Radix Journal

Radix Journal

A radical journal

Category: America

Safety Pin Resistance

Ah, the late 90s. Rosie O’Donnell was “the queen of nice.” Ellen Degeneres was controversial, rather than the comforting television friend of housewives who want to watch Hillary Clinton awkwardly dancing to hip-hop. And Keith Olbermann was the guy from the Boston Market commercials, making fun of self-important, fashion-conscious poseurs by telling them to “eat something!”

Ah, the late 90s. Rosie O’Donnell was “the queen of nice.” Ellen Degeneres was controversial, rather than the comforting television friend of housewives who want to watch Hillary Clinton awkwardly dancing to hip-hop. And Keith Olbermann was the guy from the Boston Market commercials, making fun of self-important, fashion-conscious poseurs by telling them to “eat something!”

Now, the failed sportscaster who used to rhapsodize about the joys of “four ooey-gooey cheeses” has proclaimed himself the head of “The Resistance,” striking what is presumably meant to be a defiant pose wrapped in an American flag. Unfortunately, he looks more like a homeless man covering himself while he self-abuses and leers at passersby.

His facial expression is also hard to interpret. He’s vaguely angry but also ironically smirking, as if he knows he’s self-consciously posing as something he’s not. His shade from the 90s would doubtless bring him some mac n’ cheese so this troubled soul can “eat something!” and experience some succor.

Olbermann, who can boast of being replaced on Current TV by Eliot Spitzer, was given an Internet show by GQ. GQ also features the semi-literate screeching of Lindy West, the unearthly monstrosity whose presence on this planet, let alone at a men’s magazine, suggests a grotesque mockery of existence itself. After all, what sophisticated, masculine gentleman can’t conquer the boardrooms and boudoirs of America without having his worldview shaped by Olbermann and West?

Initially called “The Closer,” Olbermann renamed the show “The Resistance” after The Fall of Hillary. He stares angrily at the camera and gives what he imagines are revolutionary manifestos. The logo for the show also features the safety pin – or diaper pin – liberals have adopted as their logo. Thus, it’s a “resistance” movement, which won’t accept the rule of Trump, but it’s also a movement designed to make you feel safe and good and not make you do anything. For example, his big idea to delegitimize the Trump regime is the womanish, passive-aggressive tactic of not calling him president.

Yet this Kabuki theater is still interesting for what it tells about the Left today. And this kind of rhetoric has consequences even for the faux resistance fighters of Generation Tumblr.

Consider an unhinged performance where Olbermann grandly proclaims the Russians have performed a bloodless coup, “so far.” Thus, America is no longer a sovereign nation or a free people. (Of course, that part is true, but it has nothing to do with Russians.)

Olbermann casually tosses around words like “traitorous” and makes ludicrous comparisons to “Pearl Harbor.” Eventually, this ridiculous hysteric in an ill-fitting suit, who can’t even drive a car because of an “equilibrium problem,” urges “desperate measures” be taken. Otherwise, power will fall into the hands of “scum!”

Or as he puts it, “Russian scum!”

Assuming arguendo Olbermann still has what can be called a career, consider how quickly it would end if he applied this descriptor to a different nationality.

The government of Mexico quite openly meddles in American affairs through a vast consular network, encourages its nationals to become American citizens to defend Mexican interests, and proudly
proclaimed its determination to interfere in the recent election. Can we denounce “Mexican scum?” After all, we don’t have to look very hard to find actual evidence of their attacks on American sovereignty. And it’s a lot easier to show Mexico, rather than Russia, has designs on American sovereignty and territory.

What about “Arab scum” or “Muslim scum,” like the Saudi royals who have close ties with American officials, routinely violate Western laws, and purchase influence in American media organizations?

Or “Israeli” or “Jewish scum?” The Israeli government isn’t exactly shy about its espionage activities, nor about its close relationships to American politicians and pressure groups.

Nothing like this would ever happen. Only a White nation can be casually denounced as “scum” and an entire people dehumanized in the most extreme terms. And we don’t even need to address the absurdity of self-styled citizens of the world suddenly caring about concepts such as national independence or sovereignty.

“If we did it to another country, it would be described as an act of war!” continued Olbermann. Well, much of the history of Eastern Europe and the Middle East since the end of the Cold War has been precisely that, including many of the stupid color-coded revolutions designed to break down resistance to the Borg of international finance. If there is in fact a war, it’s one the United States, or, rather, those who control American foreign policy, deliberately started.

Indeed, the dominant theme of Vladimir Putin’s domestic and foreign policy is the desire to counter the State Department/Soros playbook of regime change. Banning NGO’s dependent on foreign money, organizing youth groups designed to co-opt opposition, and funding ‘independent’ groups such as the Night Wolves MC, which can be counted on as loyal auxiliaries, are all part of this effort. Both Assad and Putin are defending their legitimate governments from subversive movements funded by the United States. Considering the gruesome fate of Gaddafi, can anyone blame them?

But leave aside the ridiculous spectacle of Keith Olbermann, of all people, LARPing for a redux of Red Dawn. He clearly wants to bring the war home. Kellyanne Conway is a “fascist.” Trump has “no authority.” Republicans are “traitors.”

Ok… therefore, what? Do you start shooting people? Announce the dissolution of the Union? California is practically already in a state of rebellion when it comes to immigration laws. Olbermann supposedly once dated Trump supporter Laura Ingraham. Should he attack his ex-girlfriend? The punishment for treason is pretty clear, after all.

Absurd scenarios all. Olbermann is a poseur as surely as the fashion models he used to mock in his sandwich salesman days. But it’s likely someone will act on this rhetoric. People are already being murdered because of incitement about “white privilege” and Black Lives Matter.

And nothing he says is “extreme.” Years ago, Olbermann was a target for parody even by the likes of Jon Stewart or Saturday Night Live. But today, there’s nothing he says which is any different from what comes out of The New York Times, or Slate, or the Democratic Party.

If Donald Trump had lost the election and refused to accept the result, he could not be doing more to undermine American institutions than the mainstream Left is today. Conservatives are cheap dates. All Hillary would have had to say is “let’s work together” and the Beltway Right would have caved entirely. Even if Trump had openly said not to accept Hillary as President, no other Republicans or mainstream conservative media outlets would have joined him.

But leftists, with the vast institutional advantages they enjoy in huge foundations, organizations like the National Lawyers Guild providing support, and the mainstream media providing air cover and protecting activists from negative PR, are always ready to kick off street action. Already, we see the borderline gleeful reaction from Antifa and Far-Left groups who are going to LARP that they are fighting a real “fascist” regime. And organizations on the Far-Left are growing almost as quickly as the Alt-Right.

Sadly, we don’t have a revolutionary regime in power. What we have is a civic nationalist in alliance with clueless Republicans like Paul Ryan who see the present moment as just another opportunity to screw over their supporters by slashing Medicare.

But events may overtake everyone, even the Far-Left. Memeing Trump into a “Far-Right” God-Emperor is a two way process. The likes of Olbermann and the tens of millions of other leftists who think they are going to live out Rogue One or Harry Potter are playing with forces they do not understand and starting a process they will not be able to control. Throwing around words like ‘rebellion’ and ‘fascism’ to hysterical cucked Whites and furiously hostile non-Whites is asking for an explosion.

As long as the Trump Administration doesn’t completely cave on immigration policies (unlikely if Jeff Sessions gets in), there will be at least some confrontations between federal forces and emboldened leftists or angry minorities. What happens when someone takes a shot at DHS officers arresting deportees? When we see a new outbreak of terrorism after President Trump approves more pipelines? When Attorney General Sessions drops the hammer on the next Ferguson riot?

Ultimately, even the most extreme leftist Antifa is dependent on the normal suburban Whites they hate accepting the moral frame created by mainstream media gaslighting. In theory, philosophical conservatism admits the flawed nature of man, that he must be governed. In practice, nice, normal, conservative goofballs want to believe everyone is basically good and that all “Americans,” whatever their race, are all in this together. The best thing which can happen is for Normie America to be forced to witness how this is simply not true.

During the primaries, we saw how every protest led to increased support for Trump with Republicans rallying to the “strong man” when there is chaos in the streets. And unlike George W. Bush, Trump fires back at his opponents, rather than apologizing. We’ve already got supposedly mainstream figures appearing at events organized by the Revolutionary Communist Party and being livestreamed by the Huffington Post. The stage is all set for the Left to kick off the revolution for us. And on our side, we at least have the beginnings of a movement which won’t cuck and run.

The first test is weeks away. If the Inauguration is a peaceful celebration, Trump is legitimate and “normalized.” If it turns into a melee, the ride is just getting started.

SJW’s always project. We’re always told about how conservatism and nationalism is built on “paranoia” and “fear” by the same people currently screeching Literally Hitler will be President of the United States. When their entire political movement is built upon whipping up hysteria, eventually someone is going to take it seriously. Feeding these lunatics revolutionary fantasies is dangerous.

Of course, I doubt Keith Olbermann and those like him actually want to start a “rebellion.” I question even the most “militant” leftists of today. These subsidized puffballs wouldn’t last five minutes, and at some level they know it. But there’s now a significant chance their more excitable followers are going to start taking certain actions they won’t be able to retract. And once something like this is set in motion, it only ends one way.

At the end of each of Olbermann’s segments, he declares: “Resist! Peace.” Well, which is it? We’ll soon find out.

No Comments on Safety Pin Resistance

Gilmore Girls: An American Tragedy

“This whole thing is dead to me, anyway. It died with Richard.” – Emily Gilmore, Fall. Was the death of Richard Gilmore the death of White America? It’s not that…

This whole thing is dead to me, anyway. It died with Richard.” – Emily Gilmore, Fall.

Was the death of Richard Gilmore the death of White America?

It’s not that the Gilmore Girls revival is less White than the original show; it’s that it’s more honest. The original Gilmore Girls was a White liberal utopia: a single mother raising her young daughter in an idyllic, wacky, all-White village in Connecticut (except for some Koreans and one disdainfully snobbish mulatto Frenchman—we’ll come back to him). Known for its snappy dialogue and charming absurdity, it was a difficult show not to like—anecdotally speaking, I know almost as many men as women who quietly enjoyed Gilmore Girls, usually introduced to it by their daughters or girlfriends.

But of course, the original Gilmore Girls was a lie. In the real world, a sixteen-year-old pregnant rich girl who ran away from home wouldn’t stumble upon a Brigadoon-esque village and grow up to become a successful businesswoman while her genius daughter/BFF goes to the equivalent of Choate and then Yale. In the real world, women who make as many bad decisions as Lorelai Gilmore does aren’t happy, nor are they seemingly rewarded for all of them. But the world of Gilmore Girls was a world set apart, a frozen episode that looked like early 2000’s America on the surface but really hearkened back to a more idyllic time.

I went into the revival expecting more of the same. In the final episode of the original series, we’re left with a Lorelai who has finally gotten back together with Luke the diner owner, and a Rory who has turned down a marriage proposal from her long-term boyfriend Logan Huntzberger, in order to pursue a career in journalism. This latter decision was one of the more signal-y moments in Gilmore Girls history: the girl-power ending where she proved she didn’t need no man! I predicted a revival that showed a plucky reporterette, fully satisfied with her career; a script that covered over the reality of culture that tells women they don’t need marriage, of the sick society in which we live where ‘empowered’ women slowly eat themselves to death after returning from their desk job every evening, alone except for a cat or two.

But I was wrong. The Gilmore Girls revival, wittingly or otherwise, reveals the rot of American society—especially in comparison with the original. The difference is so striking that I have to believe it was not entirely intentional on the part of the show creator; rather, it is indicative of a distinct change in social mood that has taken place between when the show ended, in 2007, and today.

The new Gilmore Girls: A Year in the Life takes place over the course of a year, broken into four 90-minute episodes: Winter, Spring, Summer, and Fall. (Obligatory disclaimer: I am going to spoil the ending.)

In the original show, there was very little political propaganda. This was one of the most appealing things about it. Lorelai made the occasional George Bush joke, sometimes mocked her wealthy WASP parents for being Republicans, and Rory had a Planned Parenthood poster in her dorm room, but that was basically it. (Of course, the original premise of the show was pro-life, so they had to balance it out somehow). In general, this was incredibly refreshing compared to the constant political signaling in network television shows at the time, and compared to what’s on television now it’s like a different world. But the reboot is a different story. Suddenly, the town of Stars Hollow is engaged in gender activism, with earnest plans to put on a gay pride parade that never materializes due to a lack of homosexual town residents. (Hard to believe given the sudden prominence given to homosexual townsfolk.)

But far more striking is the change in the character of Michel Gerard. Michel, an overbearing, impeccably-dressed Frenchman with a thick accent and a penchant for Celine Dion, is a White-presenting mulatto who works at Lorelai’s inn, The Dragonfly. The original character of Michel was infamously sexually ambiguous; he of course fit a certain gay stereotype, was a little too close to his mother, etc. Nevertheless, there were occasional references made in passing to dating women, and never any made to male liaisons. Within the first 20 minutes of the reboot, in the first scene involving his character, Michel is discoursing scornfully about his male partner Frederick’s desire to adopt children. Why the dramatic change?

The answer is pretty simple: the original Gilmore Girls was a break from reality, while the reboot is almost unbearable in its reality. The past 8 years have been dramatic in their psychological effect on American society, and it is reflected here. But it’s more than that, in the world of the show. The mirror has crack’d from side-to-side; Richard Gilmore is dead. And with the patriarchal Gilmore gone, the order of things begins to break down, especially for the three female Gilmores.

Emily

You don’t move or change ever. There’s a picture of you in the attic that Dorian Grey is consulting lawyers about.” – Lorelai to Emily, “Spring.”

The change in Emily is the most dramatic over the course of these four episodes. Unlike the two younger Gilmore girls, Emily is marble-constant, an American matriarch to make Tocqueville proud. As she points out to her unwed daughter Lorelai, who has been “roommates” with Luke the diner owner for 8 years, she, Emily, was married to the same man for fifty years. Her loss at his death is incomprehensible to someone like Lorelai. Ever her husband’s champion, after Lorelai makes a characteristically embarrassing scene at her father’s funeral, Emily chides her thus: “Your father was a great man, a pillar of the community, a man amongst men. And you dishonored him today like this in his own house.” None of the other males in this world come close to Richard Gilmore. The implication runs throughout the show: we shall never see his like again.

Much like the unappreciated WASP patriarchs who held America together for so long, but who also oversaw its slow doom, Richard died having paid for his illegitimate granddaughter’s education at his alma mater, Yale, where she learned—what, exactly? Richard died without having to seriously confront the fantasy he built around Rory, Yale, and ultimately, America itself.

Over the course of the year, Emily is in a tailspin. “I don’t know how to do this,” she says to Lorelai at one point. “Do what?” “Live my life.” It is a jarring thing to watch: Emily Gilmore, the woman who knew every customary form, the woman of exquisite taste, who could never bear to let anyone see her falter: spiraling.

Even her beloved Daughters of the American Revolution chapter holds no joys for her now. (This is where I think the show breaks continuity with the original character, but for the sake of argument, we may chalk it up to grief.) The DAR, of course, represents another aspect of the collapse of the American regime; we may recall that it was one of the only national organizations that fought the 1965 Immigration Act tooth and nail, alongside the American Legion. And if there is one thing Emily devoted her life to, besides her family, it was the DAR. Finally, in an outburst at a DAR meeting, Emily says the most un-Emily line of them all: “I can’t spend any more time and energy on artifice and bullshit.” This betrays more about the script-writer than about Emily, for Emily Gilmore before this would never have really considered her work for the DAR to be artifice: the seemingly frivolous work of choosing curtains and tablecloths and china patterns was an expression of an attempt to hold a fraying society together. As Emily says before she walks out the DAR doors, “This whole thing is dead to me anyway. It died with Richard.” Without Richard Gilmore, there’s no point in trying to save America anymore.

Lorelai

You never do anything unless it’s exactly what you want to do. You never have. You go through life like a natural disaster knocking down everything and everyone in your path.” – Emily to Lorelai, “Winter.”

Fact check: True.

Lorelai is as flighty and selfish as ever, so there isn’t much new ground to cover here. She and Luke have lived together since the end of the series, never married, and apparently never even discussed having children, so it suddenly becomes an issue now. With Lorelai nearing the age of fifty, she can’t have children, and so surrogacy becomes a plot device that goes nowhere (but allows for some great scenes with the inimitable Paris Gellar, who breathed life into the whole depressing mess). Between the surrogacy drama and going to therapy with her mother, Lorelai works herself up into a real midlife crisis, deciding to go and hike the Pacific Crest Trail a la the book and movie Wild. Granted, I know nothing about either, but while the whole adventure seemed out of character—until she doesn’t actually go through with it—there was a certain pathos to the conversations she had with other women seeking solace in the wilderness. As the lonely ladies sit around a fire drinking boxed wine, one of them says, “I’m so glad I’m doing this. I almost did ‘Eat Pray Love,’ but my miles were blacked out. So here I am.” She later adds: “God, I hope this hike works. I need a new life so badly.”

Lorelai realizes that she doesn’t actually need a new life, and goes home to Luke having discovered that all she wants is to get married to him, leading to one of my favorite lines of the show: “I’ve gotta tell ya, before this thing goes on, the only way out is in a body bag.”

As infuriating as Lorelai is, she finally grows up enough to marry the man she loves. That’s something.

Rory

You’re glowing! You must be in love.” – Emily to Rory, “Winter.”

But Rory isn’t in love.

She’s not in love with her boyfriend Paul, whom she has dated for two years and whose existence she regularly forgets. (The callous treatment of forgettable Paul is supposed to be funny, but comes off as cruel.) She’s not in love with her work. She doesn’t even seem to be in love with her lover, Logan Huntzberger, who, it turns out, she has been having an extended sexual relationship with, we can assume for many years. Logan is engaged to a French heiress, but Rory stays with him whenever she’s in London, which seems to be quite often. In the series finale Rory turned down his offer of a diamond ring and a life together—apparently only to exchange it for the life of a mistress, a high-class call girl. This is why it is almost impossible to have any sympathy for the girl when Logan tells her that his fiancé is finally moving in, and that they’ll have to conduct their liasons in a hotel in the future. It suddenly dawns on Rory that she is, indeed, the other woman—and that rather than romantic, her life looks tawdry.

Lacking sympathy for Rory is the popular thing to do in reviews of the reboot, but for the wrong reasons. Sure, it’s true that Rory comes across as a spoiled child who has never been called to account for her poor choices. And yeah, her career isn’t going well. But it seems to me that that’s not because she’s arrogant or entitled: it’s because her heart just isn’t in it anymore. Even when she steels herself to get something done and goes out into Manhattan to interview people for a ridiculous story, instead of successfully completing her task we are treated to the cringiest scene of the entire show, when she returns to tell her mother that she’s had her first one-night stand with a man in a Wookie costume. (Yes, at this point she’s still supposedly dating Paul and sleeping with Logan.) She expresses no horror at her own disloyalty, but only at her choice of partner.

So who, or what, does Rory love?

She expresses a sincere nostalgic love for her ex-boyfriend Dean when she runs into him in the grocery store. And she drops everything to save the Stars Hollow Gazette from extinction, even taking over as editor—a truly thankless task.

It’s clear that Rory is in love with her childhood. Stars Hollow, her first boyfriend, and her mother are all emblems of this. Other reviewers see this as a failing; I do not. There’s nothing wrong with loving a place and trying to make it better, even sacrificing more prestigious dreams in order to do so. In some ways, Rory makes peace with this over the course of the episodes. She finally makes a clean break with Logan; she begins writing a book about the story of her relationship with her mother; and of course, in the shocking final scene, she tells her mother, “I’m pregnant.” While the show creator, Amy Sherman-Palladino, has suggested that Rory might have an abortion, the reviewer at Vox was horrified that Rory might actually think of keeping the child:

“Is this really what Rory wanted for herself? Or is she too deeply wedded to the mythos of Stars Hollow to know what her own desires are at this point?

The narrative’s cheerful, almost totally uncritical sublimation of millennial women’s individual agency to the cause of more babies is utterly enraging. To accept this plot as a natural conclusion to the show means either rewriting Rory herself into a passive noncommittal bore, or twisting Stars Hollow itself into something unrecognizable: a distorted version of American life where individual dreams and goals are repressed and subsumed into the larger collective. Stars Hollow, in this view, becomes a pro-life argument for the need to continue the legacy of Stars Hollow at any cost — even if it means dismantling the dreams of one of Stars Hollow’s finest.

It’s an abysmal, bittersweet way to part with a beloved fictional town. Rory will have the illusion of happiness, surrounded by community and family. But if 2016 has taught us anything, it’s that false comfort won’t make America great again, and it definitely won’t make Rory Gilmore great again.”

You see, the real tragedy would be having a community and a family, and thinking of yourself as happy. The horror!

Conclusion

The transformation of the town and its characters shows us that nothing is free of politics after the era of Obama, not even Stars Hollow.

Emily Gilmore is never really going to recover, because her world is gone.

Lorelai is getting married but isn’t going to have a child, while Rory may have a child, but isn’t getting married. It’s unclear whether or not she’ll have her baby, but either way, it won’t be raised with a father, just as Rory wasn’t raised with one. It’s a fatherless world. No fathers, no kings, no Richard Gilmores.

And yet the show isn’t really capable of pretending that everything is fine. The darkness shines through the charming humor, which isn’t as charming as it used to be. The gods left the earth a long time ago, but this seems to be a world entirely bereft of men. The result isn’t a feminist fantasy: it’s just sad.

1 Comment on Gilmore Girls: An American Tragedy

Modest Proposals

With the election of Donald Trump to the presidency of the United States of America, we must all admit that we underestimated what was within the realm of possibility. If a reality-TV billionaire can take on the entire liberal-internationalist politico-media establishment campaigning on a national-populist platform, *and win*, then none but God know what else is possible.

With the election of Donald Trump to the presidency of the United States of America, we must all admit that we underestimated what was within the realm of possibility. If a reality-TV billionaire can take on the entire liberal-internationalist politico-media establishment campaigning on a national-populist platform, and win, then none but God know what else is possible.

Our people have been in steady demographic decline since the first half of the twentieth century. Our politics and culture has only further degenerated since the catastrophic Second World War. And yet, now, over the past five years or so, we have witnessed stunning cultural and political gains for nationalists across the Western world, especially in America. If the politics continue to improve at this rate, I dare say we will touch salvation well within our lifetimes.

In this spirit, I make the following modest proposals which the Trump Administration, and any other patriotic Western governments, could pursue immediately to save both Western civilization and the people who produced that civilization. These proposals are all technically feasible, even if political feasibility may require some more time. They are:

  1. The creation of a “Greater-European League” including all Western and European countries, with regular summits of leaders and affirmation of their common interests and identity as one great family of nations.
  2. Systematic support for European governments in shutting down all Third World immigration, including support for existing patriotic European governments (notably the Visegrád countries).
  3. The shunning and undermining of all Western and European governments that violate patriots’ political rights and free expression. This refers especially to the criminal Merkel regime in Germany, that has, in cold blood, adopted policies which will lead to untold rape and terrorism against European men, women, and children.
  4. The abolition of NATO and its replacement by a defensive military alliance of all Western and European nations, including North America, Europe, and Russia. Such an alliance could include the creation of a ‘European Legion’ featuring the best recruits from the entire Western and European world, as a military organization to defend our people wherever they may live.
  5. The cooperation of Western and European nations in multilateral great projects so as to promote their common interests and collective sovereignty. Such projects could include the construction of high-tech walls along the southern European border, space exploration, and genetic research. To the extent possible, Western and European nations shouldpool and leverage their cognitive resources in this manner, thus maximizing our innovative potential (something particularly necessary given that China alone has a high IQ and a larger population than the entire Western and European world).
  6. The cooperation of Western and European nations to promote European consciousness and awareness of the primacy of shared ethnic-genetic interests among all our peoples. This could be achieved through educational and student exchange programs, the promotion of patriotic film and television shows, and a common lingua franca.
  7. The creation of a vast European-American Market, from Vancouver to Vladivostok, to foster economic prosperity, collective sovereignty relative to other economic and civilizational blocs, and interdependence among our own nations to lessen the likelihood of conflict and foster a community of interests.
  8. An official objective of raising the birth rates of indigenous Europeans and the European diaspora. All European and Western governments should regularly meet to monitor progress and share best practices to reach this objective. Given the scientific reality of heredity, the intellectually and physically best members of our people, in particular, should become conscious of their duty to perpetuate their line.

Many may question whether such objectives are feasible. I will only say: they are, technically-speaking, perfectly feasible. They not instituted only because our people and political leaders do not know that they are desirable. I say, to instill moral confidence: the fact is, many of our greatest thinkers and statesmen have argued for the basic solidarity of our nations on grounds of shared blood and civilization.

Over two millennia ago, the great philosopher Plato wrote in The Republic:

Greeks are bonded to one another by internal ties of blood and kinship, but interact with non-Greeks as people who are foreign and live outside their domain. [. . .] When Greeks and non-Greeks fight, then, we’ll describe this as warfare, and claim that they are natural enemies and that the term “war” should refer to this type of hostility. But when Greeks get involved in this kind of thing with other Greeks, we’ll claim that they are natural friends, and that in a situation like this Greece is diseased and in conflict, and we’ll maintain that the term “conflict” should refer to this type of hostility.

Are we Europeans – especially in the face of Africans and Asians – no less “bonded to one another by internal ties of blood and kinship”? If twentieth century Europeans had adhered to Plato’s advice might we not have avoided fratricidal wars and civilizational suicide?

Over a thousand years after Plato, Charlemagne united Western Europeans under the Catholic faith, thus ensuring with Orthodoxy that almost all Europeans shared in Christianity. Whatever one’s opinion of that religion, one great advantage of Charlemagne’s work was in giving most of Europe the same religion and the same elite language. He invited intellectuals from across the European world into the cultural center of his project, from Peter of Pisa to Alcuin of York, getting the critical mass of brains needed for the Carolingian Renaissance. Christendom enabled the aristocracies of all European nations to intermarry, all the while maintaining a de facto racial boundary with the Semitic world.

In the modern era, interactions with Native Americans, Africans, and Asians, led to the rise of racial consciousness among Europeans, a consciousness that was only further strengthened by scientific discoveries concerning genetics and heredity. A century and a half ago, long before the catastrophic world wars, the famous French writer Victor Hugo said of Germany and France: “There is between these peoples an intimate connection, an undeniable consanguinity. They stem from the same sources; they fought together against the Romans; they are brothers in the past, brothers in the present, brothers in the future.”

Hugo saw further still however. Speaking in the French National Assembly in 1849, he foresaw not only a European federation but economic union with the American republic: “A day will come when these two immense groups, the United States of America, the United States of Europe, placed one beside the other, extending their hand across the seas, trading their products, their commerce, their industry, their arts, their geniuses.” With similar far-sightedness, Russian President Vladimir Putin has spoken of the need for “a harmonious economic community stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok.”

After the world wars, in which he had taken part in and despite the excesses of National Socialism, General Charles de Gaulle continued to assert the primacy of race as grounds for political cooperation:

For my part, I have, since always, but today more than ever, felt that which is common to the nations which inhabit [Europe]. All being of the same white race, of the same Christian origin, of the same way of life, bound between each other since always by countless relations of thought, art, science, politics, commerce, it is in line with their nature that they come to form a whole, having in the world its character and its organization.

But might not diaspora Europeans reply: Does European blood halt at mere geographical boundaries? Or does it not extend beyond the Urals, beyond the seas, spilling to all continents, the fruit of our explosive will and dynamism?

Today, President-Elect Trump – while more of an American populist than anything else – has frequently given expression to the European identity which he also shares in. He has asserted that it should be easier for Europeans to immigrate to the United States. He has professed a belief in genetics and good breeding, and shown pride in his “German blood” (“great stuff!”). He has denounced in no uncertain terms the slow death of Europe. Following an umpteenth rampage by murderous Muslims, Trump could only lament, in his inimitably unabashed and straightforward way: “France is no longer France.” The France Trump might have imagined growing up, is gone, increasingly Africanized and Islamized – leading only to the dismay one feels when a wrong you could not even conceive of is occurring. As of today, Trump’s Twitter account (that rival to the New York Times) has “liked” only 45 tweets. One of them is the following:

We have every reason to hope and to fight.

A final thought.

Despite the fratricidal butchery of the First World War, many of our forefathers retained an optimistic faith in their race and civilization. In 1927, the American pilot Charles Lindbergh crossed the Atlantic by plane in a single flight for the first time, causing a global sensation. Lindbergh’s spectacular feats then inspired the following futuristic vision in the Christian preacher Reverend S. Parkes Cadman:

We can be certain that what man shall accomplish in the future will dwarf anything he has done in the past. This little disk on my desk puts us in communication with half a continent. Who dare say what man will achieve by Christmas, 1977? It is permissible to speculate that five centuries hence Raphael’s Madonna will be surpassed; the theatre, God’s instrument for saving grace; the governments of the white race a federal unity resembling our own republic and free from its friction and provincialism

Can you imagine? That is how a Christian used to think! That is what the New York Times [sic!] could publish! The dream of a United States of Hyperborea! What a sight! How low we have a sunk! How he would weep if he saw the White race in 1977! Let alone 2016! How far we are from the mark! We, proud men of the West, seeing ourselves steadily reduced to minority status in our own lands, unconscious of our identity, ignorant of the good, which is indistinguishable from the true and the heroic. But we are Awakening! And by that alone, there are many centuries of work ahead of us.

No Comments on Modest Proposals

Illegitimate

Donald Trump is President-elect, but the Crisis of Legitimacy has arrived anyway. The Washington Post and The New York Times are screeching that “the Russians” delivered Trump the presidency. One out of three Clinton voters think Trump’s win is fraudulent. The Fourth Estate is cheerleading an attempt by so-called “Hamilton electors” to launch a kind of coup to deny Trump the presidency. President Obama is even urging American soldiers to protest their new Commander-in-Chief once he takes power, though Trump doesn’t seem to have anything to worry about when it comes to his popularity among the officer corps.

Donald Trump is President-elect, but the Crisis of Legitimacy has arrived anyway. The Washington Post and The New York Times are screeching that “the Russians” delivered Trump the presidency. One out of three Clinton voters think Trump’s win is fraudulent. The Fourth Estate is cheerleading an attempt by so-called “Hamilton electors” to launch a kind of coup to deny Trump the presidency. President Obama is even urging American soldiers to protest their new Commander-in-Chief once he takes power, though Trump doesn’t seem to have anything to worry about when it comes to his popularity among the officer corps.

In Year One of the Aeon of Kek, all that is hidden will be revealed. So we know none of this kvetching about “protecting democracy” or respecting the rule of law can be taken seriously. For weeks before that fateful night in November, Trump was besieged by demands to respect the result of the election, no matter what happened. Clinton used the Left’s favorite scare term, “horrifying,” to describe Trump’s supposed reluctance to do so.

Now, that venerable constitutional order the progressives were defending only weeks ago is “the absolute worst,” though their narrative is further confused by wishful thinking about “Hamilton electors” defying Trump in supposed adherence to the Founding Father’s vision. Actually, if Alexander Hamilton did return, he’d probably be wondering why women, slaves and non-property owners are allowed to vote, why so many foreigners are being admitted, and how anyone could disagree with Trump’s America First trade policies.

Any appeal by the American Left to the traditions of the Republic, to America’s patriotic heritage, or to national sovereignty can be dismissed out of hand. For decades, we’ve heard the Constitution is racist, the Founding Fathers were genocidal slavers, and that America doesn’t show sufficient deference to foreigners, who should be allowed to vote and who should replace this country’s White majority. Such creatures are in no position to speak of what is or is not American.

One of the many glorious ironies of The Current Year is that Leftists lost because they gaslit themselves. So committed are these supposed egalitarians to snark, they interpreted any evidence Donald Trump could win the election the same way as they would a study on racial differences on IQ. They simply blocked it out of their minds, pretending it didn’t exist.

Thus, there wasn’t that sense of urgency which could have driven progressives to the polls to frustrate Trump. In Austria, where the anti-White forces had a real fear of defeat, they were able to stop a nationalist victory and so make the head of state a man who thinks his own country is shit.

Here, progressives simply assumed Clinton would win because it was preordained. As (((Lena Dunham))) aptly summarized it, the presidency was “her job.” It was “her turn.” We were “ready for Hillary.” It was time.

Trump’s victory was thus an inversion of a sacred moral order, or what passes for such among deracinated “global citizens.” When your entire self-image is built about status and signaling and the guy you’ve been mocking as “Cheeto Jesus” and “F—kface Von Clownstick” just kicked your ass in the most remarkable political victory in American history, what do you do? The answer is what we are seeing now, where any excuse and any line of attack is being used against Trump, even ones which contradict each other.

Trump has no military experience, but he’s also creating a “military government.”

Trump is part of a backlash against global capitalism, and a traitor to the free market legacy of Reagan, but he’s also a tool of international finance and corporate donors.

Trump will never build The Wall and will betray his supporters on immigration, but he will also unleash a reign of terror on immigrants fearful they will be deported.

And so on.

He’s an extreme nationalist and a tool of foreign powers. He’s a militarist and a fascist, but also someone not willing to use force abroad. He hates workers, but he’s also threatening companies into remaining in the country.
The arguments don’t matter. They are so incoherent they are not even worth listening to. All that can be understood through the chaos is the incoherent scream of hatred from the Lying Press and the Parasite Class it speaks for; a cry of loathing and fury against European-Americans, who finally made themselves heard.

Andrew O’Heir mourns Trump as America’s “First White President,” or more accurately, the first president whose racial identity took on primary importance after America had been deconstructed as a White nation.

He sneers:

So now they have Donald Trump, the avatar of white grievance and white resentment. He is the 44th white president, but the First White President to stand for whiteness as a special category, a downtrodden identity group of Dockers and Callaway golf caps and NCAA warmup jackets worn a full size too snug. Unsurprisingly, Trump seems likely to betray that demographic and hand over the keys of government to rapacious zillionaires and right-wing ideologues, like other white-centric Republican presidents before him.

We will all suffer the consequences of that. And the sad, secret meaning behind our First White President and the dawn of white identity politics is that there is no way back to the days of white certainty and white innocence. There will always have been a President Barack Obama; that Kenyan birth certificate never panned out and he will never be erased from the history books. It seems increasingly likely that Hillary Clinton will be viewed in retrospect as the true winner of a fluke election that exposed how dysfunctional our system has become. She isn’t running a child-sex ring out of a pizza parlor, and won’t be locked up or executed by Trump or anyone else.

A fluke election? Trump’s victory was far more certain and secure than that of, say, George W. Bush, who won in 2000 because of one state and a Supreme Court decision determined by one vote. Some studies suggest if recounts continued, and had been conducted in a certain way, Gore would have won.

Before that, there was Bill Clinton, who won in 1992 with only 43% of the popular vote in an election which featured the independent candidacy of Ross Perot. Jill Stein could scam another $6 million out of her donors and have as many recounts as she wants – it wouldn’t change the results.

And if Trump really is going to betray the White working class, and not pursue the policies he ran on, why is O’Heir upset? A plutocratic, anti-White agenda is exactly what we would have gotten under Hillary Clinton.

O’Heir continues:

Of all the lies Donald Trump told to get elected, perhaps the biggest and worst was something he never quite said aloud but became the primary text of his campaign: White male hegemony could be restored, and all racial and sexual doubt and anxiety erased, because on some deep level that was the natural order of things. Isn’t that a correct translation of “Make America Great Again”? But electing our First White President is a dead giveaway that none of that is possible. If the republic survives this particular white president, we may have others in the future. But we will never again have an automatic white president, an invisible white president or a white president that nobody notices is white.

This is ‘fact-checking’ at a new level, as Trump is now being accused of lying for something he never actually said. This reading seems more like projection on O’Heir’s part, rather than anything coming from Trump, his campaign, or even the Alt Right. It’s the Left which sees “the natural order of things” as multiracialism, hypocritical egalitarianism, and an explicit anti-white policy agenda. And a vast infrastructure is required to subsidize, browbeat, persecute, and incite all the necessary elements to keep this artificial system in place. The only thing “white male hegemony,” aka normal White society, would need to be restored is the boot taken off it’s neck for a split second.

O’Heir has a point when he identifies Trump as a “white” president in an age when this is no longer automatic. Identity politics has, as I predicted, been forced on European-Americans. O’Heir simply believes Whites shouldn’t be allowed to practice it, and should succumb meekly to extinction.

But O’Heir gives the game away when he suggests White identity was, in the past, the default mode for American identity. If this is true, why shouldn’t European-Americans have the exclusive right to the entire American heritage? Why should explicitly anti-White writers and activists have any claim to the flag or to the Republic? To Make America Great Again isn’t some revolutionary step; it is, by the Left’s own logic, simply to Make America America Again.

The excitable cries for coups, for Obama to refuse to step down, for war with Russia or for protests in the streets are a reflection that the Left’s project to remake the country demographically has instead deconstructed it entirely. The American state isn’t a loci of identity, but simply a weapon; an arsenal to be warred over by differing tribes who happen to reside in the Hollow Empire. Trump, as a civic nationalist and The Last American, is the last chance to keep the whole project limping along. And the Left won’t even let him do that.

We should be grateful for this. The real danger for the American Right is that we will be drafted into an effort to prop up this ramshackle project. If left to its own devices, there is no doubt the Republican Party, even with Trump at the head, will make things much worse. The likes of Paul Ryan will slash programs which benefit Whites, supposedly to keep them sustainable for the Third World future. White Americans will fight and die against Russia in the name of our “fellow countrymen” like the BLM protesters of Chicago and Baltimore, and the hysterical mestizos in the foreign colony of Los Angeles. And Trump has no problem denouncing the Alt Right (albeit in a perfunctory, pro-forma way) while gushing over Blacks, Hispanics, and homosexuals as collective groups. Like the ethnic Germans in collapsing Austria-Hungary, a civic nationalism in the current context would simply lead to us being drafted in someone else’s fight.

Luckily, the hysterical Left is preparing the battlefield for us. With their refusal to accept Trump, sabotage of American institutions, and wild charges of treason, all but the most pathetic cuckservatives are being forced into a zero-sum struggle of peoples being waged on the North American continent. The main strategic objective of the Alt Right at this moment is, as Lawrence Murray brilliantly defined it, to build a nationalist “deep state” and use whatever power we can take as a weapon of “unrelenting ideological opportunism.”

After all, the Left has long since viewed the state in this way. In the Current Year, you pay taxes to support a government that makes your country less safe, your country less attractive, and your society more degraded. A progressive movement defined entirely by their hatred of European-Americans is telling us we don’t have anything in common with them; why not take them at their word?

Of course, a “deep state” is only one strategy among many. From secessionist movements to artistic subcultures, from building financial networks to self-sufficient tribes, a variety of strategies will be needed to survive what’s coming, some of which may even appear contradictory. What is clear is that Trump’s civic nationalist project is doomed before it even began, besieged from the Left by anti-White radicalism and from the supposed “Right” by Conservative Inc. functionaries devoid of racial or even national identity.

No one can predict exactly how this conflict will play out. But unless European-Americans cave entirely, the center will not hold. The System has already been stripped of legitimacy for both sides. And as Stephen Junger wrote in Tribe, “People who speak with contempt for one another will probably not remain united for long.”

No Comments on Illegitimate

The Knight of the Long Knives

The age of digital platform censorship is upon us! As am sure many of you have heard by now, Twitter has suspended my account along with those of Radix Journal,…

The age of digital platform censorship is upon us! As am sure many of you have heard by now, Twitter has suspended my account along with those of Radix Journal, NPI America, Washington Summit Publishers and various other Alt Right accounts, included certified MIT election influencer Ricky Vaughn. This just shows how dangerous the left-wing/media complex sees our ideas. I offer a few thoughts in a video below.

No Comments on The Knight of the Long Knives

Time for Heroes

It was never supposed to happen like this. 

Political theorists from James Madison to Hans-Hermann Hoppe already proved that pure democracy was doomed to failure. The masses’ appetites for more and more favors and subsidies would never end. They would only become more ravenous as politicians realized that the path to more power was to promise more free stuff than the competition. Thus, we were doomed to live in a society sliding ever onward toward ruin, incapable of saving itself. This was an iron law of history and nothing we could do could change it. 

It was never supposed to happen like this.

Political theorists from James Madison to Hans-Hermann Hoppe already proved that pure democracy was doomed to failure. The masses’ appetites for more and more favors and subsidies would never end. They would only become more ravenous as politicians realized that the path to power was to promise more free stuff than the competition. Thus, we were doomed to live in a society sliding ever onward toward ruin, incapable of saving itself. This was an iron law of history and nothing we could do could change it.

Or so we thought. For the first time perhaps in all of US history, we have a democratic referendum that could actually begin to roll back the decline. While the West drowns in a sea of alien migrants from incompatible cultures that openly hate white civilization, we have an opportunity to wall out the invaders and put our nation first.

While the Left tries mightily to rekindle the old Cold War against a “homophobic” Russia, we have the opportunity to reach out in brotherhood and understanding with the other White superpower. While our former middle class devolves into a jobless, heroin-addled proletariat, we have the opportunity to reject the globalist managerial trade regime and fight for the interests of our own people. And while our entire culture ruthlessly suppresses dissent from the very forces that are destroying it, we have the opportunity to begin to speak freely again.

In short, the presidential election offers us a referendum on the single most important issue for our civilization: whether to choose health, vitality, and life or to slide onward toward decay and death.

But what is most astounding of all is that we have gotten to this point not through any natural process, but rather through the will of one man deciding to challenge the iron laws of history.

No theory of democracy would have accounted for Donald Trump. All the theories we had could only predict continued decline. And they were all correct—to a point. Yes, democracy creates bad incentives and, yes, we can generally expect people to follow the incentives they are given. But what about a man who simply ignores the systems and incentive structures that society has in place? A man who is motivated by his own convictions of right and wrong, even if doing what is right comes at a great price, and therefore should, by all rational economic calculation, do what is wrong?

Such are the great men who truly make history. We can never anticipate their emergence, because they emerge only by their own free will. As Thomas Carlyle, the great exponent of the so-called “great man theory” put it:

[N]o Time need have gone to ruin, could it have found a man great enough, a man wise and good enough: wisdom to discern truly what the Time wanted, valor to lead it on the right road thither; these are the salvation of any Time. But I liken common languid Times, with their unbelief, distress, perplexity, with their languid doubting characters and embarrassed circumstances, impotently crumbling down into ever worse distress towards final ruin;—all this I liken to dry dead fuel, waiting for the lightning out of Heaven that shall kindle it. The great man, with his free force direct out of God’s own hand, is the lightning. His word is the wise healing word which all can believe in. All blazes around him now, when he has once struck on it, into fire like his own.

Oh, how those fires are spreading.

Half a world away, Serbian protesters against American imperialism parade through the streets in Donald Trump t-shirts, while their Slovenian counterparts chant “You’re fired!” at a rally against the Muslim invasion of Europe. Julian Assange, once a hero to “open-government” liberals, now claims the distinction of being the Left’s second most hated person, who their own presidential candidate wistfully dreamed of murdering in a drone strike..

The former libertarian Stefan Molyneux has turned his back on the old jeremiads about “universally preferable behavior” and now claims, in a recent podcast, that the entirety of his life’s work culminates in Donald Trump’s election. And intellectualized alt-right millenials, who would previously spend their time debating the respective merits of Evola and Heidegger, now tweet into the dead of night on behalf of a man most famous in their own lifetimes as the star of a reality show none of them ever watched.

The one thing our Time wants most is a hero. Accustomed as we are to the Age of the Last Man, we are used to everything being narrow, vulgar, and small. Nothing captures the spirit of our age better than the recent news report that the tower of Germany’s Gothic Ulm Cathedral—the tallest in the world—is now being eroded by urine and vomit.

The gutter morality foisted on us from kindergarten through graduate school reviles Christopher Columbus—who crossed uncharted seas and laid the foundation for civilization to arise out of the fetid swampland of the New World—but praises the bravery of “Caitlin” Jenner and Black Lives Matter looters. Popular TV shows like Game of Thrones depict worlds where the few people of honor and principle meet grisly deaths at the hands of Machiavellian social climbers who practice incest and other sexual perversions. Sports stars take steroids and disrespect the flag, Hollywood celebrities donate millions to charities aimed at dispossessing the toiling masses in who watch their movies, and corporations train their employees to be “sensitive,” “inclusive” poodles who never allow interesting or controversial thoughts to get in the way of the company’s bottom line.

Meanwhile, the approved opposition offers no alternative better than a bland economism. For the perfect example, look to libertarian Jeffrey Tucker, who attacks Carlyle and Great Men in a girlish screed at the Foundation for Economic Education. (His article is most notable for its total indifference to addressing any of its ostensible subject’s actual arguments, instead trying to prove at length that this Victorian Scotsman was Literally Hitler.) According to Tucker, it is not “great men” but “the small lives of the bourgeoisie” toiling away in “Adam Smith’s pin factory” who make the world turn. Rather than put our faith in superior individuals (did I mention Hitler did that?), we should praise the factory workers whose labor allows us to buy smartphones at 7% less than before. But while someone needs to make consumer goods, why should economic consumption be valued more highly than nobility?

Against the ubiquitous drabness and mediocrity of modern life, Donald Trump represents greatness and strength. In a time when victimhood is considered noble, Trump brags about his wealth and success. While once great and thriving cities—the Detroit of Henry Ford, the Baltimore of Mencken and Poe—degenerate into hollow husks ravaged by tribal gang warfare, we have a man who rose to wealth and fame on the dream of building the most beautiful skyscrapers in the world. While everyone around us celebrates the low, Trump Tower reaches up to touch the heavens. His vision evokes Ayn Rand at her most Nietzschean:

I would give the greatest sunset in the world for one sight of New York’s skyline. Particularly when one can’t see the details. Just the shapes. The shapes and the thought that made them. The sky over New York and the will of man made visible. What other religion do we need? And then people tell me about pilgrimages to some dank pesthole in a jungle where they go to do homage to a crumbling temple, to a leering stone monster with a pot belly, created by some leprous savage. Is it beauty and genius they want to see? Do they seek a sense of the sublime? Let them come to New York, stand on the shore of the Hudson, look and kneel.

Despite the mewling protestations of “individualists” like Jeffrey Tucker, the visions of Great Men is the real triumphs of the individual. It is only through the act of individual will that Donald Trump made his mark upon the world, from electrifying the New York skyline to horrifying the smug bien pensants of K Street and Rockefeller Center. It is through that same individual will that Trump chose to defy everything we knew about history and society and prove that the crises of our times really can be held at bay if only we can find a hero with the will to do so.

Of course, the outcome is far from certain. We all know the forces arrayed against us—in the end, they may prove too powerful. If they are, Trump might pay mightily for daring to challenge the powers that be. Others have already commented on the damage he has inflicted on his own brand, which he previously marketed toward the same elites who now hate him most. Even worse, our managerial elite has created such a Byzantine legal code of economic regulations compounded with criminal penalties that the average businessman is estimated to unknowingly commit three felonies in a single day. With laws like these, it would not necessarily be difficult for a Clinton administration to dredge up some violation of the criminal code and, in a reversal of Trump’s recent promises, throw him in prison.

But martyrdom is its own form of heroism. In his willingness to risk it all, Trump encapsulates the Faustian spirit—the soul of the West—which pushes past our limits to grasp for greatness even against the threat of damnation. And in doing so, through the strength of his will, he has opened up a future where defeat remains possible, but is no longer preordained.

Those of us who, in Jeffrey Tucker’s phrase, live “the small lives of the bourgeoisie” did not make this happen. Instead, we may be witnessing a remarkable feat rarely seen in history: a decaying civilization that saves itself through the courage and direction of a single man. If Trump wins, we may Make America Great Again. But the message his victory will send will have repercussions far beyond that. It can begin the process of making ourselves great again, making Europe great again, making western civilization and the White men who built it great again . . . And then, with the renewed vigor of a people finally shaking off our self-imposed mediocrity, we may find greatness beyond the bounds of earth, among the stars, and in unknown galaxies not yet conquered.

No Comments on Time for Heroes

Beyond NATO

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization came into being on April 4, 1949, in Washington, DC. NATO’s first Secretary General, Lord Ismay, described its purpose with rare candor: “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.”

Today, some 67 years after the signing of the treaty and 77 years after the war that precipitated it, it is time to take a hard look at NATO and reach an inevitable conclusion—it has to go.

The geopolitical enemies that justified the creation of NATO—National Socialist Germany and the Soviet Union—have long since disappeared from the world stage. They have been replaced by new threats, both conventional and unconventional, that cannot be adequately faced through NATO and are, indeed, exacerbated by NATO’s antiquated defense orientation. There is a great deal of truth to Richard Sakwa’s caustic assessment that Washington is trapped in a “fateful geographical paradox—that Nato exists to manage the risks created by its existence.”  

For the good of the United States and our allies in Europe, NATO must be dismantled and replaced with a new, updated organization prepared to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

Introduction

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization came into being on April 4, 1949, in Washington, DC. NATO’s first Secretary General, Lord Ismay, described its purpose with rare candor: “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.”[1]

Today, some 67 years after the signing of the treaty and 77 years after the war that precipitated it, it is time to take a hard look at NATO and reach an inevitable conclusion—it has to go.

The geopolitical enemies that justified the creation of NATO—National Socialist Germany and the Soviet Union—have long since disappeared from the world stage. They have been replaced by new threats, both conventional and unconventional, that cannot be adequately faced through NATO and are, indeed, exacerbated by NATO’s antiquated defense orientation. There is a great deal of truth to Richard Sakwa’s caustic assessment that Washington is trapped in a “fateful geographical paradox—that Nato exists to manage the risks created by its existence.”[2]

For the good of the United States and our allies in Europe, NATO must be dismantled and replaced with a new, updated organization prepared to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

The Origins of “Atlanticism”

NATO, like most treaties, is inescapably a product of its time. The Atlanticist school of thought was based on the idea of a strategic bond between the U.S., Canada, and Western Europe.[3] But this no longer has the hard geopolitical grounding it did in the days of the Interwar and Cold War periods. There is no longer a hostile superpower on the eastern edge of the Atlantic sphere. And the familiar binary of “Freedom vs. Socialism” is no longer a useful model for describing the ideological and political divisions in today’s world.

Reality has moved on, but Atlanticism has stayed put.

1. Hitler’s Germany

Adolf Hitler’s Germany was the main threat to Atlanticist (that is, British, French, and American) power up until the end of the Second World War in 1945. Despite Germany’s leniency towards retreating British forces in the early days of the war, and its attempts at a reconciliation with London, Churchill’s Britain was fundamentally unable to accept a peace agreement.[4]

The continuation of the war required a willing ally in the United States, provided by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Lend-Lease and the Atlantic Charter of 1941 were early indications of this Atlantic alignment against continental power (centered in Berlin). The “Allies” coalition and United Nations followed, and were crystallized in postwar NATO. The Atlantic Charter was ratified by Washington and London on August 14, 1941—months before the attack on Pearl Harbor and the United States’ full entrance into the war. Lend-Lease, which supplied materiel to the UK, France, China, and Soviet Union, was begun even earlier, in March of that year. While Lend-Lease demonstrated Washington’s commitment to defeating Germany, the Atlantic Charter outlined the Atlanticist vision of the world after the war: free trade, freedom of the seas, “self-determination” of individual nation-states (with echoes of The League of Nations and Woodrow Wilson), and global cooperation for social welfare and the disarmament of “aggressor states.”[5]

While the Allies were assembled primarily to defeat Germany, NATO was designed to keep it defeated. And after near-total physical destruction in 1944-45, the replacement of existing German political institutions with U.S.-created ones, and an extensive policy of “de-nazification,” West Germany became a U.S. protectorate. (An analogous process with East Germany occurred in the Soviet sphere.) Put bluntly, Germany was humiliated, divided, and neutered. And even after reunification in 1990, it has never presented a real threat to Washington’s objectives.

2. Stalin’s Russia

While Germany inspired NATO’s precursors, Stalin’s Soviet Union inspired NATO itself.[6] After extensive cooperation with the Atlantic powers during the Second World War, the USSR became the chief competitor to the United States, Britain, and France immediately following 1945. In the wake of the annihilation of Hitler’s Germany, the Soviet Union became such a threat that the Allies developed a contingency plan “to impose upon Russia the will of the United States and the British Empire.”[7] Though this plan remained unimplemented due to its low odds of success—and potentially catastrophic consequences—the geopolitical balance of power between the two superpowers (the U.S. and the USSR) was set in stone for the next four decades. The Cold War had begun.

Predictable economic, political, and moral problems eventually led to the collapse of the Soviet Union in the chaotic period of 1989-91.[8] The Russian Federation, the legal successor state to the USSR, was half the size of its predecessor in population. American interests quickly waged economic war on a weakened Russia, manipulated major elections[9], and expanded the influence of NATO and U.S.-backed organizations like the European Union, all the way into former Soviet states on Russia’s border.

In February 1990—after the Berlin Wall had been dismantled but before the Soviet Union had dissolved—Washington and Moscow negotiated the reunification process for Germany. West Germany would effectively absorb East, and the new state would enter NATO; however, James Baker (George H. W. Bush’s Secretary of State) offered “ironclad guarantees that NATO’s jurisdiction or forces would not move eastward,” according to declassified transcripts.[10]

Baker’s “Not one inch eastward” was a promise Washington was unwilling to keep. By the turn of the century, NATO membership had been offered to Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Poland, followed a few years later by Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania. This was accompanied by NATO’s “humanitarian” bombing campaign in Yugoslavia (a traditional Russian ally), and Washington’s attempts, in conjunction with various non-governmental organizations, to inspire changes of regime in various countries in the former Soviet sphere (the “Color Revolutions”).[11]

It is understandable that Russian foreign-policy makers view NATO, not as a “defensive” organization, but as one bent on encircling Russia, perhaps even engaging in regime change in Moscow. Moreover, despite the American and Western European media’s depiction of Russian military activity in Ukraine and Syria as “aggressive,” the geopolitical reality is that they are last-ditch attempts to prevent U.S. encroachment into Russia’s remaining circle of influence around its own borders and few foreign military bases. A Russian invasion of Western Europe, let alone the American mainland, is the stuff of a fever dream or Hollywood blockbuster.

New Enemies, New Threats

While Germany has been remade into a vassal and Russia, displaced from superpower status,[12] threats to the United States and Europe have not subsided—they’ve multiplied. The new threats do not come from traditional European great powers, however, but from a number of non-European states and unconventional non-state actors. History has not ended, as Francis Fukyama imagined in the 1990s,[13] but has taken unforeseen and unpredictable turns.

1. The Specter of Radical Islam

The morning of September 11, 2001, marked a turning point in America’s place in the world. Radical Islamic terrorism— inspired by Wahhabi Islam out of Saudi Arabia—established itself as a major threat to Western hegemony and set the stage for the next decade of American foreign policy.[14]

Islamic terrorism, as it is understood today, did not exist during the creation of NATO in 1949, and was effectively unthinkable. Arab states spent the Cold War mostly aligned with the atheist Soviet Union, and they flirted with secular pan-Arab nationalism (the Ba-ath Party, founded in 1947 and existing to this day, being a prime example). It was not until the late 1970s that the seeds of contemporary Islamic terrorism were sown, ironically, largely by the U.S. and its NATO allies.[15]

Even before the Soviet Union’s ill-advised entrance into Afghanistan in 1979, Washington had funded and trained radical Muslim insurgents in the region.[16] During the 10-year Soviet-Afghan War, the U.S. used these non-state actors (“the Mujahideen”) as pawns to be played against a greater power. It was a strategy with terrible unintended consequences, as the networks and individuals (which included none other than Osama bin Laden) would soon exchange one “Great Satan” for another.

After two major U.S. wars in the Muslim world and an international “War on Terror” that has stretched on more than a decade, radical Islamism has not been defeated; it has exploded.[17] Buoyed and supported discreetly by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, and Western (particularly U.S.) intelligence agencies playing fast-and-loose with Islamic proxy groups, Islamic terrorists have attained a greater position than ever before. This dangerous strategy is particularly obvious in the current Syrian war.

Their reach is evidenced by more frequent, more violent, and more brazen attacks on civilian and military targets in France, Germany, Belgium, and the U.S. mainland, such as the recent atrocities committed in Paris, Nice, and San Bernardino. NATO’s conventional military structure is ill suited for dealing with non-state threats like these, to put it mildly. Garrisons stretched across the European continent—which made NATO powerful in confronting the Soviet Union—are close to useless in addressing the challenge of Islamic terrorism.

2. Turkey—A Dangerous Ally

In 1951, Turkey joined NATO as a junior partner. Today, an increasingly Islamist and assertive Turkey, led by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, dreams of re-creating the Ottoman Empire.[18] Erdogan’s moves have directly supported and emboldened radical Islamic terrorist groups, destabilized the Middle East, and threatened the safety of millions of Europeans who are supposedly under U.S. protection.

Turkey’s substantial support of the Islamic State (IS) and other criminal groups in Syria is an open secret.[19] Moreover, Turkey’s complicity in the 2015-16 “refugee” crisis continues to endanger Europeans and Americans. Its control over the flow of millions of non-European migrants who want to reach Europe is an unacceptable bargaining chip that has corroded European sovereignty and security. Ankara has exploited its geographic location, promising to cut the refugee flow for billions of Euros in aid and accelerated EU membership talks.[20] Attempts by Turkey to reassert its erstwhile dominance over the Balkan Peninsula (which includes Bulgaria, Serbia, Croatia, and Greece) can be expected if NATO remains as it is.

3. Managing the Rise of China

Enmeshed in a brutal civil war until 1950, China was not an immediate threat to U.S. or European interests, despite the eventual victory of Mao Zedong’s Communist forces over the nationalist Kuomintang and the alignment of China with the Soviet Union.

China’s fortunes turned around considerably in the 1970s under the reign of Deng Xiaoping, following the death of Chairman Mao. China was on the rise as early as 1971-72, with the transfer of the permanent Chinese seat on the United Nations Security Council from the Republic of China (Taiwan) to the People’s Republic of China and U.S. President Richard Nixon’s famous “visit to China.”[21]

Today, with the world’s largest population, China’s economy is greater than the United States by some measures.[22] The Chinese leadership is putting its newfound might to use militarily, testing their reach in the South China Sea and elsewhere.

Speculation about a Chinese superpower has not been unfounded. Though economic relations are good and military confrontation is unlikely, China’s trajectory puts it on a direct collision course with the U.S. presence in Asia, in the form of military installations in Japan and South Korea. Indeed, being that America and China have achieved such economic interdependence —a relationship commonly known as “Chimerica”–Washington should seriously consider continuing such a presence, which can only be viewed by Beijing as a threat or expression of superiority.

Chinese intelligence operations and cyber-warfare will only intensify in the United States and NATO-aligned countries as time goes on. Much as with terrorism, NATO is neither equipped nor designed to deal with this kind of threat coming from this region of the world.

4. The Collapse of Mexico

Mexico has never been a paragon of stability and security, but the total collapse of the Mexican state and surrender to narco-terrorists and drug cartels in the last 20 years is unprecedented. With a relatively unguarded 2,000-mile border with the United States, Mexico’s colossal drug trade and the associated violence have spilled over into the U.S.[23] Such chaos has rendered some areas of the United States effectively controlled by Mexican drug cartels, according to local law enforcement.[24] This violation of national sovereignty should be of paramount concern, but goes unaddressed, while Washington pursues spectacular boondoggles in Eastern Europe and the Middle East.

The outdated, Eurasian orientation of NATO has more than a little to do with this failure of defense policy. The threat posed by non-state actors in Mexico to the United States homeland is not just outside the bounds of NATO but unrecognizable to it. Without a major change in defense and foreign policy, particularly policy regarding NATO, incursions across the U.S. border will only increase without any way for U.S. defense forces to reorient themselves away from Eurasia and towards Central America.

Replacing NATO

In the seven decades since the formation of NATO, the greatest threats to U.S. and European security have shifted from Russia and Germany to the Middle East, China, and Mexico. The dissolution of NATO would require a new treaty or set of treaties to formalize a foreign policy current with the latest geopolitical developments.

This new defense orientation would require the following three key principles.

1. Cooperation with Russia

American policy towards Russia since 1991 has consistently been one of aggression, typically cloaked under the guises of economic and political “development.” Based largely off Cold War inertia, this policy culminated in the 2013-14 U.S.-backed coup in neighboring Ukraine, which threw the country into chaos and prompted a military response from Russia.[25]

The threat of nuclear war—Russia inherited the Soviet Union’s entire arsenal—precludes an attempt to intimidate or force Russia into submission. The threats from Islamic terrorism, a rising Turkey, and an ascendant China require cooperation with the only significant power in the region with major exposure to all three—Russia.

Recognition of the changes in the security situation since 1949 requires sincere cooperation with Russia and the cession of Russia’s traditional sphere of influence in Eastern Europe, the Caucuses, and Central Asia. A stable power equilibrium will need to be reached to defend against external threats common to both the U.S. and Russia.

2. Reviving Western Europe

Western Europe has depended heavily on the U.S. military for defense since the end of the Second World War. Size and spending of the U.S. military dwarf those of Washington’s closest European allies and former colonial powers.[26]

With the Soviet Union broken up and Russia returned to its traditional status, it is time to also break up the unnecessary American “empire” in Europe. The dissolution of NATO must send a strong message to Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and the rest of Europe that they must defend themselves.

The defense of Europe from Soviet Communism required tremendous American might and a unified military command, but the threats faced by Europe today require strong national militaries, intelligence services, and borders. Cooperation between the U.S., Europe, and Russia must be done on the basis of sovereign states with mutual interests, not clients servicing behemoths and far-off imperial capitals.

Europeans, in turn, must get tough and recognize that the American shield they have lived under for some 70 years will, eventually, vanish, due to Washington’s unwillingness to maintain Cold War-era military structures or its bankruptcy.

3. An Eye to Common Threats

The threats to Atlantic security outlined above—Islamic terrorism, Turkey, and China—also directly threaten the states of Europe and Russia. (Mexico is a North American problem.)

Europe and Russia[27] are prime targets of Islamic radicals in the Middle East, both due to interventions in the Middle East and large, troubling Muslim minorities at home that provide safe haven to terrorists. Russia’s bipolar relationship with Erdogan’s Turkey is well-known, as is Europe’s combative and losing diplomatic war against him. China, though a tentative ally of Russia, is eyeing sparsely-populated Siberia.[28] Chinese money flows freely into Europe, buying property and influence.

A post-NATO U.S. foreign policy needs to be based on countering the common threats faced by the U.S., our European allies, and the Russian Federation.

Conclusion

The change in the geopolitical situation since 1991 demands the dissolution of NATO and a common pan-European defense policy that allows the United States, Europe, and Russia to work as allies against clear and rising threats from across the globe, rather than repeat the unsustainable and outdated dynamics of the Cold War.

While the 20th century might have demanded NATO, the 21st century requires something very different. In this regard, it’s helpful to return to Lord Ismay’s famous trinity of “out,” “down,” and “in.” The U.S. needs to keep, not Russians, but Islamic radicals out of Europe. The Germans do not need to be kept down, but the Turks and Chinese most certainly do. And it’s debatable whether America needs to be in Europe at all.


  1. Jospeh Nye, The Paradox of American Power (London: Oxford University Press, 2002), 33. ↩︎
  2. Richard Sakwa, Frontline Ukraine: Crisis in the Borderlands (London: I.B.Tauris, 2015), 4. ↩︎
  3. Tim Dunne, “‘When the shooting starts'”: Atlanticism in British security strategy,” International Affairs, Vol. 80, October 2004, 893–909. DOI: 10.1111/j. ↩︎
  4. Benjamin Schwarz, ”Rethinking Negotiation With Hitler,” New York Times, November 24, 2000, accessed October 1, 2016, http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/25/arts/rethinking-negotiation-with-hitler.html. ↩︎
  5. Douglas Brinkley and David Facey-Crowther (Eds.), The Atlantic Charter, The World of the Roosevelts (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994). ↩︎
  6. “A Short History of NATO,” North Atlantic Treaty Organization, accessed October 1, 2016, http://www.nato.int/history/nato-history.html. ↩︎
  7. David Reynolds, From World War to Cold War: Churchill, Roosevelt, and the International History of the 1940s (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2006), 250. ↩︎
  8. Leon Aron, “Everything You Think You Know About the Collapse of the Soviet Union Is Wrong,” Foreign Policy, June 20, 2011, accessed October 1, 2016, http://foreignpolicy.com/2011/06/20/everything-you-think-you-know-about-the-collapse-of-the-soviet-union-is-wrong/. ↩︎
  9. Michael Kramer, “Rescuing Boris: The Secret Story of How Four U.S. Advisors Used Polls, Focus Groups, Negative Ads and All the Other Techniques of American Campaigning to Help Boris Yeltsin Win,” Time, July 15, 1996, Vol. 148, Issue 4, accessed October 1, 2016, http://people.bu.edu/tboas/Kramer.pdf. ↩︎
  10. Mary Elise Sarotte, “Not One Inch Eastward? Bush, Baker, Kohl, Genscher, Gorbachev, and the Origin of Russian Resentment toward NATO Enlargement in February 1990,” Diplomatic History, Vo. 34, No. 1, January 2010.

    Joshua Shifrinson, “”Not an Inch East”: How the West Broke Its Promise to Russia,” November 3, 2014, accessed October 1, 2016, http://russia-insider.com/en/germany_military_politics_ukraine_opinion/2014/11/05/04-31-59pm/not_inch_east_how_west_broke_its.

  11. See Andrew Korybko, “Hybrid Wars: Syria & Ukraine,” Oriental Review, March 11, 2016, accessed October 1, 2016, http://orientalreview.org/2016/03/11/hybrid-wars-2-testing-the-theory-syria-and-ukraine/. ↩︎
  12. Ashley Wiederhold, “Russia: Not The Super Power It Once Was,” World Policy Journal, World Policy Institute, April 25, 2014, accessed October 1, 2016, http://www.worldpolicy.org/blog/2014/04/25/russia-not-super-power-it-once-was. ↩︎
  13. Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man (New York: Free Press, 1992). ↩︎
  14. George Friedman, “9/11 and the 9-Year War,” Stratfor Geopolitical Weekly, Stratfor Enterprises, September 8, 2010, accessed October 1, 2016, https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100907_911_and_9_year_war. ↩︎
  15. Deepak Tripathi, Breeding Ground: Afghanistan and the Origins of Islamic Terrorism (Washington, DC: Potomac Books, 2011). ↩︎
  16. Robert Gates, From the Shadows: The Ultimate Insider’s Story of Five Presidents and How They Won the Cold War (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996), 145-46. ↩︎
  17. Lauren B. O’Brien, “The Evolution of Terrorism Since 9/11.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 8, 2011, accessed October 1, 2016, https://leb.fbi.gov/2011/september/the-evolution-of-terrorism-since-9-11. ↩︎
  18. Ishaan Tharoor, “Why Turkey’s President Wants to Revive the Language of the Ottoman Empire,” Washington Post, December 12, 2014, accessed October 1, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/12/12/why-turkeys-president-wants-to-revive-the-language-of-the-ottoman-empire/. ↩︎
  19. Nafeez Ahmed, “The elephant in NATO’s room: state-sponsorship of Daesh,” Medium, July 22, 2016, accessed October 1, 2016, https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/turkeys-secret-pact-with-islamic-state-exposed-by-operative-behind-wave-of-isis-attacks-6b35d1d29e18#.nu9tjjkv7. ↩︎
  20. “EU, Turkey: In Search of a Lasting Migrant Deal,” Stratfor, June 9, 2016, accessed October 1, 2016, https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/eu-turkey-search-lasting-migrant-deal. ↩︎
  21. Margaret MacMillan, Nixon and Mao: The Week That Changed the World (New York: Random House, 2007). ↩︎
  22. Ben Carter, “Is China’s Economy Really the Largest in the World?” BBC News, British Broadcasting Corporation, December 16, 2014, accessed October 1, 2016, http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30483762. ↩︎
  23. Yelena Tuzova, “Cartels at war: Mexico’s drug-fueled violence and the threat to US national security,” Small Wars & Insurgencies, Vol. 24, Issue 4, 2013, 769-70. ↩︎
  24. Jerry Seper and Matthew Cella, “Signs in Arizona Warn of Smuggler Dangers,” Washington Times, August 31, 2010, accessed October 1, 2016, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/31/signs-in-arizona-warn-of-smuggler-dangers/. ↩︎
  25. Conn Hallinan, “NATO’s Dangerous Game: Bear-Baiting Russia,” Foreign Policy In Focus, Institute for Policy Studies, May 2, 2016, accessed October 1, 2016, http://fpif.org/natos-dangerous-game-bear-baiting-russia/. ↩︎
  26. Adam Taylor and Laris Karklis, “This Remarkable Chart Shows How U.S. Defense Spending Dwarfs the Rest of the World,” Washington Post, February 9, 2016, accessed October 1, 2016, http://fpif.org/natos-dangerous-game-bear-baiting-russia/. ↩︎
  27. Gillis, Charlie. “Unwanted Exposure.” Maclean’s 127.2 (2014): 28-29. Academic Search Complete. Web. 17 Sept. 2016. ↩︎
  28. Frank Jacobs, “Why China Will Reclaim Siberia,” International New York Times, January 13, 2015, accessed October 1, 2016, http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/07/03/where-do-borders-need-to-be-redrawn/why-china-will-reclaim-siberia. ↩︎
No Comments on Beyond NATO

The Rigged System

It’s amazing what liberals find “horrifying.” More men than women working in science and engineering fields is “horrifying.” Bernie Sanders supporters not voting for Hillary is “horrifying.” John Oliver thinks making fun of Anita Sarkeesian is “horrifying.” Making jokes about Leslie Jones (of affirmative action Ghostbusters fame) and leaking her nude photos is horrifying (all right, I’ll agree with that last one, albeit for different reasons than the journalists). 

 

It’s amazing what liberals find “horrifying.” More men than women working in science and engineering fields is “horrifying.” Bernie Sanders supporters not voting for Hillary is “horrifying.” John Oliver thinks making fun of Anita Sarkeesian is “horrifying.” Making jokes about Leslie Jones (of affirmative action Ghostbusters fame) and leaking her nude photos is horrifying (all right, I’ll agree with that last one, albeit for different reasons than the journalists).

But the most “horrifying” thing to leftists today is Trump. Vox has a new “horrifying” article about The Donald every week. And the thing that’s really scaring them is the idea that Trump won’t concede if he loses.

Trump has been hammering what he calls, the Rigged System, promising to “Drain the Swamp.” If you’re a supporter, you’ll say it’s because it’s time to highlight Crooked Hillary’s corruption. If you’re not, you’ll say he’s making excuses because the polls show he’s losing. The latter crowd is mostly made up of people who are constantly telling us we need to deconstruct masculinity and show more empathy, but, like a feminist in an Internet argument they go straight after your nuts when it’s time to criticize. Thus, President Obama accuses Trump of whining and essentially being a wimp.

As even some neoconservatives are pointing out, Democrats have also been fond of denouncing a supposed “rigged” government in the past. Just like the phrase “Take Back America” went from standard political rhetoric to “racist extremism” once Republicans started using it, we are supposed to believe that when Trump says it’s a “Rigged System” it’s an existential threat to democracy itself.

Yet even when you get past the wrist flapping and hyperbole, Trump really is saying something different this time. In his recent speech in Florida condemning the media, Trump described journalists as enforcers of a plutocratic agenda and dismissed political correctness as simply a weapon of elite control. He’s called Republicans “naïve” if they don’t believe in voter fraud. Throughout the campaign, but with increasing frequency in recent days, Trump has suggested this election is the last time actual Americans will have some say in how their country is run, or even if they get to have a country.

Quoth the God-Emperor: “This election is our last chance to secure the border, stop illegal immigration, and reform our laws to make your life better. This is it. We won’t get another opportunity — it will be too late.”

As Trump has explicitly stated in the past, this is a reference to how Third World immigration ensures conservatives will never again be able to win another election. And it’s this tactical insight – that conservatism cannot win again, that to even imagine it is to indulge in fantasy– which has forced the radical rethinking process at the core of the Alt Right.

The core of this rethinking, even if Trump himself does not recognize it, is racial. It’s not just that non-whites vote differently. It’s that their presence imposes an entirely new culture, one entirely incompatible with the institutions and way of life European-Americans expect in a First World country.

Obviously, despite the Lügenpresse’s attempts at denialism, voter fraud is widespread in this country. As James O’Keefe’s recent videos have shown, besides openly inciting violence (which journalists then blame on Trump supporters) leftists are fairly open about their intention to get illegal aliens voting. The dead are voting in Colorado and Virginia; there’s a huge investigation off fraudulent mail-in voting in Texas. And Jeff Bezos’s blog is wow just wowing about how immoral it is that anyone could believe there is voter fraud in such bastions of responsible government as Philadelphia, Chicago, and St. Louis.

Whatever their moral posturing, kosher conservatives and political consultants know Republicans lose if there is high minority turnout. Progressives are right when they accuse Republicans of effectively “disenfranchising” blacks and Hispanics with calls for voter ID laws. What they miss is that “true conservatives” really do have the protective stupidity necessary which prevents them from recognizing the incompatibility of minimum standards for voting and racial equality.

Naturally, there’s nothing explicitly racist about linking voting (which is, after all, an exercise of force) to at least the same standard of responsibility demanded to buy liquor or rent a car. On paper, the case is obvious. But any kind of standard is going to have the practical impact of suppressing the massive and monolithic black vote Democrats need to stay in power. And as all politics is identity politics, requiring ID to vote becomes morally problematic in The Current Year. Conservatives may advocate some kind of minimum standard, but they will do so half-heartedly and apologetically.

In the same way, “true conservatives” briefly floated the idea of a civics test requirement in order to prevent Trump supporters from voting, but shut up once it was clear it would mostly affect non-whites. Protective stupidity is thus united with masochistic moral cowardice. True conservatives feel free to attack Whites as a group, but will back down if leftists accuse them of being racist against non-whites.

The result is the worst political combination possible. Conservatives are dependent on European-Americans, but refuse to represent them and indeed, actively work against their interests when they can get away with it. They appeal to non-white voters rhetorically but don’t offer them anything in substance, instead vainly pretending if they can find a token black or light skinned Hispanic to prattle about upper-class tax cuts or opposing Russia that the hoods and barrios will start rallying to the banner of Paul Ryan’s “Better Way.”

No one is disputing conservative impotence any longer. “True conservative” principles matter to European-Americans and only European-Americans. After all, what future does “constitutional conservatism” have when the Constitution itself is held to be offensive because it was the product of a time when only white, property-owning males (i.e. people who had a stake in the future of the polity) had the vote?

Despite the hatred between the two camps, both “true conservatism” and White identity politics are driven by the same strategic imperative.

In a multicultural country with no common identity, political victory depends on maximizing the White vote share and limiting minority votes.

The leftist counter to this strategy is also obvious. Import as many non-white voters as possible, with the less they have to contribute to the society, the better. Each non-white vote imported serves to disenfranchise existing European-Americans and with each hour Americans lose more and more of the country their ancestors created.

At the same time, as Trump pointed out, a media concentrated within just a few hands launches coordinated and overwhelming hate campaigns against any patriotic figure who resists a demographic transformation demanded by the wealthiest and most powerful. This makes status conscious Whites leery of championing any kind of collective racial interest.

The push for economic, social, and (in Europe today, America tomorrow) political punishments against dissenters ensures there is no overt resistance to this unprecedented transformation of every First World nation. And it is impossible not to notice the leading role of Jews, members of the most outrageously privileged group in the West, demanding the moral disarmament of Whites in the name of combatting “privilege.”

At no point in any nation did Whites vote to abolish themselves, and in many cases (as with Prop 187 in California) they explicitly voted against what is happening. Yet it continues regardless. Of course, the system is rigged. That’s precisely why mass immigration is taking place to begin with.

That’s why Univision chairman (and Israeli citizen) (((Haim Saban))) is screaming for Hillary to push for more immigration to guarantee future victories. That’s why the political career of a Richard Nixon or a Ronald Reagan could never get off the ground in the one party state of California. Even kosher cons admit the only reason Al Franken is in the Senate (and thus, the only reason Obamacare passed) was because of voter fraud. Europeans, worldwide, will be a hated, despised, powerless minority, lacking even the vocabulary to express a defense of their own identity or interests. “Conservative principles” and the Constitution will similarly face extinction. Out of sheer self-interest, conservatives would be suicidal to urge continued fidelity to a broken system which is destroying the very people who created and sustain the polity.

Yet this is precisely the role conservatives are hastening to play today. Useless child Paul Ryan condemns Trump and defends “our democracy.” Marco Rubio and Pat Toomey blithely tell us everyone must respect the outcome of the election because confidence is needed to “pull us all together.” And National Review is doing its best to assure us about how reliable our election system and denouncing “propaganda outlets” like Infowars and Breitbart.

Such collaboration can no longer be excused. Everyone, even the “true conservatives,” know exactly how this movie is going to end. And if we want to discuss something truly horrific, we only have to glimpse at today’s headlines for a sneak preview.

Thousands of English girls systematically exploited, raped, and sexually abused by Muslim invaders, with the de facto cooperation of the local Labour government. Boer farmers in South Africa subjected to the most gruesome torture even as their “democratic” government denies them the right to defend themselves. The ancient capitals of Europe systematically transformed into Third World wastelands, with the violent threat of terrorism and the grinding reality of occupation ever present.

This is a horror beyond anything our ancestors could even conceive. And America is not so “exceptional” that we will somehow be magically spared. The horror that denies me sleep, that makes me sick with fear for my children’s future, that fuels the terrible anger behind each word here, is the thought that this filth will be allowed to endure.

If this is not a Rigged System, if this is not tyranny, then such a thing does not exist. European-Americans are a colonized population being deliberately ground into extinction. To speak of America as a “self-governing” nation is an obscenity. And what is at stake is beyond the victory or defeat of some abstract political philosophy. What is at stake is the bare possibility of survival for our people anywhere in the world. If we are to live, this System must die. It has long since been bereft of legitimacy.

In the end, as happened with Whites in South Africa, current demographic trends ensure that political victory, effective representation or even a guarantee of basic physical safety will soon become impossible. When such a pattern becomes irreversible, those Whites who go along with defending the existing System, no matter how “respectable” or “conservative” their rationale, are something worse than fools. They are collaborators and traitors. And nothing can more horrific than rule by people like that.

No Comments on The Rigged System

Found Out

A few years ago, I wrote: “If I tell you that there are powerful people who are oppressing you to defend their own interests, you’ll call me a progressive, a liberal, and a reformer. If I tell you who those people are, you’ll call me a Nazi.”

A few years ago, I wrote: “If I tell you that there are powerful people who are oppressing you to defend their own interests, you’ll call me a progressive, a liberal, and a reformer. If I tell you who those people are, you’ll call me a Nazi.”

Turns out I was wrong. Those people will tell us who they are themselves.

Donald Trump, not willing to cringe before the utterly ludicrous attempt to smear him with charges of sexual assault weeks before a presidential election, unleashed on the mainstream media in a speech last Thursday.

Accurately identifying political correctness as a tool of plutocratic control, Trump thundered:

The establishment and their media enablers will maintain control over this nation through means that are very well known. Anyone who challenges their control is deemed a sexist, a racist, a xenophobe, and morally deformed.

They will attack you, they will slander you, they will seek to destroy your career and your family, they will seek to destroy everything about you, including your reputation. They will lie, lie, lie, and then again they will do worse than that, they will do whatever is necessary.

Those of us who must live under the Eye of Sauron on the Alt Right felt this deep within their bones. The goal of every journalist is to destroy you. They despise you, they want to hurt you, and the hateful malice they hold within themselves must be considered every time one of these creatures is encountered. None of the journalists now whining about being booed at a rally by the Americans they despise could handle what each one of us encounters every day. And the frothing, shrieking, hysterical malevolence Donald Trump has faced from the crawling chaos that is the press defies imagination.

Some say All Cops Are Bastards or that police are “political soldiers” enforcing a certain social order. Nonsense. Journalists are the political soldiers. More than that, they are commissars. Their job is to hunt down dissidents and suppress opposition.

As this election cycle has shown, they will fight fiercely to defend the power structure and lash out against alternatives which undermine the System they are a part of. A soldier or policeman bears far less moral responsibility for the policies he enforces than the journalist who knowingly works to implement those policies.

At least in theory (though rarely in practice in our post-Anglo society), the law will protect you whatever your political views or wealth. But journalists always act with a political end in mind.

But whose end? In this critical speech, Trump identified that as well. After denying the accusations against him, he stated:

Our great civilization, here in America and across the civilized world has come upon a moment of reckoning. We’ve seen it in the United Kingdom, where they voted to liberate themselves from global government and global trade deal, and global immigration deals that have destroyed their sovereignty and have destroyed many of those nations. But, the central base of world political power is right here in America, and it is our corrupt political establishment that is the greatest power behind the efforts at radical globalization and the disenfranchisement of working people. Their financial resources are virtually unlimited, their political resources are unlimited, their media resources are unmatched, and most importantly, the depths of their immorality is absolutely unlimited.

Here, Trump is identifying the globalists and international plutocrats who support open borders, the destruction of national sovereignty, the dispossession of working people, and the abolition of traditional identity and morality. They are deliberately harming the people of this country. And who can deny it?

Interestingly, no one really is. Instead, the media is accusing Trump of giving an “anti-Semitic speech dripping with hatred.”

The words “Jew” or “Jewish” were never used in Trump’s speech. Instead, Trump was identifying the corrupt political class which he believes, accurately, has sold out the American people. Nor was this a “dog whistle.” As with most of Trump’s best speeches this election season, the speech in Florida bears the heavy influence of Stephen Miller, Jeff Sessions’s former senior policy advisor and one of the few civic nationalists on Capitol Hill. Despite being memed as the reincarnation of Joseph Goebbels, he’s Jewish.

Nonetheless, as with the parentheses meme, Jewish reporters and media figures essentially outed themselves, announcing to the world that yes, they are behind globalism, outsourcing, mass immigration, and the deliberate destruction of the country. Furthermore, while they can identify themselves in this way, it is inherently anti-Semitic for others to do so. And certain provable facts, like Hillary Clinton explicitly praising open borders in private speeches to international banks, are ipso facto banned from discussion.

Trump essentially said there is a small group of people who are deliberately destroying our country for their own gain. And many Jews screamed, “Hey, you can’t say that, because you’re referring to us and what we are doing.” I don’t think Trump is the “anti-Semitic” one in this equation.

What about Mr. Miller? The important thing to remember about Stephen Miller is that his attitudes should be typical of all Americans in government. This includes Jews if we really are supposed to believe they’re just like everyone else.

It shouldn’t be controversial that our government tries to protect our own national interest, guard our sovereignty, and ensure the continued existence of our people. It shouldn’t even be up for debate. Even considering other ends for government is essentially proof of treason. “America First” shouldn’t be provocative, but obvious.

It’s good that Miller doesn’t hate the United States. But it’s perverted that this is seen as a notable exception, rather than something Americans have the right to expect and demand. One Stephen Miller doesn’t change the reality that just about every other Jewish journalist, political figure, and media organization (on both “Left” and “Right”) has been brought to the point of frothing madness simply because a presidential candidate believes his own country should be put first.

A System defined by hypocrisy can only function if the iron fist of oppression is concealed behind the velvet glove of multicultural happy talk. And the lying press is being forced to reveal the true nature of the System which rules us and who it benefits. The astonishingly crude hatred directed against European-Americans is daily made more explicit.

Who, after all, can take this artificial, top-down driven campaign against Trump seriously? We have (((Bill Mahrer,))) whose entire career has been defined by crude boasts about his sexual immorality, earnestly furrowing his brow and asking if Republicans can be good “human beings” because they support Trump. We have the same American Left which endlessly crusaded against the Iraq War and who told us “dissent is patriotic” accusing the Republican nominee and his supporters of being agents of a foreign government. We now have proof Hillary Clinton is essentially the willing puppet of Wall Street bankers in a way that defies caricature, and yet we have the President of the United States worrying the corporate media doesn’t have enough control over the public debate. The ruling class is revealing itself as a ruling class which offers us nothing but hatred. And rather than at least offering us a compromise, they’re just demanding we submit and die quietly.

And of course, there are those who are urging us to do just that. Preposterous cuck David French moans:

As the Pew Foundation has amply documented, Americans are polarized in the worst possible way — two tribes not so much united by love for their own as hatred for the other.

America is strong enough to withstand bad policy, but no nation can long endure public panic. The stakes in 2016 are not high enough to burn anything down, nor to sacrifice any element of your character or moral convictions.

Take a deep breath, America. We should be better than this.

What do you mean we, you ridiculous traitor? The American nation-state has been successfully deconstructed and politics today is a zero-sum game of identity politics, not a genteel debate over policy. Contra Hillary’s slogan of “Stronger Together,” every day brings more proof that European-Americans are suffering under the yoke of this poisonous occupying government which regards us as an enemy to be destroyed.

And what twisted version of morality celebrates remaining submissive to criminals? The scribblings of French and other nauseating collaborators is a desperate attempt to keep our people enslaved. Stupidity and cowardice are the most charitable explanations for such conduct.

It’s not that Donald Trump is a “White nationalist,” a fascist, or even particularly right wing. As a civic nationalist, a supporter of affirmative action, and a passionate Zionist, Trump should be well within the mainstream of Weimerican politics. And yet, he and his supporters are being attacked as existential threats to the Republic.

This tells us the System can only tolerate our continued existence when we are utterly degraded and on our knees, that we are only to be permitted to exist when the purpose of our very lives is to fuel a System pursuing our genocide. And the most privileged members of this system, rather than shrinking back, are comfortable telling us exactly who they are and what they are doing.

No Comments on Found Out

Madison Grant and the American Nation

The critic Northop Fye wrote of Oswald Spengler’s magnum opus, “If _The Decline of the West_ were nothing else, it would still be one of the world’s great Romantic poems.” Much the same could be said Madison Grant’s Conquest of the Continent, or rather that it is, all at once, a great history and a great poem. The book is exhaustively researched, with some four years of preparatory work, and it announces itself, modestly and scholarly, as “an effort to make an estimate of the various elements, national and racial, existing in the present population of the United States and to trace their arrival and subsequent spread.” At the same time, Conquest is a grand vision of bio-cultural struggle and evolution, in which demography comes alive. 

The critic Northop Frye wrote of Oswald Spengler’s magnum opus, “If The Decline of the West were nothing else, it would still be one of the world’s great Romantic poems.”[1] Much the same could be said Madison Grant’s Conquest of the Continent, or rather that it is, all at once, a great history and a great poem. The book is exhaustively researched, with some four years of preparatory work[2], and it announces itself, modestly and scholarly, as “an effort to make an estimate of the various elements, national and racial, existing in the present population of the United States and to trace their arrival and subsequent spread.” At the same time, Conquest is a grand vision of bio-cultural struggle and evolution, in which demography comes alive.

Personages and historical actors are few and far between; personalities are entirely absent. With Conquest, as with his earlier Passing of the Great Race (1916), Grant creates a genre of his own—racial history. The 19th century had witnessed the flowering of biography—in-depth portraits of men and their individual minds. Grant writes “bio-graphy” in a new sense of the word—the story of the movements and developments of peoples across great swaths of earth. Much like the French Annales School[3], Grant gives the reader a vision of the longe durée: time ticks away in decades and centuries; familiar tropes like leaders, events, and intrigues, if they appear at all, are subordinated to the flow of peoples; geography becomes a kind of character in that it forges race through natural selection.

As Henry Fairfield Osborn, the President of the American Museum of Natural History, notes in the first sentence of his preface, “The character of a country depends upon the racial character of the men and women who dominate it.” Thus, Grant turns historiography on its head (almost in a way comparable to Marx): History is no longer to be understood merely in terms of the actions of “Great Men” or the “culture” bestowed on peoples by king, artists, and churches; to the contrary, what is called culture, morality, and society are the outward effects of millennia of evolution.

As demography is destiny, Conquest is the story of how America became, not just the White Man’s Country, but a Nordic country. Grant writes of his historical subject, circa 8,000 B.C.:

There is was, through the fogs and long winters of the north, that they developed in complete isolation their great stature and musculature, their fair or flaxen hair, and their blue eyes.

The race survived the Ice Age by means of its peculiar Geist, whose modern manifestations include individualism, Protestantism, uprightness, and the pioneer spirt. It was these hearty souls who crossed the Atlantic to the New World and, unlike Whites in South America, resisted intermixing with the natives. In Grant’s words, “It is probably accurate to say that there never has been a nation which was so completely and definitely Protestant as well as Nordic as was the United State just after the American Revolution.”

Conquest is certainly an act of patriotism, in a broad sense; however, it is important to remember that Grant was never enthralled with what is often called the “American Experiment” or “American Exceptionalism”—that is, the idea that the country traces its political tradition back to the Age of Enlightenment and that it is nation rooted on values, not blood. In Grant’s mind, the Nordic race made America. Ideals like “equality” might reflect Nordic self-regard; however, left free-floating and all-encompassing, they are temptations to race suicide and pointless crusades, for which Grant gives ample evidence in Conquest.

Perhaps the most remarkable thing about Grant’s demographic history is that it is so compelling and readable. Reacting, no doubt, to its propagandistic value more than anything, the Anti-Defamation League labelled the book “even more destructive than Mein Kampf” and urged U.S. and British not to review the volume, or even mention it.

 

Madison Grant in 1920 Madison Grant in 1920

 

While the text of Conquest speaks for itself, Madison Grant the man—who he was, what he accomplished, and what his ideals were—remains more elusive. This is only partly due to the passage of time. The Second World War, the dominance Boasian anthropology, the decline of Grant’s class, and the postwar “Conservative Movement” each in its way cloud our understanding of this colossus of prewar conservationism, eugenics, and the scientific study of race.[4]

Madison Grant (1865–1937) was “to the manor born” (as the modern doggerel goes); he hailed from an aristocratic family in what was still Anglo-Dutch Manhattan. Through his mother, Grant was descended from Walloon Huguenots who settled “New Netherlands” in the 1620s. His father’s side included a signer of the Declaration of Independence, recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor for valor on the battlefield, and various prominent and wealthy professionals. Grant was graduate of Yale and held a law degree from Columbia (though he never practiced with any seriousness.)

One cannot understand Grant, and The Conquest of a Continent, without understanding his place in this pre-war, East Coast, Protestant—simply put, “WASP”—Establishment. Grant was a “conservative” in the most basic and concrete sense of the word—he sought to defend and conserve his people, his class, and his way of life. He defended Nordic America because it was his own.

Grant’s life and work were animated, first and foremost, by naturalism—put simply, his love of the wild and what he viewed as the most excellent expressions of the human species. This awe led him to abandon his law training and dedicate himself to the new sciences of conservationism and eugenics.

One could say that Grant is an avatar of two great “Old Americas” (both of which are ceasing to exist). The first of these is the aforementioned WASP Establishment, increasingly displaced or absorbed by a global elite. While the contemporary “Conservative Movement” is comprised of a strange coalition of free-market apologists, advocates for military hegemony, and Biblical fundamentalists, Grant’s sensibilities were aristocratic and European in character, his pessimistic historical outlook closely resembling that of his analogues Henry and Brooks Adams.[5]

The second “America” that Grant represents is that of the frontier and the “undiscovered country” of the West. This was the America of big-game hunting beneath Rockies and Tetons—a world where man’s existence hung in the balance, threatened by savages and the elements. One of Grant’s most emblematic accomplishments was not only to help preserve the dwindling American Bison but to bring a herd of them to the Bronx Zoo, not too far away from his redoubt in the hoity-toity Upper East Side. The act stands as an almost comical conflation of the two worlds he straddled.

Grant was a compulsive “joiner” and “founder,” and he was involved in the creation of a host organizations and entities with social purposes, many of which remain prominent today, such as the Save the Redwoods League and Glacier National Park. Through his membership in the Boone and Crocket Club—dedicated to “promoting manly sport with the rifle” and protecting the endangered Bison—Grant broke bread with future presidents, senators, explorers, diplomats, and writers; he counted Rudyard Kipling and Theodor Roosevelt among his circle of friends and acquaintances.

Fresh out of law school, the young Grant acted an eminence grise in the creation of the municipal New York Zoological Society, whose crown jewel was the Bronz Zoo, which first realized the then-quite novel conception of broad enclosures, which allowed Bison, and even at one point an African Congolese Pygmy named Ota Benga, to roam in great refuges within urban modernity.[6] Through his involvement with the American Bison Society, Grant helped preserve the majestic creature that had, shocking, dwindled from some 30 million to less than 100 in the first decade of the 20th century.

Ota Benga in the Bronx Zoo in 1906 Ota Benga in the Bronx Zoo in 1906

On top of this, Grant was one of the premier advocates of eugenics in the Western world, acting as President of the Galton Society (named after Charles Darwin’s cousin and eugenic’s progenitor). Most all of Grant’s societies were interlocking in nature, as he would recruit his naturalist colleagues to collaborate with him on his political efforts and eugenic research, tasks which were seen as deeply related.

Grant’s naturalism—what might be termed his “green,” “environmentalist,” or even “tree-hugging” inclinations—inflected his racialist writings. The title Conquest of the Continent might lead one to believe that it is a brutalist, “Might Makes Right” history of expansion. In fact, Grant’s admiration for the “the most vigorous race in history” is always tempered with an abiding concern for the natural world. As he writes, in the period between the Colonial era and the Civil War, “A continent was occupied and the territory of the Union was swept westward to the Pacific.”

The forests were cut down and the wild life destroyed. The Indians were evicted. The mineral wealth of the western mountains was ransacked. The coal was exploited, and the once fertile soil of the Southern States greatly depleted through the reckless growing of tobacco and cotton. Waste was the order of the day in America.

All this was perhaps inevitable, but never since Caesar plundered Gaul has so large a territory been sacked in so short a time. Probably no more destructive human being has ever appeared on the world stage than the American pioneer with his axe and his rifle.

One major reason for the neglect of Grant today, especially by self-styled conservatives, is that he does not “fit in” with the current Left-Right dialectic nor the portraits the mainstream Right and Left like to paint of themselves. Grant comes down to us at a time when environmentalism has never been more popular and White racialism, never more reviled. And yet, as Grant’s recent critical biographer, Jonathan Peter Spiro, writes,

There was no duality to Madison Grant’s life, no basic conflict between his espousal of conservation and his preaching on behalf of Eugenics and immigration restriction.”[7]

 


 

The Conquest of the Continent is inseparable from Grant’s greatest achievement as a political activist—the 1924 Johnson-Reed Immigration Act and 1929 National Origins Act (which superseded the former). Indeed, both pieces of legislation inform the structure of the book and reveal many of Grant’s motivations in writing it.

Today, the Johnson-Reed Act enjoys scarce support among mainstream commentators; and in truth, it was quite unlike any piece of immigration legislation being proposed today, even by avowed restrictionists. The ’24 and ’29 Acts were not merely attempts to “control the borders” or “shut the gates” (though they were that), and they were decidedly not efforts to “keep America the same,” in the sense of pulling an emergency break on the Second Great Wave of immigration. From a Grantian perspective, they were Acts of racial reconstruction: they marked abrupt reversals of the immigration trends that had predominated for the previous 75 years and were aimed at recreating a specifically Nordic America. Not all of the Acts’ supporters, including legislators and the Presidents who signed them into law, would use such terminology; yet all were well aware of the Acts’ overarching goals. Moreover, the Act was conceived by Grant and his colleagues as a eugenic project. Indeed, much as the Communist “Third International” (1919–1943) looked to Moscow, the Second International Eugenics Congress (which met in 1921 at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City) looked to America as the premiere homeland of the Nordic race.

Though Grant founded so many organizations, he joined the one that would play a determined, behind-the-scenes role in passing immigration restriction—the Immigration Restriction League (IRL), created by friends from the Harvard class of 1889.

The IRL’s first political effort was to advance a Literacy Test for entry, which it promoted over the course of the William Howard Taft and Woodrow Wilson administrations. Restricting immigration on the basis of literacy (a test could be taken in a variety of languages) certainly gave restriction a neutral, non-racialist patina; however, when Grant was lobbying politicians, he explained his motivations in no-uncertain terms. Writing to President Taft,

[T]he old theological views in regard to the unity of the human race and its relatively recent origin (some six thousand years ago), is giving away to the knowledge that man as such dates back two or three hundred thousand year, and that consequently the line of cleavage between the so called races of mankind is fundamental and cannot be modified by any change in environment in the life time of a nation.[8]

In turn, Grant later lobbied Woodrow Wilson by explaining that his advocacy for restriction was based “solely in blood.” Both Presidents were not persuaded.

The IRL had better luck with congressmen, who avidly passed a series of Literacy Test Acts by broad margins—only to have them consistently vetoed by Taft and Wilson. Success finally came in February 1917, when yet one more Literacy Test Act was vetoed by Wilson—who was then overruled by two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate.[9]

A decisive influence on Congress was the pressure of the American Federation of Labor, led by Samuel Gompers (himself an immigrant Jew), who recognized the simple arithmetic that, all things being equal, more laborers equals lower wages. The bill thus marked an interesting point in time at which elitist racialists were in a functional coalition with “big labor.” On the other hand, those who opposed the bill—and would oppose future restrictionist acts, including Reed-Johnson—are recognizably the same cohorts who push for “open borders” today: the industrialists who seek cheap labor and (in Grant’s words) the “wishy-washy sentimentalists” of either Christian or liberal persuasion.[10]

Bolstered by the enactment of the Literacy Test, the Grantians felt the time was ripe for substantial immigration reform made on a racialist foundation. The subsequent political victories of the 1920s included three connected pieces of legislation: the Emergency Quota Act of 1921, the Johnson-Reed Immigration Act of 1924, and the National Origins Act of 1929 (which replaced the former bill). The “Emergency” bill was justified on the fears of mass European immigration following the Great War, and in particular “radical” and “anarchist” immigrants from Eastern Europe. The Acts of ‘24 and ’29, however, were meant as lasting, principled expressions of America’s character; Representative Albert Johnson, indeed, called the piece of legislation that bears his name “a second Declaration of Independence.”

Each of these Acts regulated immigration not simply on the raw number but on each immigrant’s ethnic and national origins and, in turn, the place of this ethnicity within the American nation. The 1924 Act established an immigration quota of two percent of the foreign-born presence in the country, as enumerated by the 1890 census.[11] The choice of the base year 1890 was key, for, as mentioned above, the Act did not seek to “keep things the same”; it instead sought to re-constitute the American nation that existed before the Second Great Wave of Southern and Eastern European immigration. The National Origins Act (which originated in the Senate’s version of the ‘24 restriction) capped total annual immigration at just over 150,000—a dramatic reduction considering that more than a million immigrants per annum obtained permanent-resident status during the first decade of the 20th century.[12] It also regulated immigration based on the national origins of the existing population (as of 1920), which was, of course, soundly Northern and Western European.[13] As Grant writes in Conquest, the purpose of both the ’24 and ’29 Acts was, “frankly, to encourage new arrivals from the countries of the old immigration”—

the countries of northern and western Europe who had contributed most to the American population and whose people were, therefore, most easily assimilable in the United States; and, conversely, to discourage immigration from the countries of souther and eastern Europe most of whose nationals had come here since 1890.

The law reduced the total possible immigration under quota to 167,750 as against 357,800 permitted by the act it supplanted, and favored the European Nordic whose people made the United States what it is, as against the European Alpine and the Mediterranean who were late comers and intrusive elements.

A full understanding of the racial constitution of the United States—so as to aid in administration of the National Origins Act—was, as Grant puts it in Conquest, “the reason for the existence of this present book.”

Though the Grantians were effective activists behind the scenes, it is wrong to think that the ’24 and ’29 Acts were passed in a stealthy fashion, without any meaningful debate or popular support, or that the Acts appealed only to the educated classes interested in Darwinism. Representative William Vaile of Colorado certainly spoke for million of majority Americans when he said plainly that Czechs, Jews, Italians, et al. immigrated to a country that was “already made as an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth.”

They added to it, they often enriched it, but they did not make it, and have not yet greatly changed it. We are determined that they shall not. It is a good country. It suits us. And what we assert is that we are not going to surrender it to somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it something different.[14]

While immigration restriction appealed to the common sense of the common man, Grant saw the Act in more lofty terms: “one of the most decisive events in the racial history of America.” Perhaps he might call the Reed-Johnson and National Origins Acts the final chapter of The Conquest of the Continent.

President Coolidge signs the Johnson–Reed Act on the White House Lawn on May 26, 1924. President Coolidge signs the Johnson–Reed Act on the White House Lawn on May 26, 1924.

In 1933, Conquest appeared at an equivocal, and, in many ways, doleful, moment in Grant’s life. Grant could look back on major successes, most prominently the ’24 and ’29 Acts and the success of his first book,The Passing of the Great Race. On the other hand, Conquest amounted to Grant’s Last Stand: he would die some four years after its publication and the eugenics and racialist movement he led was in the process of losing legitimacy and its ability to affect politics and culture.

The critical reception and popularity of Grant’s two magna opera is, in fact, a lesson in the changing winds of social mood. Though The Passing of the Great Race might never have been a “bestseller,” it achieved something more powerful—the formation of elite opinion. The book, published by Charles Scribner’s Sons, was endorsed by university presidents and Pulitzer Prize winners; it was used as a textbook in college classrooms. Its powerful status was, ironically, confirmed by the fact that F. Scott Fitzgerald deemed it worthy of being parodied in The Great Gatsby (1925); the author expected his audience would readily recognize the fictional Nordicist known as “this man Goddard”—a conflation of Grant and his disciple Lothrop Stoddard— whom Tom Buchanan bombastically paraphrases in a famous scene.

An even more telling sign of racialist hegemony in the ‘20s was that Grant’s ideas were appearing in William Randolph Hearst ladies magazine Good Housekeeping. Take, for instance, this Grantian editorial on immigration from February 1921.

Biological laws tell us that certain divergent people will not mix or blend. The Nordics propagate themselves successfully. With other races, the outcome shows deterioration on both sides. Quality of mind and body suggests that observance of ethnic law is as great a necessity to a nation as immigration law.

The writer mentions some economic arguments for restriction, which “respectable” restrictionists today might favor, but he leaves no doubt as to the true character of his injunction: “Our country must cease to be regarded as a dumping ground.”[15]

The author of the passage was President Calvin Coolidge

By 1933, so much had changed. The Conquest of the Continent was published with little fanfare or public interest. By 1940, only 3,000 copies had been sold, and apparently not believing that the book had a future, Charles Scribner’s Sons melted down the plates.[16]

In Conquest, Grant observes that “American public sentiment regarding the admission of aliens has undergone recently a profound change”:

At the end of the nineteenth century a fatuous humanitarianism prevailed and immigrants of all kinds were welcomed to “The Refuge of the Oppressed,” regardless of whether they were needed in our industrial development or whether they tended to debase our racial unity.

The “Myth of the Melting Pot” was, at that time, deemed by the unthinking to be a part of our national creed.

But ultimately Grant was wrong. The tremendous shift in public sentiment that had occurred in the 1920s was fleeting, and by the time of Conquest, things were trending in the opposite direction. The “Melting Pot Myth”—however hokey and seemingly outmoded—would get a second life (despite that actual immigration in the Depression era was virtually nil).

Grant went from making public opinion to being unmade by it; the reasons why are worth enumerating, for many of the dynamics involved are very much still in play 70 years later.[17]

Certainly, “Reductio ad Hitlerum”—the spoiling of anything that can be associated, however tangentially, with the Third Reich—played a decisive factor in this regard; indeed, the Second World War would utilized by egalitarians of every stripe. Moreover, Grant laments many times in Conquest the tendency towards sentimentality over Ellis Island and the “unity of mankind,” which seems to be part an permanent part of the American national psyche.

Another important factor was the Great Depression. The popularity of Grantian racialism and eugenics came in the 1920s, at a point when majority Americans were, generally speaking, proud of their race and culture and had a forward-looking outlook. With the onset of the Great Depression, Darwinism in the social sphere became associated with advocates of “survival of the fittest” qua dog-eat-dog capitalism.[18] The Grantians were mostly uninterested in economics, outside vague warnings of the implications of importing low-quality immigrants; they were certainly not concerned with weeding out those who lacked business acumen. Nevertheless, the Depression made it easy for egalitarians to smear eugenics as an expression of haughty, even sadistic “class privilege.”

This new stance towards the Grantians was taken by the paper of record (then and now), the New York Times. which had actually endorsed immigration restriction in 1924. Reporting on the Third International Eugenics Conference of 1932, the Times declared that for the participants,

[eugenics] seems to have become a disguise for race prejudice, ancestor worship and caste snobbery… . Such were the views of the promoters of the now discredited doctrine that social salvation lies with the supposedly pure Nordics.”[19]

The Grantians also failed to control academia. As racialism gained hegemony in the ‘20s, it was inevitable that it would spur some kind of strong left-wing reaction. This came in the person of German-born Jew Franz Boas (1858–1942) and his disciples, who across two decades produced a library of Anthropology, so much of which was directed polemically against the Grantians.[20] The Boasian shift from race to “culture”—in the form of tribal customs, primitive rituals, and, most famously, “coming of age in Samoa”[21]—was, in itself, neutral. However, all of Boasian writing was undergirded by an egalitarian faith in “the psychic unity of mankind.”[22]

 

Franz Boas in 1940 Franz Boas in 1940

 

On a more pragmatic level, the Boasians were quite astute at professionalizing their movement and co-ordinating mutual promotion. And the fact that they were successful in academia gave them a decisive advantage over the Grantians, who as a class were gentlemen amateurs.

Jonathan Spiro writes,

On a theoretical level the debate between the Grantian and the Boasians pitted the defenders of heredity against the proponents of environment. Intellectually, the split was a disagreement between adherents of polygenesis, who were obsessed [sic] with the classification of races, and adherents of monogenesis, who were fairly certain that races were socially constructed myths. And professionally, it was a conflict between an older generation of physical anthropologists (often gentlemen amateurs with no academic affiliation or perhaps an association with a museum) and the newer generation of cultural anthropologists (usually trained professionals with full-time positions in academia).[23]

But for all that, it was difficult not to notice that at heart it was a confrontation between the ethos of native Protestants and immigrant Jews.

The older generation of amateurs were aristocratic WASPs with the money and leisure time to ponder fossils as an avocation, whereas the younger generation of professionals were immigrant Jews who saw higher education as a route to social respectability…

Though evolutionism (if not racialism) is paradigmatic in the biological sciences, the Boasians have not lessened their grip on Anthropology departments. For better and for worse, a revival of racial thinking will have to emerge, at least at first, outside the walls of the academy.

Happy Days! A eugenics exhibit at the Kansas State Fair, Topeka, Kansas, 1920. Happy Days! A eugenics exhibit at the Kansas State Fair, Topeka, Kansas, 1920.

What made The Conquest of the Continent anathema to the Boasians—and what makes it notorious to this day—is not its demographic history per se so much as the eugenic spirit that underlies it.

In the popular imagination, the word “eugenics” conjures up images of death panels, concentration camps, and piles of bodies … or a faustian “super villain” who seeks to wipe out humanity and breed a Master Race in space (a scheme that was thwarted by James Bond in the campy adventure Moonraker (1979).) For those who love to hate it, eugenics amounts to little more than rhetorical bogeyman or scarecrow—something to point at in horror.

Interestingly, in these depictions, eugenics alternates between being, on the one hand, a “pseudo-science”—that is, ineffective, ungrounded, fraudulent, and bizarre—and, on the other, all-too scientific—that is, marking the point at which religious or governmental authorities must intervene to prevent science from “going too far.”

But ultimately, the “totalitarian” connection to eugenics has never held much water. For instance, the eugenics programs in Nazi Germany were, historically speaking, quite unremarkable: they were begun during the Weimar Republic and were no more advanced than those of Sweden or the State of California.

Furthermore, the Nazis’ brutally against Jews, in what has come to be known the Holocaust, and Slavs, during campaigns on the Eastern Front, were not eugenic in any real sense of the word and should be criticized in other contexts.[24]

It is worth pointing out that state science during the other reviled totalitarian regimes of the 20th century was based on the very opposite of Darwinism. The head of Soviet Biology during Stalin’s regime (and beyond), Trofim Denisovich Lysenko (1898–1976), believed, quite literally, that a plant could be genetically altered by its pot—and that these acquired characteristics would be passed down to its offspring. “Lysenkoism” was applied as both agricultural policy during collectivization as well as “political science,” with equally disastrous results. The philosophy of “environmentalism”—the ideal of the “Blank Slate” that can be written upon by progressive leaders—justifies, much more so than Darwinism, the treatment of people as “material,” whose nature can be altered at will, with the “reactionary” parts simply cut off and discarded.[25]

Madison Grant never sought to create a “New Man.” He sought, instead, to conserve the results of natural selection, as he sought to conserve the natural world.[26] Moreover, eugenic thinking is a logical implication of the Darwinian and the Mendelian (i.e., genetic) scientific revolutions. The first chapter of Charles Darwin’s (1809–1882) On the Origin of Species (1859), “Variation under Domestication,” is an extended analogy between evolution through natural selection, Darwin’s thesis, and evolution through artificial selection, which was well known to his readers as the breeding and domestication of birds, dogs, livestock, and the like. As Darwin notes, “the great power of this principle of selection is not hypothetical.” Francis Galton (1822–1911), Darwin’s cousin and originator of the theory of eugenics, was likely thinking of that passage when he quipped, “If a twentieth part of the cost and pains were spent in measures for the improvement of the human race that is spent on the improvement of the breed of horses and cattle, what a galaxy of genius might we not create!”[27]

Whatever the case, it is eugenics, and Darwinism generally, that is forever associated with mass-murder, whereas the Blank Slate is let off scott free. (For instance, whenever a public figure denies the reality of race, he rarely get scolded by journalists—“What are you saying!? We know where that kind of thinking leads!”)

Franz Boas—whose scraggly visage appeared on the cover of Time magazine in 1936 announcing the triumph of “environmentalism”[28]—actually theorized that as Italian immigrants entered the United States, their head shapes would mutate according to environment, with the second generation having a shape closer to that of the American majority than their parents.[28] This marked Boas’s frontal assault on Grant, in particular, his distinction between Dolichocephalic (long-headed) Nordics and Brachycephalic (round-headed) Eastern and Southern Europeans (i.e., Second Great Wave immigrants.)

And as it turns out, Boas’s study was bunk. He “fudged” his data for a good cause (in this case, the myth of the American “Melting Pot,” where democracy dissolves heredity).[29] More importantly, Boas’s thesis is preposterous and risible on its face from the standpoint of Darwinian evolution, that is, from the standpoint of accepted biological science in the 21st century. Boasianism is, at its core, little different than Lysencoism or various other experiments in Marxian biology. Madison Grant’s oeuvre, on the other hand—however we might want to revise Nordicism—remains scientifically and rationally defensible.

Indeed, one of the primaries lessons that racial idealists can draw from studying Grant’s career is that, as trite as it may sound, science matters—and it is likely no coincidence that the most successful effort in racial idealism in modern American history was grounded in Darwinism.

Of course, as good science, Darwinism can be revised, expanded upon, and, potentially, falsified. Also, as good science, Darwinism does not favor or justify any one group or desired outcome. Indeed, as the 2005 science-fiction comedy Idiocracy painfully points out, natural selection does not even favor what one might call the strongest, most beautiful, and most intelligent.[30]

That said, Darwinism offers a compelling and rational justification for Whites to act on behalf of their ancestors and progeny and feel a shared since of destiny with their extended kin group. As Kevin MacDonald correctly points out, “rational, scientific discourse” is granted pride of place in advanced Western societies; and one shouldn’t underestimate the “emotional commitment” that Darwinism can instill in Whites—as it raises politics to the level of collective survival, above claims to fairness that dominate the language of liberalism. Darwinism is seemingly more “effective in rallying Whites, especially elite Whites, than religious feelings.” Indeed, “the story of religious feeling in the modern age has been to either sink into irrelevance for secular Whites (who are likely to be more educated) or be diverted into causes that are suicidal for religious Whites.”[31]

Viewed from another angle, Madison Grant had become relevant for contemporary racial idealists due to the increasing irrelevancy of what might be called “respectable” or “patriotic” immigration reform, that is, restriction on the basis of legality or concerns about assimilation (which are the only restrictionist arguments that are granted a hearing in the mainstream media).[32]

According to the U.S. Census Department, by the summer of 2011, the majority of births in the United States were non-White infants. This means that if all immigration, legal and illegal, were (quite miraculously) halted immediately, nothing of significance demographically would change. The proverbial 2050 “tipping point”—when America reaches “majority-minority” status, with no single racial or ethnic groups defining the national character—will merely be delayed by a decade or two. Moreover, “assimilation” has become a deceptive and misleading term, as it begs the question “To What?” Hispanic immigrants have been assimilating downward across generations towards the culture and behavior of African-Americans.[33] Indeed, one possible outcome of the ongoing demographic transformation is a thoroughly miscegenated, and thus homogenous and “assimilated,” nation, which would have little resemblance to the White America that came before it.

Put simply, the discourse that has predominated for the past 60 years on the Immigration and National Questions is increasingly disconnected from reality; for the racial idealist, it has become useless. To even understand the phenomenon of mass immigration—and the globalized world that underlies it—one must, following Grant, think racially. And for the racial idealist, the point is not just to understand…

This essay was first published in 2012.


  1. Northrop Frye. “The Decline of the West by Oswald Spengler,” Daedalus, Vol. 103, No. 1, Winter 1974. ↩︎
  2. Grant’s chief research assistant, who compiled the bibliography, was Paul Popenoe. ↩︎
  3. The Annales School is associated with academic journal by that name, founded in Strasbourg by Marc Bloch and Lucien Febvre in 1929 and later relocated to Paris. The School sought to examine long-term evolution of societies, geographies, and economies. ↩︎
  4. The name Madison Grant does not appear anywhere in the two official chronicles of the American conservative movement, George Nash’s The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America and Russell Kirk’s The Conservative Mind. Grant is a non-person as well as The Intercollegiate Studies Institute’s putatively exhaustive 1,000-page American Conservatism—An Encyclopedia. In the face of all this, one can be forgiven for thinking that Grant was simply an artifact of a benighted, bigoted age, perhaps best treated like the “haters” one reads about in the bulletins of the Southern Poverty Law Center. (The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot, 7th edition (Regnery Publishing, 2001); George H. Nash, The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945, 2nd Edition (Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2006); Bruce Frohnen, Jeremy Beer, Jeffery O. Nelson (Eds.), American Conservatism—An Encylopedia (Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2006).) ↩︎
  5. A useful, though often hostile, introduction to such thinkers is Arthur Herman, The Idea of Decline in Western History (The Free Press, 1997). ↩︎
  6. The Zoological society was later transformed into the Wildlife Conservation Society, which currently manages some 200 million acres worldwide. ↩︎
  7. Jonathan Peter Spiro, Defending the Master Race: Conservation, Eugenics, and the Legacy of Madison Grant (Vermont University Press, 2009), 136. ↩︎
  8. Quoted in Spiro, 201. ↩︎
  9. In the U.S. political system, the power to legislate is vested in Congress. The President can only has veto bills he deems unsatisfactory. Congress has the additional authority to override a presidential veto with two-thirds majorities in both Houses. ↩︎
  10. In his books, Grant rarely dilates on the Jewish Question; however, his correspondence reveals that he was quite prickly about Jews in positions of power, such as Congressmen Isaac Siegel and Adolph Sabath and Rabbi Stephen S. Wise of the American Jewish Congress, whom he considered the most aggressively and effective opponents of immigration restriction. ↩︎
  11. The Act also extended the restriction on the Chinese to include the Japanese. ↩︎
  12. Accessible and accurate histories of American immigration can be found in Peter Brimelow, Alien Nation (HarperCollins, 1995), Byron Roth, The Perils of Diversity (Washington Summit Publishers, 2010); and Otis L. Graham, Unguarded Gates: A History of America’s Immigration Policy (Rowen and Littlefield, 2006). ↩︎
  13. Worth noting, the 1924 and ’29 Acts did nothing to address immigration from South America, which was not politically significant at the time. Quite prophetically, Grant laments this oversight in Conquest. ↩︎
  14. Quoted in Roth, 294 ↩︎
  15. Good Housekeeping, volume 72 number 2, February 1921. ↩︎
  16. Spiro, 346. ↩︎
  17. “The Melting Pot,” for instance, has returned as self-styled conservatives’ answer to multiculturalism. ↩︎
  18. Notably, “survival of the fittest” was coined by Herbert Spencer, not Darwin; the former attempted to associate his economic theories with evolution through natural selection. ↩︎
  19. “Genes and Eugenics,” New York Times, August 24, 1932; quoted in Spiro, 231. ↩︎
  20. See, for instance, Franz Boas, The Mind of Primitive Man (MacMillan, 1911) and “This Nordic Nonsense,” The Forum, October 1925. ↩︎
  21. Margaret Meade, Coming of Age in Samoa (William Morrow & Co., 1928). ↩︎
  22. This term was coined, not by Boas, but by German ethnologist Adolf Bastian (1826–1905), whom Boas worked for briefly at the Museum of Folkart in Berlin. ↩︎
  23. Spiro, 302. This conflict also brought to the fore some of the painful ambivalences of assimilation for immigrant Jews, something best expressed by the Polish immigrant Moses Israel Ehrenberg, who as an academic and public intellectual—the man who would write UNESCO’s statement rejecting the existence of race—refashioned himself with the absurdly WASPy name “Ashley Montagu.” ↩︎
  24. For a discussion of this issue, see John Glad, Future Human Evolution: Eugenics in the Twenty-First Century (Schuylkill Haven, PA: Hermitage Publishers). ↩︎
  25. See Steve Pinker, The Blank Slate (Viking, 2002). ↩︎
  26. Galton, “Hereditary Talent and Character.” ↩︎
  27. Time, May 11, 1936. ↩︎
  28. Franz Boas and Helene M. Boas, “The Head-Forms of the Italians as Influenced by Heredity and Environment,” American Anthropologist, April-June 1913. ↩︎
  29. Corey S. Sparks and Richard L. Jantz, “A Reassessment of human Cranial Plasticity: Boas Revisited,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, October 8, 2002. See also, Nicholas Wade, “A New Look at Old Data May Discredit a Theory on Race”, New York Times, October 8, 2002. ↩︎
  30. In film’s opening scenes, a stereotypical high-IQ WASP and Jewish couple is depicted as a continually forego child-rearing (“Not now, not with the market as it is…”), while a stereotypical low-IQ redneck family breeds with passionate intensity. The ultimate outcome, by 2050, is a collapsing, exceedingly vulgar world in which the average IQ of the population is at retardation levels. ↩︎
  31. Kevin MacDonald, “The Dispossessed Elite,” in Richard B. Spencer (ed.), The Great Erasure (Washington Summit Publishers, 2012). ↩︎
  32. As Byron Roth observes, the “debate” on immigration in the Western world throughout the 2000s was over whether Third World immigrants should or should not assimilate to the dominate culture, not whether this is possible or desirable. Roth, The Perils of Diversity, Chapter 1. ↩︎
  33. See Richard Spencer, “Who’s Taking Over?” American Renaissance, Vol. 21, no. 4, April 2010. ↩︎
No Comments on Madison Grant and the American Nation

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