previous events have led to their respective ages and no other future was possible. So too has the initial founding of the United States led its founding stock to their dire situation today – to your dire situation. We are without an identity and without a system which would allow us political or institutional legitimacy to create one. Thus, it is up to the future European Americans of this once hopeful prospective experiment in a new kind of government to forge a new identity, not for ourselves, but for our children.

This identity must be rooted in blood, kinship, soil, and our desire to create a nation which will stand as an undeniable symbol of our existence as a people and as the best humanity has produced thus far. We must seek out a new dawn and traverse the tightrope towards our own values. And we must do so merrily like a court Jester dancing across the grave his enemy has laid out for him. Our identity is what we make it; how we see ourselves and conceive our future is entirely up to us. No one can make this decision for you but you and so your future demands you choose.

Will you be the last man before the American flame is extinguished forever? Or will you be part of a group of New Men, a group of attempters, determined to relight the flickering flame of western society ablaze towards a new dawn?

No Comments on Who Are You?

Euro 2016:Analysis and hope for a “Bleu” defeat

Today, we are saturated with the Euro, vintage 2016. Formerly known as the “European Cup of Nations”, a name abandoned as it is now the 3rd international sporting event (based on spectators and turnover) after the Olympic Games and the World Cup.

Editor’s Note: This article first appeared on Guillaume Faye’s blig “J’AI TOUT COMPRIS” here, translated by Hannibal Bateman.

Today, we are saturated with the Euro, vintage 2016. Formerly known as the “European Cup of Nations”, a name abandoned as it is now the 3rd international sporting event (based on spectators and turnover) after the Olympic Games and the World Cup.

France is trying to forget reality with this tournament, trying to escape its problems like an ostrich buried in the spectacle of a fake sport plagued by filthy lucre. The rhythm of strikes and the threat of Islamist terrorism being the true national sports. Football has become a collective drug and a place for bizarre arrangements: Qatar, an Islamist, dictatorial, monarchical and pro-slavery state, effectively has the main French club and enjoys a free ride for all of its investments in France, the pretentious “country of human rights”…

A Predominately African Team

Of the 23 players selected(active and reserve) by Didier Deschamps(who has been accused of racism by Eric Cantona and Jamel Debbouze for daring to not select the thug Karim Benzema) in the French team, there were 10 Whites(Blancs), 11 Blacks with three born in Africa, one Arab(Beur) born in France and one mestizo born in Reunion. Therefore, the French team is comprised of a White minority. This fact is even more pronounced seeing the team actually on the field. Watching the team play in France, viewers from around the world say: “France is no longer predominately of European origin”.

The message from this selection is very clear; François Hollande reiterated that the football team represented the nation: “You are France,” De Gaulle, who confided to Alain Peyrefitte that France was a White country and should remain so, must be turning over in his grave. The French football team is predominately non-French and non-European in origin. In any other country of the world, this would seem absurd.

France is the only European country in which this is the case. One must assume it is done voluntarily to launch an ideological message (the French football team must be emblematic of the new ethnic France, that is to say, déblanchie), which would be an anti-White approach, or the team is just not popular enough to recruit young French-born footballers as candidates. Both explanations may intersect. The argument that blacks are better footballers than others(as they are the best sprinters) does not hold as no African country(100% black) performs well internationally, quite the contrary.

Recovery of Football by Politicians and Power

Like Chirac before him, Hollande is fully participating in football and the struggles of Euro2016. He hopes that if the French team is successful it will yield electoral benefits in 2017 like it did in 1998 when France won the World Cup over Brazil. An incredible victory…it was the time when the “Black-White-Arab” Zidane prevailed, for ideological reasons. Wicked tounges have suggested that the game was rigged-common practice in football-for the French team. It shouldn’t be discounted that similar match tricks are underway to make the French team win Euro2016. Bernard Tapie is a master teacher of this discipline(1). In any case, if the French team wins, then it is very likely we should ask questions.

Dining with the “Bleus” on June 5, Mr. Holland explained: “The country can be happy with you while we live with difficulties […] Our countrymen want to be happy and proud with you. We must give them what they expect from you, a collective spirit, a will to win together”. We recognize this in context as the official dogma of “vivre ensemble” a ridiculous and inefficient one at that.

In the opening match against Romania, the President of the Republic was present, covered with a huge supporters’ scarf. Grotesque. A real clown, insensitive to his own absurdity. What would this little politician not try to do to snatch votes?

Football as Hollow Liturgy

The sad reality is that the world of football-international and French in particular-is plagued by widespread corruption, doping, mafia practices, sex offenses, financial traffic, delusional enrichments, and match fixing. Recent cases (Platini, Benzema, etc.) are only the small tip of the iceberg of the most rotten sport on the planet.

It is disastrous to present as role models for our “youth” millionaire footballers, who are illiterate poseurs and often criminals. It is unworthy of the salaries given to its top managers, who are still entrepreneurs and employers, but not all of them, and of the often higher salaries of the footballers.

The stars of football, who “behave like scoundrels while creating the ecstasy of the crowd in the words of Chantal Delsol, are mercenaries, often illiterate, sometimes rogue, and always motivated by financial greed. Their transformation by Mr. Hollande into representatives of French patriotism and symbols of France is lamentable.

With all of this footballing, mass insignificance becomes the central issue. The polemicist Anthony Palou (Le Figaro 08/06/2016) takes up the classical idea of “football as the opium of the people”, writes: “We have nothing against football, rather against the stupidity that emerges […] what we have against a sick society, a society which lives only by the ball, a completely infantile society” . It’s the pretext for a low-end chauvinism, the opposite of real patriotism or nationalism, football is also the realm of “crazy money” and the political demagoguery: “ras-le-ball these ridiculous politicians and not a few professionals who are constantly spending their time watching TV or at the Stade de France

Without forgetting hooliganism and the ultraviolent support football amplifies, in any of its aspects football is not friendly. Chantal Delsol, on the great mass that is the Euro and football, in general, uses this phrase: “Hollow liturgy”.

The lie of Happy Diversity represented by the “Bleus”

The French team is not French society. The “Bleus”(a very dark blue at that) have become a derisive symbol of national identity. We’ve been trying for some time-the ideology of Black,Blanc,Beur-to present this multiracial team as a successful example of plurality and coexistence in a company under the obligation to diversify and to déblanchir.

The official rhetoric(hollowly racist as any “racism”) says it is this (ethnoracial) diversity which gives dynamism to the French team and is, therefore, also an advantage, it’s an opportunity for a new France. These two assumptions are false. The French team was performing better in the rankings when it was ethnically homogenous, or European. the best teams in the world(in all sports) are mono-ethnic. Yves Kendrel recalls that in 1970 “football was a sport where real athletes competed and not uneducated urchins stuffed with millions of euros and unable to sing La Marseillaise” ( Actual Values , 9-17 / 06 / 2016). The “Bleus” for several years were poor and shaken by scandal. The French company, in turn, became multiracial and multicultural and is in deep crisis. The famous “vivre ensemble” is a sinister utopia, a tragic farce. Which was predictable as an ethnically heterogeneous society is an univable term.

This hides a terrible situation, a heavy truth, that imposes the lie of “happy diversity”, the propaganda of the state and the dominant media orchestrates huge hype about the French team and Euro 2016. The ideological issue of a “Bleu” victory is huge. They will be tempted to do anything to win…

The Bleus, False Heros, and Dummy Models

The state authorities, including the President of the Republic, devalue themselves by deifying this “team of France” a bunch of doped athletes, with chicken IQs, paid like moguls. Here are the “Bleus” as the supreme symbol of France it’s insulting and degrading. We give them as a symbol, while we neglect the true French elites which, unfortunately, are exiled researchers, inventors, entrepreneurs, talented artists, etc. often ignored by the media, who are much more attracted to footballers and rappers.

At least the gladiators and charioteers of the same Circus Games in the Roman Empire were risking their lives every descent into the arena!

President Hollande, visiting the Clairefontaine training center of the team, in a ridiculous pomposity, exclaimed: “You are France, France!” This compares the national football team of France to France itself. Making them such models is obsessive and miserable. Mr. Hollande obviously meant that France has, like its team, “diversified” that is to say “Africanized”. There it is, the obsession to end France.

Ivan Rioufol, who addresses current football as “rotten sports, money and idiocy” and deplored “the crowd anesthetized by this new opium” wrote: “I’ve come to accept that professional football, corrupt to the bone, alone is capable of uniting the citizens with all the exploded ills of France […] Watch the helpless government fall into the arms of a high adulterated soccer elevated to cult status, makes a pathetic situation”(Le Figaro, 10/06/2016).

This alienation reached Le Monde, the official newspaper of the dominant ideology and oligarchy, which devoted two pages(!) on June 8th to the player Zlatan Ibrahimovic, a perfect narcissistic moron spouting nonsense, who compared the strength and health of a country to its football team (a team of millionaires who, in addition, don’t reflect its identity) it’s deeply perverse. For it is an attempt to siphon real French patriotism into a degenerate chauvinism that makes mercenaries heroes.

Wish the best for our country: That the French football team, the “Bleus” is eliminated and a truly national European team wins.


(1) Rig a match by paying athletes to play badly and let score goals to the opponent, a common practice in football. The reasons for this is multiple political and/or related to Paris. Players accomplices of the defeat of their team are highly paid. This practice was common in Roman times for chariot races. 

No Comments on Euro 2016:Analysis and hope for a “Bleu” defeat

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