Radix Journal

Radix Journal

A radical journal

Author: Richard Spencer

The Last White President

It’s worth pointing out that Hillary is not an extension of the Barack Obama phenomenon.  

Yes, it’s true that American politics is a giant, billion-dollar, 18-month “realty show.” To a great extent, Americans don’t vote on issues (even if they claim otherwise). They vote on “who they want to have a beer with” (George W. Bush); they vote on having “the first Black president” (Barak Obama) or, in Hillary’s case, “the first women.”  

That said, for millennials and leftist idealists—who, in 2008, were genuinely enthusiastic about Barack Obama and who genuinely felt that he represented a break with “business as usual”— Hillary is a huge disappointment. Hillary does not have a drop of the revolutionary potential so many saw in Barack Obama. Hillary is the incarnation of “business as usual” in Washington. She’s not even a “socialist” or “leftist,” as her right-wing detractors say she is. Her “feminism” amounts to putting bossy women like her in charge of institutions.  

I was recently interviewed by the German magazine Zuerst! about Hillary Clinton’s announcement that she will soon become our benign overlord.

Here is the interview in English. (No doubt, all of this will sound more profound auf Deutsch.)


1. Mr. Spencer, Hillary Clinton is running for US presidency. The American-Serbian political writer and analyst Serge Trifkovic wrote: “Hillary R. Clinton will be the next president. A nation capable of electing, and then reelecting, Barack Hussein Obama is perfectly ready to make the most influential woman in the world the most powerful person on this planet.” Do you agree? Does she have a serious chance?

If I were a gambler, I’d put money on the Lady in the Pantsuit. At the moment, she does not have a serious challenger in the Democratic Party, and there are demographic and electoral factors that will make it difficult for a Republican to win the presidency in 2016, or anytime in the foreseeable future.

That said, whenever I hear people use words like “inevitable,” I become suspicious: It’s usually a sign that someone has already peaked. I remember people using “inevitable” in 2007 and ’08 in reference to Hillary’s campaign. We know what happened. . .

2. What is Hillary Clinton´s basic idea of presidency? How would she govern in Washington?

It’s a cocktail: Add in two parts Bill Clinton, one part George W. Bush; and sprinkle in some “hope and change” and “first women in the White house” to taste.

There’s a useful cliché that come from Shakespeare: “What’s past is prologue.” In other words, history informs the future. This holds doubly for Hillary Clinton, who was directly involved with the Bill Clinton and Barak Obama administrations and was actually an ally of George W. Bush, supporting, among other things, his catastrophic attacks on Iraq. Put simply, Hillary is a force of continuity and stability in Washington.

3. Clinton made in the past some aggressive remarks against Iran, Russia and other countries–what type of foreign politics would she do in case she moves into the White House?

Aggressive remarks against Iran, Russia, and other perceived enemies are quite typical for Hillary’s circle of friends and colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike.

The good news is that the unlikelihood of a Republican president means the unlikelihood of ever having “neoconservatives” in a President’s cabinet. These are the real crazy ones, who were behind the Iraq War, who are seeking war with Iran and might even be willing to go to war with Russia over Ukraine.

The bad news is that Hillary, like Obama, will be aligned with “humanitarian interventionists” as well as the established foreign-policy-makers of the past 25 years. (During Hillary’s terms as Secretary of State, Washington bombed Libya and clumsily attempt to ride the wave of the Arab Spring.)

My guess is that in a Hillary presidency, we’ll see a few “little wars” and various “democratization” efforts; but we won’t see “big wars” (i.e., against Russia or Iran). Only Republicans are capable of that kind of madness.

4. Who are the biggest fans of Hillary?

The “Baby Bboomers”—older White Americans. Whatever you want to say about “Gen-Xers” (people in their 30s and 40s, like me) and “Millennials” (people in their 20s), we can’t be blamed for Hillary!

Hillary’s biography and political mentality is very much that of the generation that is now reaching retirement—and thus will be the recipients of trillions in government entitlements over the next 20 years.

Many thought that with Barack Obama, we had—at last—escaped the politics of the Baby Boomers, which were defined by controversies over the Vietnam War and the “culture war.” Apparently, there’s no escape!

It’s also worth pointing out that Hillary is not an extension of the Barack Obama phenomenon.

Yes, it’s true that American politics is a giant, billion-dollar, 18-month “realty show.” To a great extent, Americans don’t vote on issues (even if they claim otherwise). They vote on “who they want to have a beer with” (George W. Bush); they vote on having “the first Black president” (Barak Obama) or, in Hillary’s case, “the first women.”

That said, for millennials and leftist idealists—who, in 2008, were genuinely enthusiastic about Barack Obama and who genuinely felt that he represented a break with “business as usual”— Hillary is a huge disappointment. Hillary does not have a drop of the revolutionary potential so many saw in Barack Obama. Hillary is the incarnation of “business as usual” in Washington. She’s not even a “socialist” or “leftist,” as her right-wing detractors say she is. Her “feminism” amounts to putting bossy women like her in charge of institutions.

5. What are the biggest differences between Hillary Clinton and John McCain?

McCain is a psychopath, whereas Hillary is merely a sociopath.

6. How would the “US American dream” of Hillary Clinton look like?

The meaning of “The American Dream” has changed over time. At one point, the Dream had connotations of self-reliance, independence, and the infinity of the American “frontier.”

For the past 30 years, the Dream has been equated with getting a mortgage for a big house in the suburbs. (That Dream exploded along with the housing bubble in 2008.)

More recently, I’ve noticed that the Dream has become associated with immigration and diversity—the idea that anyone from around the world can journey to the United Staes and become an “American” (whatever that means) based on a shared love of freedom, democracy, shopping, and fast food.

Any successful politician in a democratic system in a diverse country like America cannot have just one base of support. (This is why someone like Ted Cruz, who appeals only to Southern Christians, won’t stand a chance.) Hillary, if she is to be successful, will have to speak to a number of different bases: Baby Boomers, who are seeking economic security; millennials, who have a much more negative economic outlook; and millions of immigrant Hispanic voters, whom she probably can’t relate to.

Many have suggested that we are unlikely to have another Republican President in the foreseeable future. The GOP will have to evolve into something that is no longer defined by White Christians. Whether that’s realistically possible is a big question.

I would add another prediction:

Hillary will be the United States last White president.

No Comments on The Last White President

Speeches from “Beyond Conservatism”

For your listening pleasure, here are the speeches from NPI’s 2015 Winter Gathering, “Beyond Conservatism.” 

For your listening pleasure, here are the speeches from NPI’s 2015 Winter Gathering, “Beyond Conservatism.”

We are in the process of collecting all NPI speeches from the past four years into a stand-alone podcast, which you can subscribe to on iTunes. All audio produced by NPI and Radix can be enjoyed and downloaded at Soundcloud.

If you enjoy these, consider attending NPI’s 2015 Fall Conference, “Become Who We Are,” which will take place in Washington, DC, on October 31.

No Comments on Speeches from “Beyond Conservatism”

Where Have All the White Devils Gone?

Much has changed at Duke since the “pure” year of 2010. Its 2013-14 squad has an all-Black starting lineup. More important, the team does not feature the stand-out White athletes whom Krzyzewski recruited in the past, that is, the smart, tough, cocky, often good-looking players—Ferry, Laettner, Wojo, Redick, Scheyer—whom opposing fans love to hate. 

White Devils” was originally published in March 2010, shortly before Duke University’s men’s basketball team won that year’s National Championship.

Duke’s 2010 team was remarkably White, even for Duke. So was Duke’s final opponent, Butler University, whose “Cinderella” squad was lead by academic All-American Gordon Hayward. The match, considered one of the best Championship games ever played, has since come to be known as “The Hated vs. The Hoosiers.” Krzyzewski would later remember the game, in coded language, as somehow existing outside the realities of “big time” college basketball:

When the teams were out there, nobody watching was thinking, This pro and that pro. Where will they go in the draft? It was just about these kids at Butler and those kids at Duke. The word people kept using with me was pure. It just seemed pure.

Pure.

Much has changed at Duke since 2010. Its 2013-15 squads have had all-Black starting lineups. More important, the team does not feature the stand-out White athletes whom Krzyzewski recruited in the past, that is, the smart, tough, cocky, often good-looking players—Ferry, Laettner, Wojo, Redick, Scheyer—whom opposing fans love to hate.

Deadspin charted the racial makeup of each Duke team since ’94. Though no pattern emerges in terms of wins and loses, what is clear is that these past few years’ teams are Duke’s Blackest, and that its teams have been darkening for the past eight years. In other words, it appears that Duke is becoming just another Division I college basketball program.

It’s worth speculating about what inspired Coach K to buck the dominant recruiting trends in the ’80s, ’90s, and 2000s. It’s also worth asking, What changed?

Perhaps these past years have been an aberration? After all, Duke became noticeably Whiter during the period of 2002 through 2009.

There is reason to believe, however, that Duke and Krzyzewski have engaged in an “image makeover” of the team and university.

The Duke Lacrosse Hoax of several years ago remains important and relevant today not only as an example of prosecutorial misconduct but of how a major university can be mobilized around race hysteria. A scandal occurred, one that, as I wrote at the time, reached the faculty “as a kind of fulfillment of a dream . . . an affirmation of what they always knew.” The facts be damned—committees were convened, anti-hate vigils were held, and the spoils were enjoyed. That is, the existing “diversity” infrastructure in admissions, programming, and curriculum were permanently ratcheted up many notches.

Krzyzewski has been so successful at Duke that a quasi-cult exists around him and his teams; he seems un-fireable and far too powerful to be swayed by the “tenured radicals” on campus or even the administration. But perhaps he was? Or perhaps the Duke Hate finally got to him? In an effort of “civic nationalism” (Coach K is a Republican donor), he may have chosen to create yet another institution that is implicitly White (preppy, disciplined, corporate, etc.) yet explicitly “color blind” (in this case, mostly Black).

So much of my youth was dominated by playing sports (not particularly well, I must admit) and sports fandom. As I’ve reached my 30s, my desire to follow any major team has all but vanished. This is due to age, to be sure, but also to my sense that sports exist as a false consciousness (quite powerful and widespread amongst lower- and middle-class White people) of community, belonging, and victory. As such, contemporary sports block real community, belongings, and feelings of victory.

Nevertheless, Duke’s most memorable (and most hated) players and teams remain as a kind of “alternative reality” to the fate of American sports—and to that of the country itself.

No Comments on Where Have All the White Devils Gone?

Why I Can’t Stand St. Patrick’s Day

Much like Halloween, St. Patrick’s Day has emerged as an excuse to get dressed up, get drunk, and get laid. The same goes for the German festival of Oktoberfest, which is growing in popularity. But Ocktoberfest retains a connection to authenticity and tradition, which I find totally absent in the spring festival of idiots wearing Guinness novelty top hats and obnoxious women screaming while making group selfies.     

I’ve always instinctively disliked St. Patrick’s Day. Growing up in the ‘80s and ‘90s, I was inured to the multicultural calendar of ethnic holidays I didn’t resonate with or understand. But no one ever expected me to actually celebrate Rosh Hashanah—or wear T-shirts that read “I’ve got a little Jewish in me” or pinch anyone not donning a yarmulke. At one point, I started wearing Orange on March 17 . . . though the message was seemingly lost on most everyone I encountered.

Much like Halloween, St. Patrick’s Day has emerged as an excuse to get dressed up, get drunk, and get laid. The same goes for the German festival of Oktoberfest, which is growing in popularity. But Ocktoberfest retains a connection to authenticity and tradition, which I find totally absent in the spring festival of idiots wearing Guinness novelty top hats and obnoxious women screaming while making group selfies.

We moderns, who are living out the End of History, think that cultural festivals are something for those other peoples. The Day of the Dead, the Thai Pongal, and Carnival are for those who haven’t quite entered modernity, who lack our self-consciousness, rootlessness, and irony. In this way, we don’t consider St. Patrick’s Day to be a real holiday at all. But truly, what we celebrate and how we celebrate it reveals who we are, and the shared assumptions amongst Americans of many races.

In The Good Shepard (2006), Robert De Niro’s flawed but fascinating drama about the origins of the CIA, there is a quotable exchange that might be a fitting epigraph for the tombstone of the Anglo-Saxon Protestant elite. It occurs when the blue-blooded Yalie Edward Wilson (Matt Damon) visits the home of an Italian mafia boss, Joseph Palmi, played memorably by Joe Pesci.

Joseph Palmi: Let me ask you something. . . We Italians, we got our families, and we got the church; the Irish, they have the homeland; Jews, their tradition; even the niggers, they got their music. What about you people, Mr. Wilson, what do you have?

Edward Wilson: The United States of America. The rest of you are just visiting.

It’s all too easy to read that last line as an expression of arrogant WASP supremacism—or as Hollywood’s smear of the now-defunct American elite—and overlook its tragic dimension.

Edward Wilson is equal parts “company man” (dutiful, anonymous upper-level manager) and patriotic samurai. He has dedicated himself totally to his agency and to the Cold War, which was imagined as a titanic, all-or-nothing battle for the world. At the end of his life, Wilson is so estranged from his wife and son, he barely seems to know them; his only passion appears to be building model boats in bottles.

Wilson here is an intense example of a general tendency among WASPs to dissolve their ethnic and racial identity into a corporate entity, the United States of America. Wilson is America . . . and isn’t at the same time. The USA is the vehicle for WASP power and identity, but its real essence is that of a mass, managerial bureaucracy and geopolitical administrator. Ultimately, Wilson and his class were also “just visiting”; they were just one more people to occupy the U.S.A.’s upper-levels management positions, and were easily replaced by Liebowitzs, Chens, and even O’Reillys.

St. Patrick’s Day is the celebration of the Underdog—not only the Irish themselves but the perennial, mythic Underdog that is always “just visiting” the United States. What is characteristic about the U.S. is that there is no celebration of the Overdog. There is no St. George’s Day festival, memorializing the people that defined America. In this way, America has no culture. And St. Patrick’s isn’t even about the Irish anymore.

No Comments on Why I Can’t Stand St. Patrick’s Day

Thoughts on “Beyond Conservatism”

I’m just now recovering from last weekend’s conference in Washington, DC—“Beyond Conservatism.” The event was a great success, and I’m proud of what we accomplished.  

I’m just now recovering from last weekend’s event at The National Press Club in Washington, DC—“Beyond Conservatism.” Looking back, I’m proud of what we accomplished.

Around 90 people pre-registered for the conference; over 100 were in the room on Friday evening. Of these, 40 purchased “Millennial” tickets, discounted for those 30-years-old and younger. When I asked how many in the room were under 40-years-old, more than half raised their hands. Not your average “conservative” gathering, to say the least.

The speeches, by Jared Taylor, Peter Brimelow, and myself, were of high quality; and judging by the long, rousing Q&A session that followed, they were quite stimulating. Shortly, we’ll release the audio and video, so I’ll let our talks speak for themselves.

It’s worth mentioning that the conference marked a new and different way of hosting an NPI event. I often feel that activist and political conferences, not only in our movement, have too much of an academic or lecture-hall quality. We go; we sit, passively and individually; we receive information; and perhaps we get a chance to ask a short question of the lecturer at the end. I don’t think this model is bad in itself; after all, there are reasons it has persisted for centuries in academic environments. But I don’t think it’s the only model, or necessarily the best one.

With “Beyond Conservatism,” I tried to combine the social elements of our national events with the intellectual ones. (And let’s be honest, most people don’t really attend conferences to learn something from the speakers; they attend to meet new people and connect with old friends.) So, our room featured a full bar, excellent food, high tables, and plenty of room to move around and network with those in attendance. This could have been chaotic, but in practice the atmosphere was boisterous and warm.

The following Saturday, we hosted a private dinner, which was open to specially invited supporters, writers, and activists. This allowed us to get to know one another and discuss future projects in an even more intimate setting.

After shaking out the cobwebs this past Sunday morning, my thoughts were crystal clear, and they were shared by my close companions: We need to do this again!

We will.

No Comments on Thoughts on “Beyond Conservatism”

Samuel T. Francis (1947-2005)

Francis was one of the most literate and compelling writers to have made a living as a political pundit and Washington, DC, operative. His career also stands as a testament to the power of political correctness and the cowardliness of the self-styled “conservative movement.” With a doctorate from the University of North Carolina and experience as a senatorial advisor, Francis established himself as an arch-conservative columnist at the rightward-leaning *Washington Times*. But his willingness to discuss racial hypocrisy and guilt-mongering–and, more provocative, White identity and pride—unmade his career. He quickly went from insider to outsider and, anticipating subsequent conservative cleansings, he became unmentionable for his erstwhile colleagues.

Today, February 15, marks the 10th anniversary of the death of Samuel T. Francis (1947-2005).

Francis was one of the most literate and compelling writers to have made a living as a political pundit and Washington, DC, operative. His career also stands as a testament to the power of political correctness and the cowardliness of the self-styled “conservative movement.” With a doctorate from the University of North Carolina and experience as a senatorial advisor, Francis established himself as an arch-conservative columnist at the rightward-leaning Washington Times. But his willingness to discuss racial hypocrisy and guilt-mongering–and, more provocative, White identity and pride—unmade his career. He quickly went from insider to outsider and, anticipating subsequent conservative cleansings, he became unmentionable for his erstwhile colleagues.

In the end, Francis’s purging proved a liberation, as he moved beyond Republican politics as a writer, editor, and organizer. One such endeavor was his co-founding of The National Policy Institute. In 2005, at a point when his second career was reaching its culmination, Francis died of an aneurysm at the age of 57.

Sam remains one of the most fondly remembered writers of our movement, but also one of the most misunderstood, particularly when he is equated with “paleoconservatism.” For those revisiting Francis, or discovering him for the first time, the best place to start is his work.

No Comments on Samuel T. Francis (1947-2005)

Brian Williams and the “Culture War”

On the death of Andrew Breitbart three years ago, David Frum remarked, 

He waged a culture war minus the “culture,” as a pure struggle between personalities.     

Frum’s assessment fits equally well for the American right-wing that has come in Breitbart’s wake, which he personified and defined, and parts of which bear his name. “Conservatives” fight a “culture war”—a take-no-prisoners assault on “liberals”—minus the culture, in other words, minus any meaning and consequence.  

On the death of Andrew Breitbart three years ago, David Frum remarked,

He waged a culture war minus the “culture,” as a pure struggle between personalities.

Frum’s assessment is equally fitting for the American right-wing that has come in Breitbart’s wake, which he personified and defined, and parts of which still bear his name. “Conservatives” fight a “culture war”—a take-no-prisoners assault on “liberals”—minus the culture, in other words, minus any meaning and consequence.

Brian Williams was a last bastion of “old media”—not just the cable-news programs that are being displaced by the Web and social media but the three-network monolith, presided over by square-jawed, paternalistic “newsmen.” Lacking his predecessors’ authority, and their Midwestern speaking style, Williams existed as a kind of parody of upper-middle-class Whiteness: the highly imitable and dorky voice; the bearing that might read as snobby, but is the mask of an uptight coward; and the 10-foot pole, perennially lodged. . . To call Williams a “liberal” is to falsely assume that he has a soul. Williams is, like so many high-IQ White people, a high-functioning empty shell, an upper-level manager of a declining system.[1]

You could say that American society is “totalitarian,” in the sense that almost every public event is immediately politicized and “culturalized”—and done so using a repeated Left/Right, Red/Blue, Good Guys/Bad Guys dichotomy. Thus, Brian Williams (or American Sniper or George Zimmerman or whatever) is enveloped, not only in politics, but in unarticulated hopes, dreams, and fears of everyday White people.

How we break through this hegemonic cycle—how we fight a real culture war, and not the endless phony one—remains one of the most important questions for our movement.



  1. The average age of an NBC Nightly News viewer is reportedly 53; I thought it would have been much higher. For what it’s worth, the average age of a FOX News viewer is 68, with CNN and MSNBC viewers only barely younger.
No Comments on Brian Williams and the “Culture War”

Washington Summit Publishers's Books for 2015

In 2015, Washington Summit Publishers will release two volumes: the second edition of Richard Lynn’s _Race Differences in Intelligence_ and a new book, Raymond Wolters’s _The Long Crusade: Profiles in Educaiton Reform, 1967-2014_.

In 2015, Washington Summit Publishers will release two volumes: the second edition of Richard Lynn’s Race Differences in Intelligence and a new book, Raymond Wolters’s The Long Crusade: Profiles in Educaiton Reform, 1967-2014.

Lynn’s Race Differences in Intelligence was the first full volume WSP published in 2006, and it quickly became a classic.

RACE DIFFERENCES IN INTELLIGENCE: AN EVOLUTIONARY ANALYSIS

Second, Expanded Edition

RICHARD LYNN

Through more than 50 years of academic research, Richard Lynn has distinguished himself as one of the world’s preeminent authorities on intelligence, personality, and human biodiversity. Race Differences in Intelligence is his essential work on this most controversial and consequential topic. Covering more than 500 published studies that span 10 population groups, Lynn demonstrates both the validity of innate intelligence as well as its heritability across racial groups. The Second Edition (2014) has been revised and updated to reflect the latest research.


Wolters’s Long Crusdade both tells the stories of the past half century of education reform and also serves as an important corrective to the reformers’ underlying assumptions.

The Long Crusade: Profiles in Education Reform, 1967-2014

Raymond Wolters

Ever since the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, which launched a national effort to desegregate American schools, education reform has been one of the most resonant, controversial, and perplexing social and political issues.

In The Long Crusade, Raymond Wolters traces the history of the past half-century of school reform by telling the stories of its most influential writers, activists, and intellectual movements. These range from the “neo-progressives” (Jonathan Kozol, Howard Gardner, and Theodore Sizer) to “back to basics” reformers (Chris Whittle, Robert Slavin, and E. D. Hirsch) to contemporary advocates of “accountability” (Teach For America, Michelle Rhee, and Arne Duncan). Wolters concludes by profiling “contrarians” (Diane Ravitch, Robert Weissberg, and the “race realists”), who brought into question many of the orthodoxies of this period.

America’s educational crusades have been varied, but virtually all have shared a common fate: racial achievement gaps have never been closed. Wolters argues that these failures are not merely a result of bad policies. Underlying virtually all of these approaches has been the assumption that no innate cognitive differences exist between races. Wolters stresses that it is time to rethink what has been assumed—and to look with new eyes on the failures and achievements of the American educational system.

No Comments on Washington Summit Publishers's Books for 2015

Next Three Radix Issues

Our next three issues of Radix Journal will ship in succession, beginning at the end of January. We have three more planned for 2015. So never fear, long-suffering charter subscribers!…

Our next three issues of Radix Journal will ship in succession, beginning at the end of January. We have three more planned for 2015. So never fear, long-suffering charter subscribers!

Radix II

Hero Complex: The Man of Tomorrow in Pulp Culture

Edited by Richard Spencer

Roman Bernard
Mark Brahmin
Jack Donovan
Gregory Hood
Greg Johnson
Colin Liddell
Richard Spencer

These are all original essays. (As you might remember, the working title for this volume was “Pop Fascism”)

Radix III

The Great Purge—The Deformation of the Conservative Movement

Edited by Paul E. Gottfried

Essays by…
Lee Congdon
Peter Brimelow
John Derbyshire
Samuel T. Francis
Paul E. Gottfried
James Kalb
Keith Preston
William H. Regnery
Richard B. Spencer

Among these original essays is a classic work by Sam Francis on the neoconservatives and managerial democracy.

Radix IV

Race and the American Prospect: Racial Realities in the 21st Century

Edited by Samuel Francis

Essays by…
Samuel G. Dickson
Joseph E. Fallon
Richard Faussette
Samuel Francis
Robert Griffin
Kevin Lamb
Wayne Lutton
Richard Lynn
Richard McCulloch
Kevin MacDonald
Brent Nelson
Jared Taylor
Derek Turner
J. L. Woodruff

This issue is a rediscovery of Samuel Francis’s final project before his death in 2005. Race and the American Prospect has been out of print for too long and deserves a beautiful new edition.

No Comments on Next Three Radix Issues

Facing the Future

Our movement has a tendency to get caught up in gloom and doom . . . but one unequivocal accomplishment is the blooming of a thousand flowers of what I’ve called the “alt Right.” (Indeed, the expanse that’s taken place in just the five years since I founded AlternativeRight.com has been tremendous.) There is more media revolving around European identity, traditionalism, and the study of human biodiversity than ever before. Much of it is of high quality. And we are able to communicate with each like never before—and able to understand each across the national lines that divided us over the past century.  

But as a thousand flowers bloom, there remains a certain emptiness.      

Fundraising is certainly not my favorite task. Indeed, I often wish I had a team of elves to do it for me. Every Christmas morning they would leave shiny gold bars under the tree, and we’d all be free of worry.

Alas, growing up means putting aside childish things—and doing the things that are important and necessary. Fundraising is just that. NPI and Radix simply cannot complete our projects—and start new ones—without raising money during Yuletide.

And there are silver linings. For one thing, with this year’s campaign, you get something in return, beginning with books. And giving to something you care about is meaningful and inspiring in itself. It’s a chance to do something, even if it’s in a small way. Moreover, the turn of the year gives us a chance to reflect on what we’ve accomplished and think about where we want to go in the future.

Our movement has a tendency to get caught up in gloom and doom . . . but one unequivocal accomplishment is the blooming of a thousand flowers of what I’ve called the “alt Right.” (Indeed, the expanse that’s taken place in just the five years since I founded AlternativeRight.com has been tremendous.) There is more media revolving around European identity, traditionalism, and the study of human biodiversity than ever before. Much of it is of high quality. And we are able to communicate with each like never before—and able to understand each across the national lines that divided us over the past century.

But as a thousand flowers bloom, there remains a certain emptiness.

Anonymity and privacy—the ability to mask our identities online and read and think what we want—are things we should defend fanatically.

That said, we’re not going to change the world sniping on comment boards, nor will we as a collection of pseudonymous blogs.

We need a real movement. And real movements are lead by those who are willing to risk something, willing to suffer, willing to stand firm when in the right, willing to speak truth to power and face the consequences, and wiling to be happy warriors.

Over the past few months, I’ve received quite a few messages of sympathy and support for my arrest and imprisonment in Budapest this fall, for what can only be described as “thought crimes.”

In truth, I look back quite fondly on my brief stint as a political prisoner.

First off, my suffering was not great. There was the sleep deprivation . . . getting marched around in handcuffs . . . being declared a “national security threat” . . . a prison cuisine that resembled a cross between gravy and cat food (I don’t know what it tasted like, as it inspired me to go on a hunger strike) . . . But at the end of the day, these were the experiences of a thought criminal in the Hungary of Viktor Orbán, not Béla Kun.

Secondly, despite it all, our gathering took place, thanks to the work of Jared Taylor and a small, dedicated group of supporters, who more than compensated for my absence. In other words, we won.

Thirdly, and most important, as our enemies attack us, we become more powerful. Unquestionably, our Budapest event brought more attention to our ideas and ideals than any other event over the past year (probably over the past five years). Much of that attention was negative or hysteric, as would be expected. Some of it was sympathetic or expressive of understanding. In some cases, sympathy was wrapped up in hysteria. Quite a few learned of the existence of a movement for European identity through our perseverance.

If we’re going to have a serious movement—one that challenges the current dispensation in the most radical manner—then some of us are probably going to get arrested.

Our movement excels at analyzing the world. We need institutions that are working to change the world. NPI, Radix, and everything we do will be at the center of that effort.

No Comments on Facing the Future

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