As someone who’s written and published some rather controversial material over the years, I’m disappointed that Rachel Maddow continues to associate me with things that I have nothing to do with.
Surely, a simple Google search would reveal plenty of pieces—pieces that I’ve actually authored—that would offend Rachel’s sensibilities? So what gives?
As someone who’s written and published some rather controversial material over the years, I’m disappointed that Rachel Maddow continues to associate me with things that I have nothing to do with.
Surely, a simple Google search would reveal plenty of pieces—pieces that I’ve actually authored—that would offend Rachel’s sensibilities? So what gives?
In a segment from last night’s Rachel Maddow Show ("Fresh Powder"), which meandered from the irrelevant to the illogical to the absurd, more than once, Rachel displayed a screenshot of “Alternative Right” and a provocatively titled essay written by Colin Liddell.1
What was shown was not my website, and I did not write, edit, or publish that essay. (Also, the essay doesn’t argue what Rachel intimates it argues; but I’ll let the author defend himself.)
For the record, let me retell the background story.
I founded AlternativeRight.com in March of 2010; this was before I joined The National Policy Institute.
I had previously worked at The American Conservative and had edited Taki’s Magazine for two years. I wanted to strike out on my own and create something that did not exist at the time—a right-wing webzine that was not burdened by the “American Conservative movement” and that was inspired by European currents, particularly the European New Right.
I considered the new website an experiment, and not really an institution.
In my tenure, I took great care in editing AltRight. I commissioned and published Jason Richwine’s article on Hispanic crime; I would defend every word of it.
In the spring of 2012, I was hard at work with NPI and Washington Summit Publishers, and I simply felt burned out with AltRight. I walked away from it, and published a farewell. Colin Liddell and Andy Nowicki wanted to continue posting, though without my editorial input. I let them.
The problem with this arrangement was that my name—and even NPI’s—were indelibly linked to AltRight. In other words, NPI and I were being blamed and praised for things that were out of our control.
My resolution to this problem certainly caused some hurt feelings, but I concluded it was the only way to move forward: AlternativeRight.com was brought to an end; if Colin and Andy wanted to continue, they would have to do so without using the Web infrastructure I had created. As it turns out, the pair have continued: They appropriated the title (I never owned it) and have a new URL and hosting service. I have had no control over AltRight since the spring of 2012. I say this objectively, not critically. This is simply a matter of authorship and ownership.
Anyway, one principle of journalism is to try to present as many perspectives on a subject or event as possible. Rachel Maddow has now dedicated some 30-45 minutes of her news programming to The Richard Spencer Question. Yet at no point have I been contacted for comment or input.
So let’s make a deal, Rachel. The next time you want to do a story on me . . . and I imagine there will be a next time . . . have your staff contact me: I’ll send over some articles, which I’ve authored or published and which include lots of outlandish opinions that will send you and your audience into fits of righteous indignation. I’m talking real juicy stuff. And best of all, your reports will actually be accurate. Think of it!
Never in my life have I faced such adversity . . . never have I been so inspired.
By now, you’ve probably heard the stories coming out Budapest: our conference being [banned] by the Hungarian Prime Minister . . . our [perseverance and willingness to take a stand] for our ideals . . . our speakers being [threatened] with deportation . . . my arrest and imprisonment by the Hungarian state for [thought-crimes] . . . and our event taking place, against all odds.
Never in my life have I faced such adversity . . . never have I been so inspired.
By now, you’ve probably heard the stories coming out Budapest: our conference being banned by the Hungarian Prime Minister . . . our perseverance and willingness to take a stand for our ideals . . . our speakers being threatened with deportation . . . my arrest and imprisonment by the Hungarian state for thought-crimes . . . and our event taking place, against all odds.
Crises reveal character. And I am tremendously proud of our how our institution and broader movement responded. Despite the government’s ban, attendees came from around the world to meet fellow Europeans and have a conversation about our future. After I was arrested and detained, Jared Taylor, aided by comrades, stepped into my place and hosted what was, from what I hear, a joyous and stimulating gathering.
The night of my arrest encapsulated the dual nature of this past weekend—adversity and inspiration. I was apprehended by police in a Budapest pub, where dozens of attendees and I had gathered to build fellowship before the next day’s conference. The room was filled with our European family: Britons, Canadians, Scandinavians, Flemish, Croatians, and more. We instantly became old friends, though most of us were meeting each other for the first time.
I was reminded of the need for groups like The European Congress, a forum and meeting point for European identitarians and traditionalists.
And I was reminded of the necessity of The National Policy Institute.
At NPI, we produce original writings on RadixJournal.com, featuring the work of Gregory Hood, Michael McGregor, and all the regulars. We publish new books, with a lineup that ranges from Richard Lynn to Piero San Giorgio to Tito Perdue to Alexander Dugin. We host conferences and public events, which have featured, among many others, Alain de Benoist, Tomislav Sunic, and Jack Donovan.
We are doing things that are powerful, things that are getting noticed, and things that rock the boat.
We are willing to take risks. And we are willing to take hits.
There are certainly more pleasant ways of spending a weekend than in a Hungarian jail; however, if I were to do it over again, I wouldn’t change a thing. We must never lose our nerve as our adversaries react . . . and overreact . . . and try to shut down our projects. (And if we’re not upsetting the establishment a litte bit, then we’re probably doing it wrong.)
We’re more powerful than we might believe. Our power stems from our resolve, from our pride, and from our audacity.
And you make it possible. Your tax-deductible donations to NPI are the lifeblood of everything we do. Giving to us is a direct way of aiding your comrades who have taken risks and made sacrifices. It’s a way to “do something.”
Over the past week, our movement and our ideas have received a tremendous amount of coverage, and generated sympathy and good will from surprising sources. Our challenge is to ensure that this doesn’t become just another passing moment, but instead becomes a watershed in the rediscovery of European consciousness.
The conference is not cancelled. We will meet in Budapest on October 3-5. We will share ideas. We will make new friends and have a good time.
As you might have heard, the forces of tolerance and diversity have declared that we must not be allowed to speak. Our organization and our upcoming event have been attacked on social media and blogs for months. From what I understand, these originated from the Hungarian Socialist Party (MSZP), which is the successor to the Hungarian Communist Party. Now these attacks are coming from the highest levels of government. This morning, the “conservative” Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán, declared that he will use “all legal means at his disposal” to ban our conference. (I guess we should be happy that illegal means are off the table.)
It’s important to remember that neither Orbán nor anyone else has accused us of actually breaking any laws, because we haven’t. To the contrary, it is the Hungarian government that might potentially break a law—in this case, one of its own. Our conference will be a forum for ideas—it is an opportunity for Hungarians, and people from around the world, to freely gather and freely speak their minds. These rights are explicitly guaranteed to all Hungarian citizens in their recently enacted Constitution. The very notion that Hungary’s Prime Minister—who claims to embrace European, pluralist values—would even talk about censoring the speech of citizens and international guests is depressing, indeed.
Sometimes you can find profound statements in pop culture. The lines are from Game of Thrones:
When you rip out a man’s tongue, you’re not proving him a liar. You’re only telling the world you fear what he might say.
Words have power. And I can only conclude that Viktor Orbán and everyone attacking our conference fear what we have to say.
The conference is not cancelled. We will meet in Budapest on October 3-5. We will share ideas. We will make new friends and have a good time. (That’s what these events are really about.)
It’s true that the government’s actions are going to make our meeting a little more inconvenient than it otherwise would be. But life is full of such challenges.
I’ve been inspired by the response to our gathering—in terms of registrants and general interest—and I’m confident that The European Congress has a bright future.
To all those who have registered to attend, either as a guest or journalist covering the event—check your email. I will keep you abreast of our ongoing plans.
We shall overcome.
For the past 200 years, Europe has been coming together. It might seem strange to write this in light of the ethnic hatreds of the last century’s World Wars, or even those of the World Cup. It might seem strange to write this with the ongoing ethnic conflict in eastern Ukraine, especially strange now on the eve of a referendum for Scottish independence.
For the past 200 years, Europe has been coming together. It might seem strange to write this in light of the ethnic hatreds of the last century’s World Wars, or those of the World Cup. Or in light of the ongoing ethnic conflict in eastern Ukraine. And especially strange today on the eve of a referendum for Scottish independence.
But the geopolitical trajectory of Europe is unambiguous. The European continent—including the British isles—were once a patchwork of competing principalities and states. Today, it is defined by broad national and imperial blocs: France, Italy, Russia, Germany, and Britain being the models. Europe’s history has been, to a great degree, a history of state formation: from a multitude to many to a few . . . maybe soon to one.
More important than this political development has been the birth of a homogenous European Man. He is a man who might call someplace—maybe a little place—“home,” somewhere with a language and way of life all its own: Wales, Bavaria, Talin. . . But he is demonstrably European in his character, values, and being, especially to outsiders. Who could deny that today the differences that separate a Scotsman from an Englishman, or a Russian from a Italian—though certainly real—are easily outweighed but what they share in common? Who could deny that the mass immigration of non-Europeans has intensified our awareness of this unity, allowed us to understand ourselves in ways that we might not have otherwise?
There is, without question, a cost to this historical process, for “European Man” is, to a large degree, the “Last Man” as Nietzsche imagined him: the homogenous consumer and worker, who sees little of value above comfort and acquiring more stuff. For better and for worse, we are all becoming “good Europeans”. . . and we must understand something like the Scotts’ bid for independence in this wake.
Describing the referendum, the American commentator Patrick Buchanan wrote:
The call of blood, history, faith, culture and memory is winning the struggle against Economism, the Western materialist ideology that holds that the desire for money and things is what ultimately motivates mankind.
This can only be wishful thinking. It’s worth remembering that the Scottish National Party is not a traditionalist organization by any stretch. A perusal of its agenda reveals that it would be better described as “retro-liberal” or “Old Labor.” (For what it’s worth, the SNP wants to keep the Queen as the symbolic Head of State.)
Moreover, for every died-in-the-wool Scottish nationalist (or Anglophobe) who supports independence, there are legions who view breaking away from London in a very different way. Exiting the geopolitical world of the UK and “Anglo-sphere” would be a means of better implementing a post-historical, egalitarian welfare state . . . of becoming another “European” country, like Sweden or Iceland . . . of finding an “independent” path to the same liberal dispensation.
The SNP defines its “nationalism” as such:
to create a just, caring and enterprising society by releasing Scotland’s full potential as a independent nation in the mainstream of modern Europe.
Though the SNP desires to break from the UK (and NATO), it seeks to join the European Union. This seeming contradiction between secession and federalism reveals both the meaning and meaningless of Scottish “independence.”
Fittingly, as the vote looms, much of the discussion has been taken up with purely technical matters:
Technical matters like these are truly the only things at stake.
Born in 1978, I was a child during the last decade of the Cold War. The Berlin Wall existed as a powerful symbol of the ideological and imaginary “inside” and “outside” of that conflict. I envisioned that my world was “in” America and freedom and “out” of socialism and oppression. Some who were “in” Communism could escape and get “out” over here.
The events of 1989-91 turned the world “inside out” . . . and “outside in.” For the past 25 years, no European nation or state has been “outside” liberalism. Secession would change none of this. To choose another metaphor, a droplet of a liberal society (what an “independent” Scotland would become) has the same constitution as a whole gallon of one in the UK or EU.
A typical murderer drawn to the racist forum Stormfront.org is a frustrated, unemployed, white adult male living with his mother or an estranged spouse or girlfriend. She is the sole…
A typical murderer drawn to the racist forum Stormfront.org is a frustrated, unemployed, white adult male living with his mother or an estranged spouse or girlfriend. She is the sole provider in the household.
Forensic psychologists call him a “wound collector.” Instead of building his resume, seeking employment or further education, he projects his grievances on society and searches the Internet for an excuse or an explanation unrelated to his behavior or the choices he has made in life.
His escalation follows a predictable trajectory …
Thus read the opening lines of a report on Stormfront.com, penned by the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “Intelligence Director,” Heidi Beirich. Since its founding in 1971, the SPLC has amassed some $250 million in assets. Perhaps the SPLC could best fulfill its titular mission by giving away this hoard to impoverished Southerners? Whatever the case, if we are to learn anything from the Center’s fundraising operation, it is the necessity of giving potential donors a sense of having an enemy—an enemy to hate and fear, but also one that warms donors’ tummies with feelings of social and moral superiority.
Whenever I read paragraphs like these, I tend to think not of the specter of dangerous Nazi losers but of potential SPLC donors …
A typical donor drawn to the South Poverty Law is a frustrated, retired white female living alone or with an estranged husband. She exists on a pension in a rent-controlled urban apartment.
Forensic psychologists call her a “wound collector.” Instead of building her resume, seeking employment or further education, she projects her grievances on society and searches the Internet for an excuse or an explanation unrelated to her behavior or the choices she has made in life.
Her escalation follows a predictable trajectory …
While SPLC reports have gone beyond parody, the New York Times has just published a study on the online forum Stormfront that was refreshingly novel and honest (up to a point). First, the report utilizes the techniques of data aggregation (“Big Data”); secondly, its author, Seth Stephens-Davidowitz, presents a much more realistic portrayal of the types of people who are attracted to White Nationalism. (After reading his piece, Heidi’s report seems more like a description of the villain in her favorite Lifetime Original Movie.)
The essay begins:
VIKINGMAIDEN88 is 26 years old. She enjoys reading history and writing poetry. Her signature quote is from Shakespeare. She was impressed when the dialect quiz in The New York Times correctly identified where she was from: Tacoma and Spokane, Wash. “Completely spot on,” she wrote, followed by a smiling green emoji.
I gleaned all this from her profile and posts on Stormfront.org, America’s most popular online hate site.
I recently analyzed tens of thousands of the site’s profiles, in which registered members can enter their location, birth date, interests and other information. Call it Big Hatred meets Big Data.
It’s easy to scoff at a username like “Vikingmaiden88,” but it’d be wrong to do so. To grow up in America over the past half century is, for millions of White people, to grow up in a culture-less, history-less No Man’s Land of suburbia and shopping malls. To identify one’s self with a heroic “viking” past and to use an archaic term like “maiden” indicates, among things, that this young woman has an imagination.
Over the past year, according to Quantcast, roughly 200,000 to 400,000 Americans visited the site every month. A recent Southern Poverty Law Center report linked nearly 100 murders in the past five years to registered Stormfront members. [Emphasis added]
The SPLC is quite good at linking …
Of the 100 “linked” killings in the past five years, 77 were perpetrated by one man, Anders Breivik, who posted a few times on Stormfront in 2008, three years before launching his attack in Norway. Two other people on the SPLC’s list murdered multiple victims. This leaves 15 people who have committed heinous crimes and can be “linked” to Stormfront.
Stormfront has some 286,000 registered members (according to the SPLC), which means that it has a murder “linkage” of .005%. I wonder what kind of “linkage” rate we could come up with by examining, say, people who uploaded a video to World Star Hiphop?
More importantly, in her report, Beirich doesn’t bother to apply the most basic principle of analysis: Did these 15 individuals commit murders because of Stormfront, in spite of Stormfront, or regardless of Stormfront? Being that so many of the “linked” murderers killed family members, I would assume that “in spite of” and “regardless of” are the most likely options. But that ain’t good for fundraising.
Anyway, the superior Times report continues:
Stormfront members tend to be young, at least according to self-reported birth dates. The most common age at which people join the site is 19. And four times more 19-year-olds sign up than 40-year-olds. Internet and social network users lean young, but not nearly that young.
The Angry Young Man is one “hate” trope, but generally racialism is thought to be an affliction of the old—those who haven’t been fully reconstructed by modern education or exposed to the bounteous goodness of “diversity.”
Reading the Times’s piece, I wondered how many Stormfront members were radicalized by listening to the “Americanist” platitudes of their Baby Boomer parents, either of the “World’s Great Democracy” or “Here, You Can Live Your Dreams” variety?
Profiles do not have a field for gender. But I looked at all the posts and complete profiles of a random sample of American users, and it turns out that you can work out the gender of most of the membership: I estimate that about 30 percent of Stormfront members are female.
Quite remarkable. Mainstream religion is majority female; the inverse of this trend is that “fringe” movement are overwhelmingly male. I would have guessed that Stormfront’s membership was at least 90% male.
Stephens-Davidowitz also suggests that Stormfront membership rates might reveal something about America’s regional makeup.
The states with the most members per capita are Montana, Alaska and Idaho. These states tend to be overwhelmingly white. Does this mean that growing up with little diversity fosters hate?
Probably not. Since those states have a higher proportion of non-Jewish white people, they have more potential members for a group that attacks Jews and nonwhites. The percentage of Stormfront’s target audience that joins is actually higher in areas with more minorities. This is particularly true when you look at Stormfront’s members who are 18 and younger and therefore do not themselves choose where they live.
Among this age group, California, a state with one of the largest minority populations, has a membership rate 25 percent higher than the national average.
One of the most popular social groups on the site is “In Support of Anti-Semitism.” The percentage of members who join this group is positively correlated with a state’s Jewish population. New York, the state with the highest Jewish population, has above-average per capita membership in this group.
One of liberalism’s most unlikely fantasies is that as Whites are exposed to more “diversity,” they will become less racially conscious. A realistic understanding of human nature leads one to the opposite conclusion, as does this study.
That said, it doesn’t follow that an absence of racial diversity will lead to an absence of White racial consciousness, as the popularity of Stormfront in the Mountain West makes clear.
Interestingly, Montana and Minnesota are both overwhelmingly White (indeed, both are ethnically Germanic and Scandinavian), yet the percentages of the populations interested in Stormfront are starkly different. How to explain this? Is it the spirit of the Wild West vs. Minnesota Nice? Is this the result of selective migration? Is Stormfront membership a limited measure of racial consciousness, as different expressions are at play in Minnesota?
Political developments certainly play a role [in the popularity of Stormfront]. The day that saw the biggest single increase in membership in Stormfront’s history, by far, was Nov. 5, 2008, the day after Barack Obama was elected president.
In the fall of 2008, I was at a private meeting of like-minded individuals in which the upcoming election was discussed. Most of the conversation centered around how disappointing John McCain was as the “conservative” option. Louis Andrews, my predecessor as Director of NPI, cut through the crap. It was Obama who, through his very person, would signify to average Americans that they have been dispossessed in their own land; it is thus Obama (not any “conservative”) who would raise consciousness among our people. Louis was right.
Stephens-Davidowitz digs deeper into the habits of Stormfronters.
The top reported interest of Stormfront members is “reading.” Most notably, Stormfront users are news and political junkies. One interesting data point here is the popularity of The New York Times among Stormfront users. According to the economists Matthew Gentzkow and Jesse M. Shapiro, when you compare Stormfront users to people who go to the Yahoo News site, it turns out that the Stormfront crowd is twice as likely to visit nytimes.com.
Perhaps it was my own naïveté, but I would have imagined white nationalists’ inhabiting a different universe from that of my friends and me. Instead, they have long threads praising “Breaking Bad” and discussing the comparative merits of online dating sites, like Plenty of Fish and OkCupid.
Return to VikingMaiden88. When you read her 189 posts since joining the site, she often seems like a perfectly nice and intelligent young woman.
But she also has a lot of hatred. She praises a store for having “100% white employees.” She says the media is promoting a “Jewish agenda.” And she says she finds Asians “repulsive physically, socially, religiously, etc.”
Why do some people feel this way? And what is to be done about it? I have pored over data of an unprecedented breadth and depth, thanks to our new digital era. And I can honestly offer the following answer: I have no idea.
A young man with a PhD from Harvard, who’s a contributing opinion writer at America’s liberal paper of record, is at a loss for words!?
His silence speak volumes. Having rejected all possible sociological and economic explanations, Stephens-Davidowitz is left with a sneaking suspicion that racial consciousness is natural and rational.
Never fear, art lovers. Classical music won’t die. It will live on, with a new canon of orchestral masterworks.
Never fear, art lovers. Classical music won’t die. It will live on, with a new canon of orchestral masterworks.
In the last decade, the real-state, home-building, and financial industries ran out of enough middle-class buyers to maintain their expansion; they thus looked down market, to a previously untapped pool of “subprime” suckers. Similarly, as the “higher education” industry recognizes that its certificates can barely guarantee a job folding sweatshirts at the Gap, it, too, is beginning to view the left-quadrant of the Bell Curve as a source of growth.
A new term should be added to the language.
Emotional Porn
Noun
A form of self-gratification, in which a postmodern White person confuses indulgence in pity or sentimentality with political action.
See Also Upworthy.com, Squee
Exhibit A: “Noah is going to college!”
In the last decade, the real-state, home-building, and financial industries ran out of enough middle-class buyers to maintain their expansion; they thus looked down market, to a previously untapped pool of “subprime” suckers. Similarly, as the “higher education” industry recognizes that its certificates can barely guarantee a job folding sweatshirts at the Gap, it, too, is beginning to view the left-quadrant of the Bell Curve as a source of growth.
And something deeper is at work as well. Americans pride themselves in resisting the two siren songs of totalitarianism: socialism, Marxism, and Leninism, on the left, and fascism, nationalism, and racialism, on the right. America, it is maintained, achieved a glorious “middle-ness,” a free, middle-class society, where government guarantees basic rights and dignities for all.
What this rosy view overlooks is the fact that, for at least the past 50 years, America has pursued a new kind of socialism—one that might be more enduring than the socialism of yore but which is equally unsustainable and equally dependent on myths, lies, and wishful thinking.
Washington is loathe to nationalize an industry; and it has never been willing to redistribute wealth with any seriousness. However, Washington does use its powers and seemingly infinite ability to issue debt to create the semblance of what a society would look like if liberalism and egalitarianism were actually true.
Hence, the government doesn’t nationalize the healthcare industry and provide services to low-income citizens; instead, it organizes an elaborate and unworkable system that putatively helps the poor get health insurance, just like rich people. The government doesn’t directly provide the hungry and needy with provisions; instead it issues EBT cards that allow the poor to pretend that they have credit cards, just like rich people.
Finally, the government doesn’t seek to foster excellence in higher learning; instead, through affirmative-action and the lowering of standards, it creates a parallel universe in which innate cognitive differences and heritability no longer have any effect. Everyone goes to college! And now Noah is going to college!
The average IQ of a person with Down Syndrome is 50; the top one percent have an IQ of 70, according to the Down Syndrome Foundation. Surely, there are ways for such people to live fulfilling and productive lives. To send them to university, however, amounts either to denying the existence of intelligence altogether or else to converting universities into massive day-care centers for every featherless biped with a pulse.
Emotional Porn like “Noah is going to college”—porn that appeals to the American “right” as much as the “left”—gives us a glimpse into America’s peculiar egalitarian imagination, and its libido for the stupid.
Conferences are important. As we know, the Internet has been a godsend for dissidents; however, it is vital that we don’t solely interact in the anonymous, virtual realm of the Web. We should gather together, network, share ideas, and have fun in the real world.
Dear Friends,
Conferences are important. As we know, the Internet has been a godsend for dissidents; however, it is vital that we don’t solely interact in the anonymous, virtual realm of the Web. We should gather together, network, share ideas, and have fun in the real world.
One of NPI’s most important tasks is to organize conferences, and we are interested in your thoughts on the matter.
Please take the time to fill out the following questionnaire. It should take less than five minutes and would help us in the coming years create memorable and rewarding experiences.
Thanks!
Richard Spencer
This year’s CPAC offered few opportunities for anyone in our movement to get a word in about the issues we care about. The “minority outreach” panel—which included a bold agenda for winning Detroit!—was sparsely attended and didn’t include a Q&A. I was, however, able to ask a question at Thursday afternoon’s panel on immigration—“Can There be Meaningful Immigration Reform Without Citizenship?”
This year’s CPAC offered few opportunities for anyone in our movement to get a word in about the issues we care about. The “minority outreach” panel—which included a bold agenda for winning Detroit!—was sparsely attended and didn’t include a Q&A. I was, however, able to ask a question at Thursday afternoon’s panel on immigration—“Can There be Meaningful Immigration Reform Without Citizenship?”
This event featured four speakers. The first, Helen Kriebel, advocated for a market-based guest-worker program with minimal government involvement. Businesses would determine who entered the country based on their needs; and workers would gain admittance on a strictly temporary basis, with no promise of citizenship. In others words, Kriebel seeks the creation of a Helot class.[1].
Derrick Morgan of The Heritage Foundation came next. He argued against amnesty in the safest, most boring manner possible. He also stated that no immigration reform of any kind should be enacted at this time because “we can’t trust Obama.”
There final two panelists were Hispanics: Alfonso Aguilar, a former immigration minister from the George W. Bush administration, and the Reverend Luis Cortés, Jr.
I waited patiently … and when Q&A finally came, I sprung into action. Some dissidents like to highjack the mic and turn a Q&A into a lecture—which almost always eventuates in the questioner annoying the audience, getting silenced and then ignored. I wanted to ask a question that would actually get answered. (You can jump directly to my question here . . . in fact, don’t watch the entire panel unless you’re suffering from insomnia.)
I have a moral question, actually, and I think that’s very important. I was struck by Helen Kriegel’s statement that “we don’t want an immigration policy that’s Republican; we want one that’s truly American. Actually, there are a lot of precedents we can look to for those policies. One of them would be the 1924 immigration act, which restricted immigration to Northern Europeans. You could actually go back a lot further and look at the 1790 Naturalization Act, which restricted immigration to “free white persons of good character.”
The motive for all these acts was that Americans really understood their nation as an extended family, and they wanted to choose people they had something in common with; they wanted to value their own over others.
Do you find that immoral? Do you find this American tradition of valuing our own people, European Christians, over others to be immoral, when it seems to be so much a part of America?
Before I the panel started, I was told by a friend, who works in the Beltway, that Derrick Morgan was “really solid.” My impression is that too many people in our movement, starved as we are for allies, think that someone who makes an argument against amnesty—even one that rejects European identity—must secretly be “one of us.” Perhaps Morgan does oppose amnesty because he, secretly, doesn’t want to experience the displacement of his people? I can’t say. It is noteworthy, though, that after I asked my question, Morgan asserted that American Whites do not have a moral right to create an immigration policy based on identity; indeed, such things are “shameful.” In the end, whatever reasonable things he might say, I can only conclude that Morgan is as much a part of the problem as his ostensible opponents.
On Friday March 7, at 7:30 PM, NPI will host a dinner. Our special guest will be American Renaissance editor Jared Taylor, a man who’s been a lion in our movement for close to 25 years. NPI will provide for wine for everyone who attends, to ensure a festive atmosphere. Then, around 9 PM, we will retire to a hospitality suite, where NPI will provide an open bar and host an “unconference.”
As we announced last week, NPI will be attending the annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, DC, which begins on March 6 and will stretch through the weekend. (Perhaps “crash” is a better choice of words than “attend,” despite the fact that we’ll be on our best behavior.)
On Thursday and Friday (March 6 and 7), I will be listening to some of CPAC’s speeches and panel discussions and participating, when possible, in Q&A. If you see me in the halls, please say hello.
On Friday March 7, at 7:30 PM, NPI will host a dinner. Our special guest will be American Renaissance editor Jared Taylor, a man who’s been a lion in our movement for close to 25 years. NPI will provide wine for everyone who attends, to ensure a festive atmosphere.
Then, around 9 PM, we will retire to a hospitality suite, where NPI will provide an open bar and host an “unconference.”
The “unconference” idea is a response to fact that most people don’t attend conferences to hear speeches—they attend to connect with people. Thus, our gathering will be something like a free-flowing conversation. Jared and I will get the discussion started with some remarks, and our guests will take it from there.
We expect excellent people to attend, and we hope that some from the CPAC crowd will want to see where the real action is. (No doubt, we will be “unconferencing” into the wee hours.)
First and foremost, the gathering will be discreet to the best of our powers.
Our desire for privacy is one reason that we will not be releasing the exact location of the dinner and unconference until the morning of March 7. We will say now that the events will be conveniently located near the Gaylord Resort Hotel at the National Harbor.
Secondly, because of our discretion, you must register for our dinner and unconfenece beforehand using the form below. (This will be the only way we can alert you to our gatherings’ locations.)
Thirdly, you should be confident that you can attend in an anonymous fashion (short of donning a disguise and voice modulator): no name tags will be issued; no recordings will be made; and all discussion will be strictly “off the record.” Our guests, we hope, will feel comfortable expressing themselves.
Fourthly, though we hope you’ll join us for the entire evening, we understand if you could only attend either the dinner or hospitality suite.
This is a chance for our movement to have a real presence at a major forum for ideas (and perhaps mug a few conservatives with reality). And more important, it’s a chance for us to network and talk about our future.
I hope to see you there!
Type on the field below and hit Enter/Return to search
