Han Kang’s 2007 novella (originally conceived as three separate short stories), “The Vegetarian”, which has now been translated into English and longlisted for the 2016 Man Booker International Prize, tells the story of a woman who, after having a violent dream, resolves to become a vegetarian. Apparently, vegetarianism is far more abnormal in Korea than it is here because everyone around her is stupefied by her decision. Yeong-hye (the vegetarian) makes little effort to explain herself, and her family, despite their anger, annoyance, and concern, do not much push the issue; this combination no doubt adds to their incomprehension.

Thankfully, the situation is much less confusing to the reader (the other characters can not read Yeong-hye’s thoughts, for instance). After a normal person sees an especially disturbing horror movie, she might have a nightmare that a psychopathic killer is after her. Another type of person might go home from the theater and have a nightmare that she is a psychopathic killer. Yeong-hye is the latter, but instead of getting over it, she just gets worse. Life must destroy other life to survive, and this realization is too much for Yeong-hye to bear. So she does not stop at vegetarianism; eventually, she refuses to eat anything. Trees do not hurt anyone, so she wants to leave the murderous human race and become a tree. (By this point, she is in a mental institution, sometimes standing on her head because that is how trees grow, with their “arms” in the ground.)

The fact that humans must take life in order to survive does not drive normal people to insanity and martyrdom, but we are not completely unaffected by it either. Obviously, the West’s racial demise owes something to this general feeling. (I know; I’m pulling a Ta-Nehisi Coates here, and letting my personal preoccupations color whatever I’m reading at the moment.) It is easy to rouse a nation to defend itself against military invasion. The danger is immediate and personal. When the invaders are economic migrants or refugees of war, the life or death of the nation becomes more distant and theoretical. How many Europeans, even ethnonationalist Europeans, are willing to shoot-to-kill some border-jumper, who maybe just wants to live in a safe country where he can sell his falafels? Europeans understand that mass migration will change the racial character of their countries, and probably bring other changes too. All things being equal, many, perhaps most, would rather avoid these changes, but all things are not equal.

People, generally, will defend what is theirs, and also attempt to increase their share, even at the expense of others, but there is a limit to what they are willing to do for this end, and right now ethnonationalism falls on the wrong side of that divide. Whites are especially hesitant to defend their ethnonationalist privileges.

Why Whites?

“Whites have no right to keep other races out of America because we stole it in the first place.” “The West has exploited the Third World for centuries, so Western countries are obligated to accept immigrants from the rest of the world.” The universalist Left has been reciting these “white guilt” chants for generations. And it does leave a mark, but truthfully, the West is not so gullible/”pathologically altruistic” as to be swayed by third-rate sophistry. The West’s slackening will to survive is the result, not the cause.

The real problem is that these shallow Left-wing talking-points spring from a place deep in the Western intellectual soul. The desire for unity is universal among humanity, but only the West achieved the technological and moral sophistication to make it a human reality. We acquired the technological mastery to conquer the world. With great power comes great responsibility, and the world became our responsibility. Meanwhile, the West’s superiority in moral philosophy—mostly universalist—is possibly even greater than its technological advantage.

The real problem, in short, is ideological. We can not undo the history that brought us to this ideological point, but we can undo the ideology. Racial loyalty and ethnonationalist sentiment may be instinctive, but whether and how to act on this instinct is a moral value judgment, a moral value judgment founded on abstract first principles. Ultimately, the superiority of the ethnonationalist vision is an abstract ideological proposition, and it will succeed or fail on those terms.†

Most individuals will never consider demographic displacement a threat their immediate survival. No matter how much you spam your friends’ inboxes with crime statistics, it will not change this. Whites are not going to expel/exclude millions of innocent people on the basis of guilt-by-genetic-association. And even if we did, it would just be one more thing for us to feel guilty about a few generations later.

The Autistic Right

Should a doctor kill one healthy person, if he can use the organs to save five dying people? When the philosophy teacher asks this question, he assumes those in his audience have normal human minds, capable of understanding things that do not have to be spelled-out, and they will understand many of these things intuitively. He does not have to explain that, for the purposes of the question, the doctor does not have the option to go poking around for organs in the morgue. He also assumes his students understand that all six people are exactly the same (in everything except their health), and if the doctor saves the five people, each of them will go on lead lives exactly as worthwhile as the life that the healthy man would have enjoyed. If only he had not gone in for his check-up. He assumes his audience knows that if the doctor does save the five people, no one else will ever know about it. Patients are not going to die of preventable illnesses because they are too afraid to see their doctors. And the doctor himself will never be charged for murder. And the doctor somehow knows all of this beforehand.

In short, the philosophy teacher assumes that his audience understands the nature of the question. The doctor has only two options: kill one to save five, or let the five die. Even though the scenario is completely abstract, and impossible in the real world, how we answer the question, and on what grounds, gets at the root of what obligations we believe man owes to society. Actually, in this case, the question is (mostly) a shock device to scare-you-straight into thinking seriously about serious things, and you are supposed to think past the question, but again, normal human minds should understand this without any explanation.

In other (more concise and abstract) words, the art of abstraction is not all “autistic.” “Autistic” has become a buzzword that too many people on the Alt Right throw around as an insult. Whenever they encounter an abstraction that their minds are not nimble enough to follow, they dismiss it as “autistic.” In part, this is a simple case of Right-wing man disease; they would rather not have to think, and so they invent a rationale for why thinking is not necessary. Others of them exhibit autistic-ish symptoms themselves and are perhaps protesting too much. For instance, they might assume that if something has not been spelled-out, then it has been ruled out.†† Or not ruled out!

For many, I think this impulse is a post-Libertarian overcorrection. Apparently, many arrived atthe Alt Right after going through a Libertarian phase, which may have poisoned the abstract well for them. Libertarians are fairly unique in that their abstract moral ideology is pretty much the same thing as their blueprint for society which is pretty much the same thing as their theory of human nature. Most people pass through Libertarianism at a young age, so it was probably the first time they had thought seriously in abstract terms. They eventually find that Libertarianism is an ideological hamster wheel, or just unrealistic, and they get soured on the whole abstraction business.

Which is unfortunate, because leading a normal human life requires adequate abstract reasoning skills. And making the ethnonationalist argument requires these skills too.

•     •     •     •     •

†A year or two ago (before Trump), the Alt Right critique of mainstream Conservatism was that it was an ideological hodgepodge, a collection of positions without much logical linkage to each other. The new party-line on the Alt Right is that Conservatism has failed to conserve anything because it is an abstract ideology that does not represent anything real. I think we had it right the first time. At least I did:

Contemporary Conservatism as a whole may not be a coherent ideology, but it does contain a coherent political core value—namely, “freedom.” Tellingly, mainstream Conservatism’s more literal understanding of freedom (relative to Leftist ideas) has attracted more able defenders and stood-up over time a lot better than has their social agenda. Their battle against expanding government in general may be a Sisyphean struggle, but in many significant areas—welfare, tax rates, gun control, school choice, specific business regulations—the political tide moves back and forth. Where the Right Went Wrong

So they have conserved something. (Even if that something is not that exciting to people like us.) Meanwhile, the intellectual rationales for American Conservatism’s social agenda never transcended its gut-level origins, and that agenda has gone down in flames. The lessen here is not that an ideal can not be based on something concrete, but that the ideal must be supported by a compelling abstract first principle.

††For example, the “Why Whites” section makes no mention of the West’s famous individualism. This is not because I do not think it is a contributing factor, but because it is not immediately relevant here.

Ryan Andrews is the author of The Birth of Prudence, a novel.

It’s a long way from Amarillo to Washington.

Kevin Williamson knows the road well. Going from the heartland to the heart of darkness in the BosWash corridor is practically a rite of passage for any aspiring “serious” voice.

From its inception, the Conservative “movement” has taken its cues from the “smart set”—if only at five-year belated intervals. They long to become People Who Matter™ and see their byline in the New York Times the way 60’s rock bands coveted a Rolling Stone cover.

In his latest screed “Father-Führer,” Williamson shows exactly what Conservatism Inc. is, and why it will continue to fail. Williamson begins by mocking, what he terms as, the alt-right’s notion of what Mencius Moldbug referred to as “the Cathedral”. The Cathedral is, of course, just another name for the managerial elite consensus that drives our so-called “elites” and its organs, which exercise narrative hegemony in our society.

Williamson, I’m sure, likes to view himself as a member of this set. Having an “opinion that matters,” and being a “voice of reason” on the right. Getting attaboys and links from the Washington Post to the New York Times, he must go to bed satisfied that his voice has been heard and that it matters.

The truth is, Williamson and others like him over at Conservatism Inc. are just part of the Synagogue of sanctimoniousness that acts as, dare I say, the trumped up hall-monitors of the right.

Always on the lookout for heresy, it fell to Williamson to denounce (the rather moderate) Michael Brendan Dougherty for insufficient fealty to the shibboleths of Irving Kristol and William F. Buckley’s reanimated corpses. Williamson wants his readers to re-think Dougherty’s defense of the white middle class that has been hammered in this country since well before this author has been born.

In doing so, Williamson is just reversing the “othering” he says the alt-right and Dougherty are doing to our managerial elites. By doing this, he reveals the way conservative movement luminaries really think about middle America. To Conservatism Inc. the large space between America’s coasts exists only as a vast fundraising farm of small business owners, frightened bigots, and belligerent babbitts who don’t know their place.

These are the people Sam Francis once called Middle American Revolutionaries (MARs). The group he hoped would rise up in revolt against elite consensus and dismantle the globalist power structures destroying the nation-state. When Francis was writing in the 90s it seemed like that might happen. Pat Buchanan rode that wave in 1996, but ultimately came up too short.

Francis argued, correctly, that Buchanan’s weakness was that he could not bring himself to divorce from “conservatism.” Enter Trump, who has broken out of the box of orthodox movement conservatism and has embraced a type of full-throated civic nationalism that is undermining all of the delicate smoke and mirrors they have set up over the years to keep the MARs from understanding their own dispossession.

But what is today’s message from MARs?

The majority of them have rallied behind Donald Trump’s slogan to “Make America Great Again.” His slogan captures many of the real anxieties they face. Especially for older and middle-aged White Americans, there is a great confusion as to what happened to “their” country. They have memories of a different time, a time when they and their children huddled before a television set to watch Neil Armstrong land on the moon and literally set the sky as the limit. Nostalgia, as it’s said, is potent. Trump taps into this.

But for the young—especially for my generation, Millennials—there is no great past we remember. Only every year seeming to grow more and more bleak. All many have to hold onto is the thrill they had winning on an SNES as children when now they can no longer win in their lives.

Williamson did point out something that was true. The Middle America is plagued by rising dependency rates on drugs. This is especially pronounced among the MARs. When coupled with a declining population and increasing economic unease, the dream of a massive counter-revolution from MARs, in Francis’ original view, looks more unlikely.

Of course, where Williamson shamefully errs is in asserting that all of this social anomie just appeared, as if by fiat:

Nothing happened to them. There wasn’t some awful disaster. There wasn’t a war or a famine or a plague or a foreign occupation. Even the economic changes of the past few decades do very little to explain the dysfunction and negligence—and the incomprehensible malice—of poor white America.

This is a lie.

White America has been dispossessed economically and culturally since at least the middle of last century. From the Immigration Act of 1965 to today’s Hollywood, there has never been an easier target than White America, especially working class White America. Williamson says that these communities “deserve to die.”

Can you imagine if a “conservative” pundit dare say something like “Detroit deserves to die” or something similar? The outrage and calls for resignation would be heard within the hour. But going after White Americans is just fine, especially when you need to virtue signal just how much of a part of the in-crowd you really are.

Back to the message from MARs. Today what we are seeing are calls to “Make America Great Again,” but will that be enough to cure what is really ailing White America? Sadly, the answer is no. The civic nationalism of today must give way to the ethnonationalism of tomorrow.

Williamson wants us to believe that American “conservatism” and by extension America itself is made up of abstract ideas, not the nasty Blut und Boden of European nationalism. He claims that we ask of economics to do what it never can, to define human wants in his words.

But, as Sam Francis pointed out, economics, coming from the Greek οἰκονομία means roughly “household management.” A household is based on those two very real things, the blood of its family members and the soil of the house stands on. As a people, we have either forgotten or have been brainwashed into forgetting that.

The conservative movement today is just a pathetic marketing scam, that allows for practice trials for future Daily Beast reporters and rousing up the heartland for the Israel Lobby’s latest folly. We don’t need to conserve anything, we need to remember who we are and what we can be.

White America must divorce itself from conservatism and marry itself to White consciousness if it wants to survive.

Editor’s Note: This was the first place essay from Radix Journal’s 2015 essay contest.

Both the Irish and the Gauls believed that their ancestor was the god of the dead and, in the case of the Irish, the afterlife was off the west coast of Ireland.
~J.P Mallory, The Origins of the Irish

The Universal is Local

I took a weekend off to forget. Forget that I was an Identitarian. My anxiety was visceral. It hurt. But I knew I could still escape. If not the reality, its representation. I needed to get away from the headlines, the newsreaders, the internet trolls, the voices of reason, the footage of invasion… the soft whisper of “Surrender now.” I took my car, my camera and some music and made off along the still primordial coast.

My only refuge, in these moments, is the point where the ocean meets the land and for all that, one ocean and one land. I think that’s preconscious, it’s in my DNA. It is always a returning and a taking leave. A welcoming and a farewell. It’s a place I go when I’m beaten. Not to contemplate my end, but to replenish what is left of my soul.

The waves rise and crash against the cliffs of Ireland. Western Europe ends here in the Atlantic. In limestone and salt and anger. In a mass of ocean which seems to float above you on a clear day, the green blue haze sinking into the haze of the white blue sky. Forever.

I am an Identitarian because everything ends. And where a thing ends, we take the measure of it. We value life because it ends. We value the rudiments of our identity, because they are perishable.

It feels intuitive that in ancient times, a people living on a small island should look out over the surf and mist and see the gateway to another reality, an underworld, an afterlife, the horizon point of meaning. Their beginning and their end. It reminds me that universalism is a symptom of localism. To an isolated community, the surroundings constitute the universe. The sky exists to roof one’s own small patch of earth. The psychology of a people is fused unmistakably to a landscape.

The ancestral connection to a patch of earth, transforms it, makes it live in a different way. It makes it relevant. It makes it primal. This is your landscape. It belongs to your people. You have inherited it. You have a custodial responsibility towards it. Your ancestors lived and struggled here. Your children will live and struggle here. The relationship is intimate. It enflames. Beneath our Christian churches and our modern cities, there is a coarse, pagan landscape where Bronze Age warriors battled and Neolithic farmers built hulking great stone monuments to the hereafter.

We mix and share and derive our myths from other neighbouring European peoples. We live in their cultures and they live in ours. Through invasion, through blood, through religion. But for all the mixing and invading, the various peoples of Western Europe have been remarkably settled for hundreds and often thousands of years. Meaning precedes us. It precedes us in our tribe and in the turf we thread. It calls to us from the past.

Why Our Leaders Have Nothing Interesting to Say

I am an Identitarian because a warning light has gone off inside my head. I have come alive to a threat. Like an animal that flinches from the slaughterhouse truck. I have wandered the world, asleep, uncomfortable with other cultures and neglectful of my own. I have wandered the world, disarmed by platitudes and lies. But now I am awake.

All heroic stories are circular and one ends up where one began. The battle that I needed to fight was here all along. Behind me. Not before me. In the stories of Ireland –the myths pieced together and embellished by monks in that golden monastic age, twelve hundred years or more ago –each new wave of invaders is usurped by the next and driven finally into the sea. Giants and then gods and then men.

The concept of protecting one’s turf seems to be lost on our current leaders. But can the situation be altered? I look into the eyes of a Juncker or a Merkel or a Sutherland or a Trichet and I see no empathy. Nothing that can be reasoned with. I see what Werner Herzog saw in the American grizzly bear. A blank stare which speaks “only of a half-bored interest in food.” These flabby dead eyed technocrats are bored carnivores, the dysgenic remnants of Teutonic ice ages. And, yes we must wrestle these groveling, wrinkly, sterile beasts. We must wrestle Europe away from them. Or they will eat us. And our children.

The bear hug is treacherous. That suffices for information. It is hardly worth talking any longer about their ideology. They have much to say on the subject of identity. But identity they say, is “not for you.” They believe that the unit of society is the individual consciousness. No meaning precedes us. No God. No standards of beauty or authority. And one is cast as a villain or hero from the start. Innocent. By reason of oppression. Guilty by reason of insanity.

For all their bells and whistles, they treat the world as Marx did, as a revelation of material injustice. To be righted. To be altered. To be fixed. All natural laws must be capsized and overturned. And ultimately, the job of the present is to bury the past… But… and here’s the rub… having buried it they have nowhere to return. The circle cannot close. The hero cannot fulfill his quest. The bear will die in the cactus land. And we will have no origin. That is what they cannot give us. Or give us back.

All they can give us is realised wholes. In the here and the now. Bruce Jenner, Aylan Kurdi, Michael Brown. Moments. Snapshots in a hyper-real present. Requiring no assimilation. No explanation. No history. No future. This is what I see in Merkel’s eyes. This childless wench presiding over childlessness. Nothing but the present. And the present is nothing. The bear hug is the hug of death.

What do people like this have to say, I wonder? Once you cast aside their silly slogans, what wisdom can they possibly communicate? Because Habermas was wrong. Communication is not a means of emancipation for an oppressed subject. It is the quest for origins. Every conversation you will ever have, every encounter, from the most banal to the most exotic, will see you plumbing the depths of some beginning. What seems to be the problem? How can I help you? What happened at school? Can you explain this transaction? Who are you? Where are you from? What’s your name? And so on, forever.

The Funeral and the Death of Authenticity

I don’t think I was ever very Leftwing. But I had strayed after college. I liked to think I was a Left-conservative which was how Norman Mailer styled himself. But like Mailer perhaps, I was fooling with labels. My drift was definitely leftward. And towards nihilism. I had to see a cherished grandmother in the ground before the rot ended. And the Right slammed into me like a wall. I had a black eye but I was home.

We had a good old rural Irish catholic funeral. The English are sometimes bewildered by how quick Irish funerals are. If you die on Monday morning you’ll be waked on Tuesday and buried on Wednesday. That’s a lot of religion, heartache and hard drinking to fit into three days admittedly. She was buried on an isolated hillside graveyard with crooked headstones and some so old the names are no longer visible. They’re just misshapen chunks of limestone. As is the custom, the neighbours dig the grave with shovels and picks. This tends to surprise some outsiders and even people from other parts of the country, more conditioned to professional burial staff or JCB diggers. When the coffin is lowered everyone waits while the dirt is thrown back in. Any bones uncovered in the digging are reconstituted. Nobody is quite sure how many family members have been buried in that plot. And I guess nobody wants to know. I think it’s important to see the earth being piled in. It’s cathartic if nothing else.

The experience remains something of a reference point to me. A reference point for what I hate about this world and what I love. Quite a lot is lost when someone dies. Her generation was the last in Ireland to come of age in a world without electricity. The last living connection to pre-industrial modernity. The last connection to crushing subsistence labour, to oral storytelling and candle lit nights, to rural superstition and medieval fatalism. What one can salvage from a religion is justified at these moments. As the family stands around the coffin chanting the decades of the rosary, one person leading, everyone else following, one is struck by the atavistic wisdom incubated in archaic rituals. As the tears and sobbing slowly subsides, the room calms and unites, the old, the middle-aged, the young… The monotony of the words, repeated endlessly, becomes affirming. Not spiritual really. Visceral. Like a wheel following a groove in the road. A verifiable phenomenon, testable, repeatable, carried on through centuries, a mechanism for exorcising grief. One wishes one could believe. One wonders how many people in the room believe. One cannot say. One cannot ask. One does not want to know. One knows in any case that the true believers are dwindling. Perhaps the last true believer is lying there in that coffin. One wonders if the mechanism described will survive another twenty years or so… I have my doubts. But I knew authenticity when I saw it. And they cannot take that away from me.

Possession is Nine Tenths of the Law

I wander up the coast. Driving and trekking and taking photographs. Peering over precipices. Now and then I stand alone. Close to the edge. On a cliff, crumbling as it is, year by year, millimetre by millimetre. Not free. Not emancipated. Not whole. But part of something whole. Something is welcoming me. And bidding me farewell. Meaning is always catching up with us. Preconscious. Life, a series of destinations, rather than a journey. We are always arriving. The traveling has already been done, the journey taken, over eons and by other vessels. Men and women, strange but close to us. Molecules in time and space.

This horizon, the one I’m looking at right now, is my eternity. And this topsoil is the future of my people. It is that or it is nothing. It is that or we have no future. No place to stand and no heart to fight. There are no universal cultures. Culture rises like basalt on a sea plain, out of a place and a people. Out of territory and ethnicity. There is more culture in a dog pissing against a tree than there is in a lot of contemporary art and for this same reason.

Without a strong identity one cannot take ownership of what is yours. Or pride in it. And how then can you create or give birth to anything? Identity is a claim one makes. And culture is the tree that grows in the claim.

The Irish have long stared into the Atlantic and the Atlantic has stared back. It has a claim on us and we on it. It is the entrance to the afterlife, the receptacle of the dead, where Donn the son of Mil perished off the rocky coast of Kerry. It means something to us by the geography of our relation to it. A geography of time and place and intuition. A geography that negotiates death.

It was the sons of Mil who crossed the sea and took Ireland from the Tuatha Dé Danaan, defeating them and casting them into the underworld, to lurk as sídhe or faeries. Think of it, this tale set down by scholars over a thousand years ago, built out of folklore and myth, folk memory and folk history. An origins story. And those same faeries haunted the landscape of rural Ireland up until the mid-twentieth century, when electricity finally and irrevocably banished them. Not to the underworld. But to oblivion.

Think of that line from Equus, by Peter Shaffer, “… life is only comprehensible through a thousand local gods…” And think of every lonely journey you’ve ever made, and every nook or corner you’ve ever stowed a secret in. The extinction of rare animals worries us, makes headlines, but not the extinction of our people. Or our gods. Gods die. Gods lose their potency. People forget them or dismiss them or discard them…. The job of forgetting takes one generation only. And remember, to lose your gods, to lose your forms of affirmation, is to die a living death. And to make of that deathliness, your legacy.

A thousand years ago last April, the Dalcassions broke the Vikings on the beaches of Clontarf. A hundred years ago next year, a band of school teachers, poets, aristocrats and socialists enacted blood sacrifice on the streets of Dublin, for some glittering hopeless vision of the future. A Republic which did materialise and was, like all quenched desires, an anti-climax. But what now? And what forever after?

What will come after us? Who will retain our myths, pursue our passions, recite our songs? Who will feel the weight of centuries and millennia at the sight of our dreary wet hillsides? Who will tremble before our cliffs, our dolmens, our churchyards, our poetry? If not we. For we die when our gods die. Our gods die when we die.

Amairgen’s song and the first Irish Identitarian

It was Amairgen, poet/priest/King, who led the Millesians with his brothers towards the shores of Ireland. It is written that they came from Sythia to Egypt to Spain. And that their uncle spotted Ireland on a clear day from a high tower.

It is written that Amairgen claimed Ireland for the Gaels. By song. The Tuatha Dé Danaan, the godlike people in possession of the island, conjured a cloud of mist to see off the invaders. Amairgen sang. And in singing the mist dispelled. And they prevailed.

David Adams put it thusly: “The poet, in a sense, sings the new Ireland of the Celts into existence, containing within himself, like Krishna-Vishnu in the Bhagavadgita or the persona of the poems of Walt Whitman, all the elements of creation.”

There are various accounts of the song, all of which preserve the same essential meaning. It is the primal realisation of all awakened peoples. Sacred knowledge guarded by priestly castes. The revelation that we are parts of a whole… But the universal is only ever accessible to us through local gods. The specific. The intimate. Eternity is in the detail. It is tribal. It becomes us. It welcomes us. It bids us farewell… Let it not be a final farewell.

The sea’s wind am I,
The ocean’s wave,
The sea’s roar,
The Bull of the Seven Fights,
The vulture on the cliff,
The drop of dew,
The fairest flower,
The boldest boar,
The salmon in the pool,
The lake on the plain,
The skillful word,
The weapon’s point,
The god who makes fire I am.

From Chronicles, November, 1998

Ever since I committed the blunder, nearly thirty years ago, of signing up with the “conservative movement” during my first year in graduate school, a certain pattern of behavior has enforced itself on my decreasingly callow mind. The pattern is, as a colleague of mine once remarked to me, that there seems to be no other purpose of any conservative organization than to ignite a faction-fight as soon as possible and thereby destroy the organization. In graduate school the rule proved true. There was no campus chapter of Young Americans for Freedom because the leaders of that group had already fallen upon each other and dispatched the rest of the Yaffies to oblivion. The year I joined the only remaining conservative group on the campus, the Young Republicans, the ex-Yaffies decided to attack it and soon managed to leave it a shattered vessel lurching helplessly through the dark seas of the academic left. The child is father to the man, and what I observed as a mere stripling conservative back then has turned out to be something close to a law of the universe ever since. The “Right,” whatever its philosophical content and whatever its political agenda, appears to be inherently flawed by tendencies to schisms and factionalism, and these tendencies go far to explain why it always loses, no matter how compelling its ideas or how repulsive its political and cultural enemies on the left. Why is this so, and what can be done about it?

That it is so remains true today. The conservative organizations that prevailed in the 1960s and ’70s — like YAF itself — are now largely defunct or mere shells of what they used to be, and not a few destroyed themselves by their own internal factionalism. Today, there is virtually no “conservative movement” worthy of the name, apart from the ever-thriving hive of neo-conservative Beltway condotierri whose simulation of “populism” keeps their kids in private schools and high-priced cars. Even these quarters are not exempt from the law of conservative self-destruction, and most of them periodically titillate the Beltway rumor mill with stories of their own internal purges, bloodlettings, bankruptcies, and the odd embezzlement by one or another of the patriotic Christians who run them.

No one should be surprised that the Beltway Right behaves pretty much like most other people in Washington, but the inherent factionalism of the Right is not confined to it, nor is it a product of serious philosophical and political antagonisms. On what may be called either the “Hard Right” or the “Old Right,” I can think of perhaps half a dozen organizations that simply cannot work with each other because of the personal loathing, jealousy, and distrust that prevails between their leaders or members. But despite some ideological differences, these groups are all in essential agreement with each other, and all of them have the same enemies. If they could work together, they might actually accomplish something, but they can’t, and every effort among them to coordinate and cooperate has flopped. If the truth be told, there is very little practical purpose in anyone joining or aligning with any of them, let alone expecting them ever to accomplish any substantial goal other than remaining in useless existence. Signing up with the American Right today resembles nothing so much as picking up a loaded revolver and proceeding to shoot your own toes off one by one.

There are various explanations of the suicidal proclivities of the Right that come to mind, not least the theory that conservatism as it emerged in the 1950s was largely dominated by ex-communists of one stripe or another who insisted on importing into their new-found political allegiances the same demand for conformity and orthodoxy that had prevailed in the Party (whichever “Party,” Stalinist, Trotskyist, or other, they had belonged to). The most notorious of these ex-communist grand inquisitors of the Right was perhaps the late Frank S. Meyer, a Communist Party functionary until 1945 who, once he had concluded that path was the wrong road to travel, at once set himself up as the chap who got to decide who was and who was not a “real” conservative. From the foundation of National Review in 1956 until his death in 1972, Meyer never failed to denounce, purge, read out, expel, and generally behave like the Andrei Vishinsky of the American Right. He tried to prevent the late Russell Kirk from writing for National Review, spread the rumor that his ex-Trotskyist colleague at the magazine, James Burnham, was a CIA plant, and managed, in his major political-philosophical manifesto (In Defense of Freedom), to excommunicate just about every promising mind on the American Right of his generation. Admittedly, some of these minds never lived up to their promise, and some lived to break their promises as soon as it was profitable to do so, but Meyer’s insistence on an “orthodoxy” or a “mainstream” largely invented and formulated by himself helped make the movement he came to shape as uninteresting as it was unimportant and impart his own doctrinaire habits of mind to the generation of younger conservative activists whom he influenced.

But blaming right-wing self-destructiveness merely on one man is a toad that won’t hop. The truth is that the tendency arises from the historical situation of the Right in almost every historical context in which any movement of the Right appears. The suicidal tendencies of the Right emerge from the fact that the Right, almost by definition, is a collection of historical losers.

Probably the first historical conflict in which “right” and “left” were the main contenders was the English Civil War of the 1640s, and while the left side of the conflict, represented by the English Parliamentarians and their myriad “Puritan” allies and supporters, was notoriously schismatic, the same was true of the Right side, represented by King Charles I and his court. Anglicans vs. Catholics, civilians vs. military, absolutists vs. constitutional monarchists, and the usual baggage of nincompoop courtiers and sycophants vs. serious advisers who had some glimmer of how to win and what needed to be done all significantly contributed to the loss of the civil war by the “Right” of the day, the eventual execution of the king himself, and the triumph for nearly a dozen years of Oliver Cromwell’s dictatorship. Unlike Charles I, Cromwell dealt with his own side’s tendencies to factionalism simply by kicking out or ruthlessly suppressing those rivals that bothered him.

The Left, whether Puritan, Jacobin, Bolshevik, or other, can do that because it generally represents history’s winners, a rising social force that actually has an agenda with concrete interests and ideas, and sooner or later the victorious mainstream simply cuts adrift the nuts, crackpots, and perennial malcontents that deflect it from its main purpose. But the Right, whatever the historical context, tends to be composed of history’s losers – people whose interests, ideas, and values represent a social and political order that is on the wane. If it were not on the wane, there would be no emergence of “right” and “left” sides at all and hence no significant conflict between them. But precisely because the interests and ideas of the Right side are declining, it has immense difficulty in coming up with any practicable, concrete program by which its obsolescent wishes can be realized, and because it generally represents the losing side of history, it tends to attract folks who are losers in many different respects—conspiracy nuts who worry about the fringe on the flag while the substance of their national sovereignty and civilization is being destroyed; crackpots who have invented their own secret cures for AIDS and cancer; fanatics who have drafted vast, unreadable manuscripts exposing the real cause of everything that’s going wrong in the Bankers, the Jews, the Masons, or the Clinton White House; and, inevitably, the sad sacks who have no social life whatsoever other than the potato chip-and-soda pop soirees in which history’s discards get to know one another as human beings.

In the United States, prior to the 1930s, it was not so. The Right back then was the organized political expression of a dominant social and political class, a class that sported at its top families like the DuPonts and at its bottom such happy warriors as Sinclair Lewis’ George Babbitt and his friends. It was a class that dictated the tastes and manners of the day, was determined to keep immigrants out of the country, maintain the Constitution and the Free Enterprise System, put America First, preserve the white, Christian, Republican character of the nation, and crush the Bolsheviks and labor agitators wherever you could find them. As a ruling class, it was an amalgam of the Old Stock Protestant Establishment and the plutocracy that rose to national power after the Civil War. However poorly defined its ideas and however vapidly expressed its ethic, it was nevertheless a real class that really had something to conserve, and it generally knew that it could not conserve it unless it also conserved the social and cultural fabric through which it exercised social power.

In the Great Depression and New Deal, this bourgeois ruling class was effectively dislodged from social and political power. Its top ranks, if they survived at all, soon allied with the emerging managerial elites in state and corporation, and its bottom ranks, stripped of any real prospect of preserving or restoring the social order in which they had played a significant part, simply drifted. It was mainly those middle and bottom ranks of the old bourgeois elite that for the next forty years would effectively define “conservatism” and the Right as they were known to the generation between Herbert Hoover and Barry Goldwater. Unable to articulate its own ideas and values very effectively, it welcomed ideological allies in journalism and the academy that could express them, but the journalists and the academics were not for the most part of the same class or culture. Hence, the “conservatism” they defined displayed all the symptoms of rootless intellectualism and attracted all the odd and awkward personality types that could not fit anywhere else and would not fit with each other.

Once “conservatism” is decoupled from the social order and the social class that it naturally represents, it becomes simply one more ideological ghetto, angrily hunting down and kicking out those who deviate from its sectarian commandments and every now and then hurling a few mudballs at whoever passes by, and the kinds of personality it tends to attract are precisely those that are unable to work together for any serious purpose. It ceases to defend authentic tradition because authentic tradition has ceased to exist in a coherent form, and what it defends is “traditionalism.” It ceases to defend authentic liberty because the rooted liberty that once pertained in the defunct social order is no longer meaningful, and what it defends is “libertarianism.” It ceases to defend the people, culture, and institutions of the old order because they too have ceased to exist coherently as a fabric or have been conscripted into the new order, and what it defends is simply a pallid ghost of what was once a living civilization.

All it can do is worry over who is and who is not a “real conservative,” which merely means who does and who does not let the self-appointed swamis of the Right do his thinking for him. Depending on the personal strength and success of the particular swamis that lead them, the cults of “movement conservatism” may flourish indefinitely, continue to publish their endless series of unreadable tracts and sermons to their own choirs, and actually meet the payrolls of their staffs, but no one—least of all the swamis in charge—ever expects to gain substantial power or take charge of the rudders of history.

Is there anything that can be done to cure the incessant self-destructiveness of the Right or remove the causes of its own suicidal tendencies? Probably not, as long as the “Right” insists on defining itself in terms of social and historical forces that have already lost. The only thing it can do is try to grasp the truth that those forces have lost and that what they represented cannot be restored and, instead of presenting itself as the champion of lost causes, to align itself with new forces able to challenge the established order and to do so in terms that will neither be co-opted by the new regime nor deflected by the phantoms of the old. Once in a while such a movement appears, but invariably it only excites the wrath of the “Right.” It is too “populist,” it appeals to Mass Man, it is too “statist,” it is too “radical,” or it deviates from the ideological orthodoxy of the Right in some other arcane way. Sooner or later, such a movement is either captured by its allies on the Right and simply becomes one more phone booth into which all the malcontents and oddwads try to cram themselves, or else it ignores them, wishes them a good day, and proceeds to make a little history all by itself, on its own terms and for its own purposes. But, of course, when the movement does the latter, it ceases to belong to the “Right” at all and actually begins to evolve into one of history’s winners.

It’s not that they love Rubio. It’s that they hate us.

Marco Rubio is a forced meme. The lightweight junior Senator has no accomplishments to his name, nor any signs of even average intelligence or insight. His sole qualification for his office, besides being a mascot for Hispanic outreach, is a notable skill for reciting lines other people write, a talent that fails him under pressure. The main argument for his candidacy is that he is “electable” … a strange boast for a man who thus far has failed to win a single primary.

Like Obama, he is a blank screen upon which his supporters project their own fantasies. Like Obama, one gets the feeling the he has a personal history that would have rendered him ineligible for public life had smartphones existed two decades ago…  Unlike Obama, Rubio does not represent “change,” even symbolic change. Instead, he is simply the latest front man for the “long con” that is the conservative movement; Rubio’s a sweaty salesman for the status quo.

Rubio ran for the Florida Senate as a Tea Party firebrand, promising to oppose efforts to increase illegal immigration. Seemingly within moments of entering the upper chamber, Rubio enthusiastically championed the Gang of Eight amnesty bill alongside Chuck Schumer, which, if passed, would have rendered American “conservatism” (at least in his current iteration) irrelevant in national elections.

Most importantly, Rubio was specifically tasked with breaking any conservative opposition to the bill, which he did with relish and deception.

Rubio failed those who voted for him—and even failed to betray them competently. Nonetheless, he has been anointed as the great “true conservative™” following his third place finish in South Carolina.

To use a term from our (((Greatest Allies))), seeing Rubio now campaigning against Trump as a “con man” can only be described as chutzpah of the highest degree. But what is more revealing is how the conservative movement has, predictably, rallied behind Rubio as their last best hope of stumping the Trump, even after evidence of Rubio’s perfidy has surfaced.

Cruz endorsed Rubio as preferable to Trump during the last debate. The #NeverTrump movement, generated by Erick Erickson and others, demonstrates that the Beltway Right’s opposition to amnesty was for show.^[1]

Rubio’s past efforts to try deliberately to deceive conservatives do not even seem to trouble those who claim to speak for “the movement.” One would expect that even the most odious political hacks would at least be offended by Rubio having to be shamed into attending CPAC 2016. As CPAC is the Beltway Right’s equivalent of Louis XIV’s Versailles, where effeminate courtiers are summoned to pay homage and compete for status, Rubio’s refusal to make the conference a priority shows he holds movement conservatives in as much contempt as Jews hold evangelical Christians. And, much as with evangelicals and Jews, conservatives still worship Rubio.

Part of what explains this is the Protective Stupidity needed for the conservative movement to survive. As Michael Brendan Dougherty observed, if Rubio is nominated, the Republican Party can tell itself nothing is wrong. Furthermore, by advancing a token minority as the mouthpiece of the George W. Bush platform, conservatives can tell themselves they are being “transformative,” without actually having to change anything.

Matt Lewis enthuses:

Rubio (as a young, eloquent, charismatic, Hispanic conservative) poses a serious [sic] threat to liberalism… This is why Rubio’s embodiment of the American Dream, coupled with his ability to speak eloquently about it isn’t just rhetoric—it means he has the tools to _potentially_ inspire and lead. This is why he could potentially be a transformational political figure.

Lewis sees the “American Dream” embodied by a man unfit to manage a Pizza Hut.

We are told Rubio, as a Cuban, has the power to transform the entire political conversation simply by existing. It’s Jack Kemp conservatism, only instead of cucking for non-Whites, now we put a (sort of) non-White guy in charge, call him our leader, and assert that America is fundamentally Okay.

Besides being stupid, this is far more racist and condescending than anything you are going to hear at a National Policy Institute conference. It assumes all one has to do to win over non-Whites is put up a guy whose name ends in a Z or O. It ignores entirely the empirical reality that Hispanics support “big government” by larger margins than they favor amnesty for illegal immigrants, and that Hispanics don’t actually gain anything from conservative policies. It refuses to confront the Narratives about White privilege, Chicano history, or American imperialism, which any half-educated Latino has been trained to repeat. And Rubio isn’t even part of the Raza anyway, as Mexicans and Central Americans do not like Cubans because of their privileged legal status in immigration policy. But Lewis doesn’t know any of that because every token Hispanic he works with is being paid to say he shares Lewis’s opinion.

It’s only the “racist” Alt Right that recognizes that other groups have collective interests and preferences just like we do. These interests and preferences do not fit into some mindlessly optimistic theory about the American Dream. They represent an existential conflict over power and resources, the same political reality that exists in every country. Lewis is currently hawking a book arguing the Republican Party has been dumbed down. But he doesn’t actually have a “serous” argument. (And if Matt objects that nitpicking spelling is a trivial tactic, well, it’s the heart of his candidate’s campaign right now, along with pee jokes.)

But there’s something more important going on. The irony is that movement conservatives are far more realistic about politics when it comes to acting as the hall monitors of the Right. The aforementioned Lewis is warning movement types not to even think of going along with Trump, as it would lead to professional destruction. Pro-Trump conservatives are now labeled “Vichy Republicans.” You have the likes of Jennifer Rubin and Rick Wilson LARPing about taking revenge on everyone who sides with the “enemy,” by which they mean the frontrunner of their own party.

When it comes to media access, money, jobs, and perceived prestige in their social circle, movement conservatives are quite capable of understanding Carl Schmitt’s teachings about the Friend/Enemy distinction. It’s only when it comes to national politics that they suddenly devolve into nursery-school pabulum about everyone being a potential Republican. The only question is how many Beltway Right hacks truly believe their own propaganda and how many understand it is a weapon to be used against the Alt Right. Either way, if Trump does not win the nomination and the general election, another round of purges is on the way.

But this is different than what has come before. As George Hawley notes in his timely new book Right-Wing Critics of American Conservatism, American conservatism is nearing an existential crisis because of changing demographics.

Whatever political consultants may say they believe publicly, campaigns are about identifying the constituencies that will vote for you and building a demographic coalition. And it’s hard to believe the Republican “strategists” who explain the world to us on Fox News every night don’t recognize that a majority non-White America simply will never vote Republican, unless the party completely abandons what it currently claims to stand for.

This is not to say a President Rubio is an impossibility in 2016 if he does well on Tuesday. Hillary Clinton is an exceptionally weak candidate. But we know that one of the first things a President Rubio would do would be to work with Paul Ryan to pass a bill much like the Gang of Eight amnesty. And as Rubio’s bromides about the American Dream are unlikely to win these millions of “new Americans,” the Republican Party would be decimated. The consultants would only be able to run the scam for a few more years. In other words, a Marco Rubio nomination is a crushing victory for the Democratic Party, regardless of who actually wins the next election.

Well, who gives a shit? No one on the Alt Right wants anything to do with the conservative movement. Ideologically sterile, and now reduced to repeating anti-racist slogans in an attempt to morally shame their own voters, American conservatism is a philosophy of mediocrity mixed with a religious cult. Even those involved in it know they are simply running out the clock on the country.

After all, the man whom the American Conservative Union has selected to give this year’s keynote address—defending “intellectual conservatism” no less!—is Glenn Beck.

Unfortunately, as the sheer existence of Marco Rubio shows, the Beltway Right has significance because it controls the access to major media platforms. The Beltway Right does not possess the ability or even the desire to confront the Left, but it does have power to control the Right. Those who have expressed sympathetic or even objective views of Trump will be cut off and the kind of explicit cooperation between cuckservatives and far-Left activists we have seen in the past is likely to increase.

What is shaping up is a conflict over resources between different constituencies rooted in class and ethnic differences. The high-minded rhetoric about a “thoughtful” and universally appealing American conservatism is simply a con to lull and shame angry right-wingers into begrudgingly accepting their self-proclaimed leaders. And as the desperate efforts to promote Rubio show, the Beltway Right isn’t even trying to hide its own embarrassment with the White voters and donors who support the entire sorry racket.

The politics of the American Right is gradually spreading to the emerging Third World America. And the rhetoric deployed by the defenders of the status quo are the same in both cases. Hillary Clinton is now defining her campaign as being the “anti-Trump,” arguing that we need to “break down barriers” instead of building walls and say America is still great and everything is fine. The Beltway Right, as exemplified by Rubio, accepts this narrative. Trump is uniting those who “accept the mantle of anger” and who implicitly understand that the American Dream is already dead.

We do not share a common interest with millions of our supposed fellow citizens. We do not have a stake in the survival of the current political system. We do not have any possibility of a future for ourselves or our people under the status quo.

The conservative movement is a giant scam designed to distract European-Americans from these harsh realities. But even that is secondary to the larger deception. The real fraud is the American Creed itself, the idea that deracinated individuals vaguely united under worthless abstractions like “equality” and “liberty” constitute a nation. This is the ultimate “long con,” which is playing out to its inevitable conclusion.

And “let’s dispel with this fiction” that those grassroots conservatives so desperate to keep it going are anything but suckers.

Perhaps the chief fault that one can lay before the European Union is that of giving a bad name to the very good idea of cooperation and unity among Europeans. Not a day goes by without the latest illustration of European governments’ collective impotence in some perpetual “crisis,” the endless episodes of which have long bored everyone.

It was not always so. In the early 2000s, the project was still fresh, having consolidated a customs union and forged a common currency, both unprecedented achievements in European history. The Union kept growing, with post-communist Central European nations, in particular, rejoining their Western brethren. No one knew exactly what would be achieved. But many Europeans, otherwise adrift in this age of nihilism, were refreshed and even seduced by the noble prospect of working together on a “great project.” Many liberals, alienated by the “ugly America” of George W. Bush and the neoconservatives, sang paeans to the “European dream” and prophesied the emergence of a rival European superpower.

So much for all that. In fact, the European Union has been revealed for what it is: An incoherent confederation of semi-sovereign mass-media democracies, warped at once by the political hegemony of the American Empire and the cultural hegemony of liberal-egalitarian ideology. This “Europe” flails from one crisis to the next, torn between the electoral imperative of keeping the lives of the “posthistorical” Europeans’ as soft and “convenient” as possible, and the exigencies of globalized capitalism and multiculturalism.

The tragedy is that Europe could be so much more. The European Union is sustained in part by liberal moralism (“a union of signaling”) and in part by something nobler. François Mitterrand called it the European peoples’ “instinct of greatness.” This unquenchable, self-sacrificial, Promethean spirit I would name “the call of the stars.” This is the same spirit which compelled Christopher Columbus to embrace the mad ambition of circling the Earth and drove Galileo Galilei to contemplate the heavenly spheres and defy orthodoxy.

Jewish, American, and European elites have, since the end of the Second World War, carefully worked to suppress, segregate, and neutralize another of our instincts: The tribal instinct, the call of the blood. Nationalist parties and thinkers have been systematically ostracized and the imperative of maintaining the ethnic cohesion of our lands has been explicitly rejected.

It does not have to be this way. One can easily imagine forms of European cooperation and unity which, unlike what is currently on offer, would satisfy both Europeans’ patriotic instinct and their instinct of greatness. Indeed, embryonic antecedents for such great projects already exist.

A Great Wall of Europe is an obvious first choice for such a project. The Franco-German military-industrial giant Airbus could, instead of building walls to protect Arabs, build walls to protect Europeans. Billions of euros, cutting-edge technology, and international cooperation could be committed to securing the continent’s collective borders in Spain, Italy, and Greece. Nothing would better reconcile northern and southern Europeans, and enamor them with the idea of European unity, than working together to save our shared continent from Afro-Islamization. As the Great Wall of China protected that country from Central Asian barbarians, so would a Great Wall of Europe forever keep at bay invaders who, from the Umayyads to the Ottomans, and from the White slave trade to the ethnic cleansing of Kosovar Serbs, have done incalculable damage to our peoples.

The complete restoration of Europe’s strategic autonomy, allowing Europeans to enjoy full independence to determine their destiny, is another potential great project, one which would require continental or even transcontinental scale. Thus, Europe’s characteristic dependence on foreign superpowers, in place since the Second World War, would be undone. For instance, I think of restoring Europe’s energy independence, something which could only be achieved through a reconciliation with Russia as an integral part of the European family. In the latter respect, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s praise for Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s action to “defend European identity” is extremely encouraging.

Another project would be for Europeans to work together to be at the cutting edge of pioneering research efforts to unveil the secrets of our universe. This is already the case with the CERN physics research center in Geneva, the ITER fusion reactor in Cadarache, southern France, and the European Space Agency. But more could be done and, in this respect, we must be acutely aware of the need to keep up with China. China is truly a super-nation, larger than all of Western countries put together, but with a level of cohesion approaching that of one of our nation-states. Assuming China can resist attempts to infiltrate her body politic, such as the Chan Zuckerberg Project, then that awesome nation will no doubt be the leading rival to European civilization.

For instance, China is pioneering new research on the very nature of humanity and in the art of eugenics, notably with the lavishly-funded Beijing Genomics Institute. The Chinese, as we all know, are already an innumerable, intelligent, and disciplined people. But how hegemonic would their power be if they were allowed to achieve a decisive edge in human evolution? Why have European governments and institutions not come together to fund, for example, a Berlin Genomics Institute for the common benefit of our entire civilization? Surely, the improvement of our humanity is one of the grandest endeavors conceivable for European Man.

Then there is the promotion of European identity and consciousness itself. This is the Alternative Right’s most important role. In this, European-Americans – precisely because of the hegemony of American culture in Europe – have an absolutely critical role to play. If the Alternative Right can discredit or subvert American liberal-egalitarian ideology, then Europe too would be mechanically liberated as a result.

Further afield, we can imagine an Identitarian Europe in which the Franco-German cultural TV channel Arte would not broadcast degeneracy and the Erasmus student exchange would not just be an excuse for the European youth to binge drink in another country. We can imagine a Europe in which service of our biocultural heritage and civilization would be a sacred, even spiritual calling.

Finally, there is the fate of White America, of European America. There should be nothing more shocking and enraging for a European contemplating America, than the sight of the persecution and decline of our brothers of blood and spirit across the Atlantic. European-Americans are massively underrepresented in many critical areas of American society, such as elite academia and the media, not to mention the financing of the Democratic Party. European-Americans are being physically displaced and their historic nation and communities are being destroyed as an explicit objective of the U.S. government, in favor of creating what President Barack Hussein Obama calls “a hodgepodge of folks.” What’s more, these injustices and this destruction are being legitimized and enforced by the systematic demonization of European-Americans in academia and the media. There are severe punishments meted out to anyone who would explicitly, and often merely implicitly, defend ethnic European interests, even as other groups such as Jews, Blacks, and Hispanics systematically organize to defend their own.

This persecution of the Europeans of the New World must be intolerable to all Europeans of the Old World, and we must organize to come to their aid, lest they end up like the extinct Europeans of Saint-Domingue and Rhodesia. Conversely, if European-Americans emancipate themselves first, then it will be their duty to join in the struggle to liberate the European motherland.

All European peoples must be vitally concerned with the freedom and right-to-life of all other European peoples, and above all, of those on both sides of the Atlantic. That is the great struggle of our time, our great project, answering both the call of the blood, and the call of the stars.

It’s against our principles to defend our interests. As near as I can tell, this is the definition of the “true conservatism” of the Beltway Right. And it is this we are supposed to defend by voting for anyone besides Donald Trump.

These mediocrities and frauds, conmen and shills, glorified corporate lobbyists masquerading as landed gentry draped in middlebrow frippery,, now face the greatest threat in their despicable history. Trump cannot be bought, and that fact alone is a mortal threat to a conservative establishment that has always functioned as a product rather than a “movement.”

It must be restated that the case against Trump as a “liberal” is pathetically thin. Trump is secretly a Democrat and a Hillary stooge, we are told, even though, in fact, Trump was a loyal Republican who defended the Bush/Quayle ticket in 1988. The autistic focus on eminent domain and subsidies, all policies supported by Cruz, Bush, Rubio, et. al when it serves their purposes, is practically self-discrediting.

Trump has publicly identified as pro-life since 2011, and abortion is a judicial issue at this point anyway (as Rush Limbaugh concedes), but pro-life women urge people in South Carolina not to vote Trump for both dubious and feminist reasons and the conservative movement cheers. Meanwhile, we are told Marco Rubio is a “full throated conservative,” even though, some two years ago, he worked with Chuck Schumer to pass an amnesty and immigration bill.

Trump has perhaps the strongest explicit pro-gun position of any candidate, carries a gun himself, and is even preaching the gospel of firearms ownership to the Europeans. Yet Ted Cruz bizarrely tells us Trump would “abolish the Second Amendment.”

Movement conservative love Morton Blackwell counsel that “personnel is policy,” and Trump has recruited one of Jeff Sessions’s top staffers as a senior policy advisor. Meanwhile, Marco Rubio’s campaign is run by the same staff members who tried to push through the Gang of Eight bill. Ted Cruz’s campaign team is littered with former staffers for pro-amnesty Republicans like George W. Bush, John McCain, and Rick Perry. Jeb Bush is surrounded by a campaign staff that could serve as a directory of the GOP Establishment.

Arguably, Trump is more of a “movement conservative” than most other candidates in the race. More importantly, he possesses the unique ability to shift the Overton Window in the “movement’s” direction. As Peter Brimelow said, any political grouping other than the Stupid Party would rejoice at the coming of such a transformative figure. Rush Limbaugh observed that Trump has built the kind of coalition the GOP claims it wants. Yet from the GOP Establishment to Conservatism Inc., from the Southern Baptist Convention to the Club for Growth, the Powers that Be in the American Right are all aligned against Donald J. Trump.

We’ve long been accustomed to the conservative movement’s bait-and-switch, in which a conference begins with thundering bromides against “Cultural Marxism” and ends with pleas to make sure Jane Fonda and Lena Dunham don’t have to pay the estate tax.

But now it’s becoming something bigger. It’s not just that Donald Trump is not a “real conservative.” Now, if you support him, you are also not a “real conservative.” Phyllis Schlafly, Sarah Palin, Pat Buchanan, Congressman Virgil Goode, and many others are apparently off the island, if they hadn’t been purged already. And the flunkies who pass for intellectuals in this degenerate racket furiously insult and demean the evil White men who support Trump in terms they would never use against the Republican “outreach voters” who monolithically support the Democrat Party.

Having already passed into the realm of farce some time ago, we threaten to slip the bonds of reality itself when we see the maniacal clown Glenn Beck projecting about Donald Trump being a psychopath. When Mitt Romney spoke at Liberty University in 2012, he took care to distinguish his Mormon faith from the evangelical Christianity of his audience. Now, we have Beck, a non-Christian by the standards of most evangelicals, pronouncing judgment on Trump as if he’s an authority. This, as contemptible charlatans like Kenneth Copeland, who openly scam their desperate deluded flocks, preach that Ted Cruz was “called and anointed” by God to be president.

The transparent attempt to pitch the woo at the feeble-minded may work, at least in some states. Though most polls show Trump winning South Carolina, internal polling shows the race much closer because of surging evangelical support for Cruz. Cruz’s strategy of turning out evangelicals based on cultural cues, rather than appeals to concrete interests, has already proved its effectiveness in Iowa. As New Hampshire showed, Cruz’s coalition isn’t large enough to win most states, but he could stop Trump in the SEC states, thus clearing the way for the man the Beltway Right really wants, Marco Rubio.

It didn’t have to be this way. For most of the campaign, Ted Cruz carefully followed in Trump’s wake, letting Trump take the hits as he cleared out space for Cruz, making the Texas Senator look more “moderate” by comparison. Commentators like Laura Ingraham dreamed of a Cruz/Trump “anti-Establishment” and “populist” alliance, which would transform the conservative movement. Trump himself used to speak of Cruz as a Vice-Presidential pick, saying in mock regret during one debate that the problem with Cruz’s Canadian birth is that it would make it hard for Donald to “bring him along for the ride.” Now, this potential alliance is in ruins.

As I look up from my hentai collection for a moment, I have to acknowledge our good friend “The” Rick Wilson, who you know is frantically reloading Radix over and over again while sobbing hysterically. Wilson was right when he observed that Cruz can’t slavishly praise Trump as a hero and copy all of his positions for months, only to suddenly declare that Trump was actually a liberal all along. If Cruz is supposedly so brilliant, why is he apparently only noticing this now? And why are all those other “true conservatives” who supported Trump for months only now deciding he’s an evil “progressive”?

What Trump is showing is that there is no “true conservatism.” It’s a scam, and at some point, the deliberate refusal to understand constitutes a moral failing. The attacks on Trump, up to this point, were not generated so much by ideology as by Trump’s refusal to speak the vocabulary and respect the authorities of the conservative subculture. Trump was a movement unto himself, outside the control of the Beltway Right. As the Beltway Right is itself one giant misdirection effort, it had to target Trump to make sure the scam rolls on.

But at the last debate, the stakes were raised dramatically. Trump violated the great taboo of the 21st century GOP by directly attacking George W. Bush and the invasion of Iraq. In the general election, this could prove to be an advantage. Assuming Hillary Clinton can scrape and claw her way to the nomination, Trump will be able to unload on the venomous and decrepit shrew for voting for the war and presiding over the rise of the Islamic State in both Mesopotamia and North Africa. Unfortunately, in the Republican primary, this is a gamble, as, incredibly, an overwhelming majority of Republican voters still believe removing Saddam Hussein was the “right thing to do” and voters in South Carolina still respect George W. Bush.

This doesn’t mean, however, that Republican voters are simply stupid. There is an element of counter-signaling at work. Most left-wing antiwar protesters really did hate the country and hate American soldiers, mostly because America and its armed forces were seen as a stand-in for “Whites.” Conservatives, tactical reactionaries that they are, stood by “the troops” in response.

But the policy itself was a disaster. Thousands of Americans died so that noodle-armed neoconservatives could boast about bringing democracy to the Arabs. It is not fair to say that American lives were wasted in the Iraq War. That is giving Bush and his cronies too much credit. If Bush had simply shot thousands of American troops at random, it would have been less harmful.

Today, the United States of America is a de facto ally of the Islamic State, which benefited not just from the Iraq War but from the money and arms thrown at “moderate rebels” in another misguided effort to overthrow Syria’s Bashar al-Assad. In other words, American troops died to benefit people who hate them. Everyone involved—with the exception of Beltway politicos, defense contractors, and foreign interests such as the Israelis and the Saudis—is worse off. And as a bonus, thousands of enemies were imported from Iraq into the United States and Europe. We fought them over there so that in a few years we’d get to fight them here.

Now, Trump has openly challenged the war that the conservative movement defended as the defining issue of the American Right. John Podhoertz, who, we know, has the best interests of Middle America at heart, is outraged at Trump’s lèse majesté against George W. Bush. David French, who we know is a “true conservative” because of his adopted Black trophy kids, says this is the ultimate proof that Trump is really a “Democrat.” Bill Kristol promises Republican voters will finally say “enough.” But these and other authors all concede that if Trump can win South Carolina after this, he can’t be stopped. More importantly, as they explicitly state, if Trump wins, men (I use the term loosely) like Podhoertz, Kristol, and French no longer have a place in the reconstituted GOP.

Trump may have gone too far, too soon by putting the Iraq War and George W. Bush on the agenda. If he had played it safe in the recent debate, he’d be assured of victory. This is the state, after all, that constantly re-elects Lindsey Graham. But from the point of view of the alt Right, it’s the best thing that could have happened.

This Saturday’s vote is a referendum on Conservatism Inc. The bitter Cruz/Trump feud ensures Trump’s nationalism can’t be co-opted or pawned off. The only question is whether, after everything that’s happened since 9/11, Republicans are willing to let themselves be fooled yet again. If they rebel, and Trump can win in South Carolina, he’ll have redefined the American Right.

The Beltway Right may have fatally overplayed its hand. Faced with a candidate they couldn’t fully control, Conservatism Inc. decided to claim Trump was never “one of us.” But to its horror, the Beltway Right is discovering most of its constituents were never really “conservative” to begin with. They were always implicitly nationalist, and the only reason they voted for these “true conservatives,” who outsourced American jobs and sent American soldiers to die for foreign interests, was because Whites were never given any other damn choice.

To borrow a term beloved of the Beltway Right, the conservative movement is trying to keep its White serfs trapped on the conservative planation. They know if Trumpian nationalism triumphs, a more authentic form of White Identity politics can’t be far behind.

Conservatism is saved, everyone! The stalwart, God-fearing sons of the soil in the Hawkeye State defended the Constitution from that wicked agrarian populist from New York City, the would-be Emperor Trump. As I predicted, Cruz’s win allowed Glenn Beck to preen, and he duly called it the first time he had felt “true victory” since Reagan. Speaking about Reagan from his fantasy White House set, the pasty Beck moaned, “I loved. I adored. I wanted him.” (And they say the alt Right is too gay. . .)

John Podhoretz, who is not actually a person but a tulpa created by anti-Semitic stereotypes given form and reality, was more blunt: “The Jews win!”

The Jews win! https://t.co/la9A5AvSLo

— John Podhoretz (@jpodhoretz) February 2, 2016

National Review took credit for the victory in true Conservatism, Inc. style, by sending out a fundraising email praising its own “bold and intelligent stand” against Trump. It mocked Trump’s claim NR was dying by saying: “Friends, we have been ‘dying, dying’ for 60 years. And we intend to keep on dying for another 60.”

And they are right. The Beltway Right has been dying for 60 years. The “principles” it has to defend against supposed threats like Trump are constantly reinvented, and its sacred “values,” redefined. Forever in retreat, failing to even conserve the nation itself, Conservatism, Inc. allows the sophists to eke out a living while running out the clock on Western Civilization. If you can’t get a real job and are too cowardly to act in defense of your own people, you and your silly little friends can pass around notes about how the “conservatism” that once half-heartedly defended Southern segregation can now goofily champion the GOP as the “Party of Civil Rights.”

But National Review is right in that even a dying deity has power. This fetid Corpse God will eternally rot away in its Northern Virginia mausoleum, the tributes of donors and the ritual sacrifices of its own followers feeding its eternal death throes. There will always be a “conservative” movement of some kind. It may even be in power. The model the American Right seems to want to follow is the Conservative Party in the UK, where flabby castrati hand over their civilization to existential enemies but exploit the carefully channeled outrage of their constituents to enjoy the spoils of office and the illusion of real power.

This is not to say the kosher conservatives lack influence. They may be impotent when it comes to confronting the Left, but they can effectively police the Right. And the Cuckservatives have handicapped Trump, as much as we may hate to admit it. (In turn, the “center-right” in Europe is similarly preventing nationalist parities from gaining power and responding to the Islamic invasion.)

Though Trump remains the national frontrunner in most polls, he has lost support as of late from self-styled “very conservative” voters. These were once an important part of his broad-based coalition, drawn to his side not so much because of policy but because of Trump’s ability to enrage the far Left and push back against “political correctness.” Following the defection of many of these supporters, Trump’s remaining strength is from self-defined “moderate” and “liberal” Republicans. Cruz, buoyed by the sudden attacks on Trump as “not a real conservative” and a “liberal,” decisively wins over “very conservative” voters and supporters of the Tea Party.

Luckily for Trump, New Hampshire is an ideal state for his constituency to deliver him a desperately needed victory. However, Marco Rubio is also tapping into some of Trump’s support from the Left. Polls after Iowa show most voters who decided late broke for Marco Rubio, largely because of Rubio’s perceived “electability.” Trump’s coalition is thus being squeezed from two fronts. Moderate Republicans who want to win may defect if they suspect Trump can’t deliver victory, and Cruz appeals to the true-believing “movement conservatives.”

The sudden conservative conventional wisdom that “Trump is a liberal” is a stretch, to say the least. Ted Cruz, the supposed paragon of the movement, spent the vast majority of his campaign shamelessly cozying up to Trump and refusing to criticize him. When Republican candidates like Rubio, Cruz, and Bush can’t even defend their own positions from only a few years ago, it’s absurd to fault Trump’s comments from decades ago. Trump’s stances on taxes, guns, Common Core, and his stated commitment to “repeal and replace” Obamacare place him firmly within the conservative mainstream. Yet the official conservative movement has decisively turned against him.

Russell Kirk famously defined conservatism as the “negation of ideology.” It’s tempting to say contemporary American conservatism has been transformed into an ideological movement in an almost idealized form, with struggling Middle Americans ready to go to war over ethanol subsidies. And Cruz’s superior organization was able to convince voters who were leaning towards Trump to defect because Cruz was more “pure” on the conservative checklist.

But at a deeper level, the reasons why the “very conservative” voters are turning against Trump are less about policy and more about intra-movement politics. Take Steve Deace, for example, an Iowa talk-show host and Washington Times columnist who looks exactly like you would expect; he was euphoric about Trump’s defeat. He boasted: “Forgive me, it’s fun kicking bullies like Mr. Trump in this [sic] shins.” Deace mocked those who don’t understand how “hayseeds” like him believe in an “all powerful God” like Ted Cruz supposedly does. Deace recycled the David Barton theory about America being founded by Christian conservatives and said the Founding Fathers cited the Bible more than any “philosopher.”

What this represents is not just an alternate history of America, but a self-contained alternate reality. And though Trump made some impressive inroads—six months ago, who would have expected Trump to take 2nd in Iowa?—Trump decisively lost evangelicals to Cruz, who responded to the latter’s appeals to unite the “body of Christ.” Trump’s appeal to Christians was that he would protect them from both cultural assaults and Islam. Cruz’s appeal was that he was (supposedly) one of them. The latter approach won. “Signaling” triumphed over an appeal to collective interest. As entrance polls showed a plurality of voters wanted somebody who “shares my values.”

If this sounds familiar, it should. In 2004, evangelicals turned out in huge numbers to support George W. Bush, who was considered one of their own (despite his upbringing and privilege). One of the issues that turned out these voters was the Bush Administration’s supposed support for a Federal Marriage Amendment to ban homosexual marriage. Naturally, once Bush was re-elected, he promptly forgot about this promise and turned his attention to screwing around with their Social Security. Ken Mehlman, the homosexual Jew who led the RNC during this campaign, naturally came out a few years later and began working to legalize homosexual marriage.

There’s no scenario where Cruz actually does something about homosexual marriage. Nor is there any scenario where he can really do more about abortion than any other Republican president. But many evangelicals want to see one of their own as a kind of exemplar of their values. “Consistent conservatism,” in practice, means signaling on moral issues and delivering on the practical concessions demanded by the Donor Class. It means a willingness to compromise on issues like trade and immigration and the desire to go to the mat on cuts to Medicare. And if the average evangelical’s standard of living continues to decline and their jobs are given to foreigners—well, that’s just more proof the End Times are coming, right?

There’s condescension involved here, an echo of Barack Obama’s denigration of those who “cling to their guns and religion.” But at a certain point, it’s deserved. Evangelical Christians are so obliviously used as cannon fodder by people who don’t care about them that they truly live up to the term “useful idiots.”

The same pattern holds with “true conservatives” as a whole. Conservatism isn’t a temperament, an ideology, or even really a movement. It’s a subculture. Cues like “ethanol subsidies,” “government spending,” or “the Constitution” function the same way as Cruz’s Scriptural references did among evangelicals. Cruz simply out campaigned Trump, but Trump was also handicapped because he fundamentally doesn’t speak the language.

Indeed, the latest tactic against Trump is Jeb digging up Barbara Bush to lecture him about his language. Perhaps Trump should act more “respectable” by calling Rainbow Rubio a “queer” and threatening to “sock him in his goddamned face.”)

As a historical truth, the Religious Right was created by the retreat from desegregation, just as was modern conservatism. But we need to remember most of those involved in both these subcultures really do believe their own propaganda. Calling someone a #Cuckservative is less likely to fill him with shame than give him a warm, fuzzy feeling that he is remaining true to “principles”—in other words, it grants him that sense of moral superiority he so desperately desires.

Of course, those involved in the Religious Right and conservatism are suckers, perhaps well-meaning suckers, but suckers. Their ideology is simply a product cynically dispensed by those with power. The intellectual backing for it is increasingly thin. And especially when it comes to something like evangelical support for Israel, it’s easy to imagine how quickly the spell can be broken with resources put behind different leaders.

The same holds true for American conservatism. If Pat Buchanan had defeated George H.W. Bush in 1992, the American Right could have been reconstituted. Buchanan spoke the movement’s language (and still does), but his nationalism and dissents from official conservatism on Israel, trade, and war meant that the movement would have been transformed into a distinctly new one with a different focus and character.

Trump is targeted for the same reason. A Trump victory in the GOP would provide a whole new vocabulary and set of cultural signals to unite the American Right. National Review’s war on Buchanan and Trump has never been about defeating the Left (for conservatives have no real interest in defeating the Left). It is about defeating us. As they say in their own fundraising appeals, losing, and slowly “dying,” is just part of the plan.

Did the 5th century Roman watching the Germanic tribes storm through his gates know his world was ending? As half of Europe perished, thrashing in the final agonies of the black death, did some perceptive observer know the end of an era was at hand? As the Berliner watched his countrymen tear down the wall, did he know that his actions would cause the fall of the Soviet Union? As the Parisian relaxing on a Friday night heard the shots ring out in the Bataclan, did he in the terror of the moment suspect that the events signified not just the end of his life, but the hollowness of his social order, and the system of thought from which that order sprang?

The 5th century Roman did not know that from the ashes of Rome would arise a new civilization, feudal Europe and that the fall was the result of a loss of vitality centuries in the making. He only knew that his future had become uncertain. The 14th century European did not know that end of the Feudal system was at hand, he only knew that order had been replaced with chaos, and tried to cope as best he could. The Berliner taking a hammer to the wall did not know the Soviet Union was doomed, he only sensed the weakness of the East German Soviet puppet state, and capitalized on it. Even if he did not fully understand it on an intellectual level, he sensed instinctively that the Communist ideology had lost legitimacy. These brief moments were distillations of broad historical trends which were the products of decades, or even centuries, foretelling the end of a way of life. In a single instant confidence in the established order of things was shattered; creating the seeds of a new order.

As we watch the chaos unfold in Europe, we know that something is changing. As the refugees pillage Europe, seeds of doubt are planted. As we watch Ferguson and Baltimore burn, we begin to doubt “E Pluribus Unum”. We feel a certain uneasiness. We have a sense of uncertainty, of foreboding, that we can’t quite put our finger on. We know that what was certain has become uncertain, the unquestionable has become open to question. We, like the 5th century Roman, the 13th century European, and 20th century Berliner know that something is ending.

What we are witnessing is not a momentary setback for the current order, we are witnessing a paradigm shift on par with the fall of Rome, the end of the Feudal era, the beginning of the Enlightenment, and the end of Communism. We are witnessing the death of system of thought which has been dominant in the Western world of the last three centuries. Liberalism is losing legitimacy. It is losing legitimacy because Liberal regimes can no longer defend their borders, win their wars, pay their debts, or protect their citizens.

At first glance, the assertion that Liberalism is losing legitimacy seems laughable. Liberal regimes are the most militarily and economically powerful entities on the face of the earth that have ever existed in human history. America, a nation founded upon liberal principles, has become the world’s sole super power as a result of winning the Cold War. The multi-polar world of the Cold War has quickly become a uni-polar one in which the United States is a hegemon: dominant militarily, economically, and culturally.

Political theorist Francis Fukuyama speculated that this development constituted the end of history. The end of history, according to Fukuyama, is the idea that “a remarkable consensus concerning the legitimacy of liberal democracy as a system of government had emerged throughout the world…as it conquered rival ideologies like hereditary monarchy, fascism, and most recently communism… liberal democracy may constitute the ‘end point of mankind’s ideological evolution’ and the “final form of human government”. The decade following the Cold War would seem to confirm Fukuyama’s assertion, America boomed economically due to the tech bubble and asserted its will through the use of military power in the First Gulf War and in the Balkans.

Liberalism’s ideological hegemony will be its undoing. Its strength, bolstered by American military and economic global supremacy, is the source of Liberalism’s collapse. The post-Cold War era is the first time Liberal regimes have operated without constraint. Internationally, Liberalism was restrained by having to deal with major illiberal powers which could hamper its actions. Domestically, the situation is similar, in the past Liberal ideology was restrained by countervailing forces such as nationalism, traditional religious beliefs, and racial consciousness. These restraints have lost legitimacy in the eyes of elites which control the institutions that create and disseminate culture. For the first time in history, Liberalism is free of restraint internationally and domestically; Liberal regimes have almost total freedom of action. This strength has allowed the contradictions inherent in the ideology to fully manifest themselves.

These contradictions stem from Enlightenment philosophy, from which Liberalism receives its intellectual and moral foundation, and its founding mythology. Enlightenment philosophy holds that man is by nature a rational being, and that through the use of reason man can discover both truths about himself and the natural world, this is the epistemological core of the Enlightenment, from which the scientific method is derived. It also holds that man in a state of nature is solitary, equal, and free; that the individual is by nature autonomous, and predates the community, which was founded by these autonomous individuals to secure their property. Community is regarded as artificial, as are all social hierarchies. For this reason, individual liberty and equality are the core ethical beliefs of the Enlightenment, the political expression of which is liberal democracy. As a result of its belief in the primacy and equality of the individual, and the artificiality of community, Liberalism is by necessity a universalist ideology.

The epistemological and ethical components of the Enlightenment conflict with one another. Casual observation, the record of history, and scientific study reveal that human equality is a myth, that man is by nature hierarchical, that man is a social being rather than a solitary one, and that community, and the defining feature of community, identity, are essential parts of what it means to be human. Any ideology which denies these truths is doomed to fail. Thus it is no accident that at the peak of their power Liberal regimes cannot win their wars, pay their debts, secure their borders, or protect their citizens.

The goal of U.S. foreign policy for the last thirteen years has been to attempt to bring about the end of history, to establish a global Liberal order. In service of this goal, America, and other Liberal regimes have attempted to use military force to convert the Muslim world into secular, liberal democracies. Such efforts were doomed to failure from the start because they are dependent on the assumption that the majority of Muslims have same self-conception and desires as a Postmodern European. Efforts to democratize Iraq could succeed only if the Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish tribesmen of Iraq conceived of themselves primarily as individuals who desired “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. This is not the case, the identity of the average Iraqi is defined by tribal, religious, and family ties. The average Iraqi conceives of himself as a Shia, Sunni, or Kurd, not as an atomized, autonomous individual. His family, tribal and religious ties are the foundations of his identity, thus any attempt to impose a system of government which is organized around the autonomy and equality of the individual is doomed to failure.

Liberalism requires a high trust society in order to function, such as those found in Western Europe, and the United States. These high trust societies are the product of millennia of evolutionary development, and centuries of historical trends. The Middle East, by contrast, is comprised of low trust societies, thus any attempt to turn these nations into liberal democracies is akin to building a house without a foundation. Liberal regimes cannot accept this because to do so would be an admission that the core ethical ideas of the Enlightenment, individual autonomy and human equality are not universally applicable. To admit this is to deny that the idea that “all men are created equal” and that their foremost desire is “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.

Liberal regimes cannot pay their debts because Liberal regimes do not have the population base necessary to sustain a modern welfare state. All Liberal regimes have below replacement birth rates, creating a situation in which there are not enough workers to produce the wealth required to provide for medical care for retirees and benefits for those unable to find work in an economy increasingly geared towards those on the right-hand side of the bell curve. As this trend is found in every Liberal regime, it is not an accident. This fall in population is the direct result of the sexual revolution, the deconstruction of the family, and the pursuit of economic growth at all costs, all of which are a natural outgrowth of Liberalism’s belief in the autonomy and equality of the individual.

The sexual revolution separated sex from fertility; it desacralized sex, made it just another recreational activity instead of the foundation of the family. The patriarchal family itself came under attack by feminism, which objected to male leadership in both the public and private sphere, and actively worked to delegitimize the family and the mores and institutions which supported it. This project was aided by businesses which wished to increase the supply of labor, thus reducing its value. All of these trends contributed to falling fertility rates, and are products of principles of equality and individual autonomy followed to their logical conclusion.
Liberal regimes cannot defend their borders or protect their citizens from crime because Liberalism cannot delineate an “Us” or a “Them”. They are unable to do this because Liberalism contends that human society is merely an aggregation of autonomous and equal individuals each pursuing their own rational self interest. It thus must deny the existence of the Other. It is not possible to conceive of an Other because to do so would be to “discriminate”. Discrimination is the act the valuing of one thing over another, thus the act by its very nature violates the Liberal moral principle of equality. Because of this, a Liberal regime cannot consider questions of identity when shaping its immigration policy without contradicting its highest moral principles. It is no accident that Liberal regimes are importing millions of “refugees” who have open disdain for the values and culture of Europe and have nothing in common with the European populations which they are “enriching”. It also why Liberal regimes throughout the world have long allowed their inner cities to become third world slums.

The inability of Liberal regimes to fulfill the functions and responsibilities of a state are the direct result of the contradictions within the ideology which were previously suppressed by competition with illiberal powers at the international level, and by piety, nationalism, and racial consciousness domestically. These failures have eroded the legitimacy of the ideology both in the eyes of their own citizens and internationally. This, in itself, is not enough to ensure its demise. For that to occur there must be an alternative system of thought strong enough to challenge it. This system of thought must have a mythic foundation capable of appealing to all levels of consciousness, as well as a philosophic core which is compelling to the few capable of philosophic thought. The job of our movement is to create a system of thought capable of replacing the dying Liberal status quo. We must take advantage of the chaos caused by the current paradigm shift to create a new order which is life affirming.

Sources:

F. Roger Devlin, Sexual Utopia in Power.

Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man.

We seem to be at a turning point in the rise of European consciousness. Europe was lawlessly invaded by 2 million African and Islamic settlers last year. Never before have so many become aware of the demographic changes underway and the threats they pose to our continent. Never have so many witnessed, either in the media or in their daily lives, the petty criminality, mass murder, and rape that is occurring in almost all great European cities as a result. And, thanks to the all-pervasiveness of the Internet, the power of media gatekeepers to control the narrative on these events is weaker than ever. Identitarian memes have taken on a life of their own.

Yet in France, the official nationalist party, the Front National, has been nothing but a spectator to these developments. The party progresses steadily, her humble cadres winning remunerated elected offices with negligible powers and enjoying media appearances for the leadership. But the party is a strange marginal artifact: Neither allowed to participate in the rising explicitly racial discourse, nor allowed to participate in the normal “democratic” politics of the country. The FN is in a strange no-man’s-land, despite being the single most popular party in the country (“the first party of France”).

Of course, divides on race and political correctness are nothing new at the FN. Numerous French intellectuals – Alain de Benoist, Dominique Venner, and Guillaume Faye among them – have long urged French nationalists to embrace a European and Identitarian destiny. Jean-Marie Le Pen was always more of a populist than a racialist, having a Muslim elected on his party ticket during the Algerian War and having a right-hand man (the amiable Bruno Gollnisch) married to a Japanese.

Yet, Marine Le Pen and her spin doctor Florian Philippot went further than her father in purging her party of anything the media would find disagreeable. Finally, Jean-Marie was kicked out of his own party for defending the White race and refusing to call Marshal Philippe Pétain a traitor.

Can Marine Le Pen’s symbolic patricide finally prove her virtue to the media-political gatekeepers? It is unlikely even this supreme and dishonoring sacrifice will prove sufficient. As the aged Jewish political journalist Jean-Pierre Elkabbach explained to her on public radio, when Le Pen said she had yet to visit Auschwitz:

Jean-Pierre Elkabbach: In the meantime you should watch Shoah, the film by Claude Lanzmann. [Le Pen smiles.] That would be an opportunity to learn. No?

Marine Le Pen: But learn? I know full well, sir. [. . .]

Jean-Pierre Elkabbach: Have you seen the film? Have you seen the document? You haven’t watched Shoah for nine hours1 and you haven’t been to Auschwitz. You see there are still many things . . . But perhaps between now and the next show you will have done one or the other.2

As Léon Bloy once said: “Once you’ve pissed your pants, you may as well shit them too.”

Now you may think this exchange betrays some arrogance on the journalist’s part against the representative of France’s leading political party. But Marine Le Pen is the impudent shiksa begotten by the man who , allegedly, is the most dangerous goy to have graced the face of Europe since He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named blew out his brains 70 years ago.

I am not one to overly criticize people who are actually getting their hands dirty and trying to do something difficult. And what is more difficult than politics? Especially for someone who must, in the face of the media, walk the line of heresy. If Marine Le Pen’s “Perónist” strategy pays off, I will not complain. And, given that the French Jewish community appears increasingly divided on the FN (many fearing Islam more) and that half of French police and military personnel support the FN, I do not think conquering the French state legally is a completely vain hope. This would hardly be a panacea but would mean a revolutionary change in the entire European situation, in which our demographic and cultural struggle would be pursued in massively improved circumstances.

Every strategy should be attempted.

At the same time, there is a sense in which the FN has simply been house-trained by the media. They haven’t said anything new, let alone anything of interest, since 2011.

I am rather struck at the parallel between the mainstream media’s relationship with “authorized” nationalist parties and that of the German authorities with the press in wartime occupied France. Dominique Venner informs us that after only a couple weeks of actual censorship, the Kommandantur could then have a fairly hands-off approach as the editors knew how to self-censor appropriately . . .

But other Right-wing politicians have not been so shy in exploiting the migrant crisis and trying to shift the country’s politics in an Identitarian direction. That is, on focusing less on bashing the European Union (whatever its real faults) and moving towards ethnic realism or even outright White advocacy. That the nation is not simply, as the FN’s current program might suggest, a means of defending France’s obese welfare state and “social acquis” (French for “gibs”).

The most impressive of these politicians is probably the FN’s former youth leader, the charismatic Julien Rochedy, but he has decided to withdraw from direct politics for now.

Unfortunately, most of the other politicians moving in this direction are rather mediocre, particularly in signaling their inoffensiveness to the powers that be.

One is Robert Ménard, the former secretary-general of Reporters Sans Frontières and the current mayor of the southern town of Béziers. He instituted ethnic statistics (a taboo in France) and has opposed the opening of kebab shops in the name of France’s “Judeo-Christian tradition.”

Another is the mainstream conservative politician Nadine Morano, who made history by being, to my knowledge, the first person to explicitly defend the White race on primetime French television. “We are a Judeo-Christian country – as General [Charles] de Gaulle used to say – of white race,” she said. Of course, Morano consciously misquoted the General: He referred to France as White and Christian, but not Jewish, and famously termed the Jews “an elite people, self-confident and dominating.”

Morano was then, in her own words, “lynched” by the media, to the joy of anti-Judaic activists Dieudonné and Alain Soral: You see, adding “Judeo-” didn’t protect you. In fact, she was not too harshly punished and one neoconservative Jew, the usually hysterical Alain Finkielkraut, actually defended her statement.

Finally, there is Aymeric Chauprade, a once-promising academic who had lectured on geopolitics at the French War College. He was kicked out for examining the September 11 Attacks a little too closely. Chauprade then joined the FN as Marine Le Pen’s foreign policy adviser and was elected under the FN ticket as a Member of the European Parliament. He has since been kicked out of the party, partly for making too many independent politically-incorrect statements and a bizarre incident in which he helped two French pilots in the Dominican Republic escape drug charges.

Chauprade is now signaling hard his willingness to be recruited by the counter-jihad movement to engage Europe in the clash of civilizations against Islam. He made a big speech deeming France to be at war with Islamismwhile otherwise being pro-immigration and pro-assimilation (“France is much better than a race, it’s a civilization”). He recently made the ludicrous tweet: “The cross and the #kippa# are part of France immemorial, not the headscarf!” We’ll see how this works out for him.

Now I certainly don’t condone these statements, but I understand why they were made. As the head of the official French Jewish lobby (CRIF), the aptly-named Roger Cuckierman, has said: “The Jews are the guardians of democracy.”

That’s a statement worth contemplating. Really.

Anyway, those who are engaged in the metapolitics of cultural struggle have the pleasure of remaining relatively un-compromised. We will not be swayed by some cheap neoconservative knock off: While we honor the memories of Charles Martel and Jan Sobieski, we are not interested in destroying Muslim lands on behalf of the American Empire or Israel. Our only interest is the survival and flourishing of our people.

The FN, as a semi-authorized nationalist party, is the fruit of the power of media gatekeepers. Yet, the media’s power itself is waning, bleeding out to the self-organizing communities of the Internet. Something is in the air, even in Germany, where a ruthless anti-nationalist dictatorship rules. Our traditional nationalist parties, who are part of the System, could well be swept away with it. The fire rises.