Radix Journal

Radix Journal

A radical journal

Category: America

Facing the Future As a Minority

For as long as anyone can remember, immigration has been the chief political concern at gatherings such as this. At last night’s cocktail party, “amnesty,” “illegals,” and various heroes and villains in Washington were discussed with great interest.

This speech was delivered at the 2013 American Renaissance conference, which took place on April 5-7 near Nashville, Tennessee.  

For as long as anyone can remember, immigration has been the chief political concern at gatherings such as this. At last night’s cocktail party, “amnesty,” “illegals,” and various heroes and villains in Washington were discussed with great interest.

For people like us—who are asylumed away to the margins—one could say that immigration is our connection to the outside world.  It makes us feel like we have a horse in the race—maybe even that, through our silent partners in the Beltway, we can affect national policy.  We even get captivated, we must admit, by the political theater of “immigration reform.” Ann Coulter’s speech at the last Conservative Political Action Conference, for example, was catnip for racialists. Ann staked out the far rightward territory of respectability; and though she used the language of Republican electioneering, she seemed to be winking and nodding at us the entire time.

Whenever any issue or idea receives universal accord—when it becomes an assumption, when it’s taken for granted—it’s time to put it under serious scrutiny.  We should ask what an issue like immigration can tell us about ourselves—about what our goals are, and should be, and how we could best engage in political action. I hope we can do that today.

* * *

That we have failed to stem immigration in our 45-year struggle is obvious enough.  Some major amnesties have been halted due to energetic, grassroots activists, but mass-immigration proponents have walked away from these battles with confidence that they’ll get it done next year.

That we have continuously failed is not, in itself, an argument against continuing along this course.  Still, sometimes when we focus on various political skirmishes (like the current one over “amnesty”), we lose sight of the big picture—we lose sight of the fact that we have failed on a much deeper level than mere policy.

In the summer 2011, the Census Bureau reported that the majority of children born in the United States are non-White.  Thus, from our perspective, any future immigration-restriction efforts are meaningless.  Even if all immigration, legal and illegal, were miraculously halted tomorrow morning, our country’s demographic destiny would merely be delayed by a decade or two.  Put another way, we could win the immigration battle and nevertheless lose the country, and lose it completely.

And we shouldn’t focus too much on the “2050” date, when Whites will become a minority, as if once Whites drop to 49 percent, a bell will go after announcing the end of the American Dream. We are at a major crisis point now. And we are well past the point of no return with regards to “patriotic immigration reform.”

Furthermore, this insight into the irrelevance of immigration reform holds for the whole kit-and-caboodle of “conservative” causes. Should we, for instance, really be fighting for “limited government” or the Constitution, so that the Afro-Mestzizo-Carribean Melting Pot can enjoy the blessing of liberty and a sound currency? (To ask the question is to answer it.)


Beyond failure, there’s always been something . . . mendacious about immigration reform. Leftists (who sometimes understand us better than we understand ourselves) have always sensed this; they know that when we talk about immigration, we’re not really talking about immigration.

There are very good reasons, of course, for any nation to oppose lawless entry. And there are unalterable mathematical factors at play: all things being equal, more workers equals lowers wages. These are (and should) be the concerns of the “respectable” immigration-reform movement.

But these are not our concerns.

The issues the Beltway immigration reformers focus on are essentially quantitative in nature, as you can see by the names of their organizations: “numbers,” “carrying capacity,” etc.

Our concerns are qualitative. As they should be. For in war, art, and enterprise, great quality can predominate over mere “numbers.” Our race’s history is replete with examples of this: of continental or overseas empires—the globe itself—being administered by a central elite. More impressive still are the examples of one man with little money or support—whether it be Copernicus, Martin Luther, or Nietzsche—overturning whole schools of thought and institutions and society’s most basic assumptions.

Quality should have a practical effect on how we think about the immigration issue. What would we say and do, to take a hypothetical example, if a million Swiss or Russian “boat people” washed up on a seashore, due to some international catastrophe?  Would we oppose granting them citizenship, out of some devotion to legality and fairness? I wouldn’t.  I would become a bleeding-heart liberal and argue that these refugees would improve our economy and enrich our culture (as they likely would). And such an example might not remain hypothetical. In the foreseeable future, we may very well face this exact situation with the Boer people of South Africa.  We need to think now about how we will react and articulate our position.

For us “immigration” is a proxy for race. In that way, immigration can be good or bad: it can be a conquest (as it seems now) . . . or a European in-gathering, something like White Zionism.  It all depends on the immigrants. And we should open our minds to the positive possibilities of mass immigration from the White world.

Taking a step back, it seems that for everyone immigration” is a proxy, a mask, a lie.  Perhaps all of political activism and wonkery are manifestation of deeper, largely unconscious desires for power. When we hear any professional “Latino” support this or that social program, we sense in our guts that her policy proscriptions are rationalizations for nationalism. She might say “more immigration is good”; she means “The Anglos are finished!”

In turn, we are right to view “conservative” activism—especially those hokey and embarrassing events like Glenn Beck rallies—as symbolic in-gatherings of America’s historic majority, as ways for Whites to feel a sense of belonging and identity in a world that is increasingly cold and hostile. Generic “conservatism”—despite itself—has become a kind of White identity politics.  And however flawed, all of its prominent ideological features resonate in the hearts of decent White people: self-reliance, freedom, uprightness etc.  And when White men talks about “restoring the Constitution”—or, more so, “Taking Our Country Back”— leftists and non-Whites are right to view this as threatening and racialist: it implies a return to origins and that the White man once owned America. However much we might critique these conservative ideas, we cannot deny this basic symbolism.  Indeed, it is due to this symbolism—and not policy—that conservative leaders like Glenn Beck have to envelope all-White events in “Martin Luther King” and the most useless political issues possible. They can’t let the natives get out of hand. . .

* * *

Now, if we accept that generic conservatism is symbolic, we should ask a higher-level question—Is this proxy actually good for our movement and, more important, for our race and civilization?

We were able to understand the futility of the immigration issue by asking not what would happen if the movement lost, but what would happen if it actually won.  In t
urn, we should ask an analogous question: what exactly would conservatism “restore” or “take back”?

We can look to history for answers.

In 1789, we had the Constitution. We had a government that was a mere flea in comparison to the elephant that rules us today. Confiscatory taxation was unheard of; the invasions of personal privacy we experience today wasn’t only rare but was, for the most part, infeasible.  We had a more republican, indeed, aristocratic, political system. We had bounteous natural resources and no threatening world power bordering our country.

Yet, within 75 years, we had inflicted upon ourselves a devastating Civil War—one that decimated the Founding stock of the country.  Within 125 to 150 years, our political system had become dominated by same kind of liberal egalitarianism it is today.

Why should we believe that, if we could “restore the Constitution,” the outcome would be any different? One should not rewind a movie, play it again, and then be surprised when it reaches the same unhappy ending.

Of course, history is not determined; it is not a film reel or script. But looking dispassionately at our current situation, we can only conclude that if we could hit a political “reset button,” this time around, the outcome would be far worse.

We are entering a world of resource scarcity (not abundance), and we are not dealing with Blacks that are socially and politically inferior, but some hundred million non-Whites who are empowered by our political system.

Thus, we don’t have to speculate about whether Rand Paul (and any other “right-wing” Republican) really wants to restore constitutional government or would actually be able to do so. This is all irrelevant.  The goals themselves are wrong and must be abandoned.

Supporting Paul, or whatever version of the Tea Party or Republican “immigration hawk” comes up next, is not “pragmatic”; it is, to the contrary, entirely impractical.  And it would be devastating for our movement politically: we would be spending our limited resources of time, energy, and money on politicians whose rosiest conceivable outcome would not change anything.  “Restoring the Constitution” and “patriotic immigration reform”  are just more in a series of safety valves and escape hatches preventing us from confronting the real issues facing our race.

Before we can move forward, we must come to terms with some rather dismal truths. There are no policy proscriptions or politicians currently open to us that will fundamentally alter our destiny.  And, most likely, within our lifetimes, we will not see the kind rebirth of Occidental civilization that we in this room know is necessary.

What we can do now is begin to set a new and different course.  Our challenge is to reorient our people, spiritually as much as intellectually and politically, to a world that will be hostile towards them and towards a future beyond the United State of America.


I’m sure that when many heard the title of my talk, “Facing the Future as a Minority,” they cringed at the very notion.  It insults our pride and dignity to think that I might be suggesting we go out and find ourselves a White Al Sharpton, who could speak at demonstrations after various hate-crime hoaxes and badger politicians until Whites got a seat at the trough.  Perhaps I might start calling my “The Reverend” Richard Spencer and hold prayer vigils after some celebrity misused the word “cracker.”

Believe me, I find this just as offensive as you do.

The good news is that the “Al Sharpton” option will never be open to us.  Whites are and will always be the exception to multiculturalism; we will never be allowed to play the game.

We must also recognize that not only will we always be at odds with the multi-cult, but, at least at the beginning, we will be at odds with the people we seek to defend.  In White America’s unconscious, they are America.  And the process of letting that dream go will be painful.

Moreover, the era of mass immigration into Western countries coincided with stunning advances in consumer capitalism, technology, and access to higher eduction. In the public’s imagination, multiculturalism was linked (however irrationally) with increased living standards and general “progress.”  For some, a White society might seem to be a retreat, towards less prosperity and dynamism.

Suffice it to say, this will be a hard path.

One characteristic that we must adopt as White minority advocates is a new openness to alternative political forms, even things that have previously made us cringe. One of those was suggested by our friends outside protesting our gathering.  No, not “Bomb Dresden Again!” but “Go Back to Europe!”  Emigration with an E is, of course, not practical for all Whites in North America; and at the moment at least, it seems that Western Europe is dedicated to its destruction almost as much as America.   But we should be open to this option.

Back to Europe? Not a bad idea... Back to Europe? Not a bad idea…

I would also direct you to the work on racial separatism of two men: Michael Hart and Rabbi Mayer Schiller, both of whom have presented real plans for dividing up the existing United States, mostly on the basis of race and partly on ideology.  (Michael generously offers Liberals the chance to live in “Diversity” canton if they so desire. . .)

There is, I admit, a certain pie-in-the-sky quality to these proposals, as if a map-maker in his study could create new countries.  But we should remember that in the last century, racially defined nation-building was a major “progressive” cause. We now think that the so-called “liberal elites” have always been dedicated to multiculturalism and race-mixing.  This is not quite the case, as liberals have a history of adopting “national determination” and even “ethno-nationalism” as their causes.  In 1919, following the Great War, the world’s statesman met in Paris to (for lack of a better term) re-map the world after the dissolution of the defeated empires. New countries were invented (the Kingdom of Croats, Serbs, Slovenes), old ones were reborn (Poland), and ethnicities got their day in the Sun (Czechoslovakia).  Related to this process was the Balfour Declaration and British mandate for a homeland for the Jews in Palestine.  Nationalists of many stripes captured the hearts and minds of political actors.

Today, in the public imagination, “ethnic-cleansing” has been associated with civil war and mass murder (understandably so).  But this need not be the case.  1919 is a real example of successful ethnic redistribution—done by fiat, we should remember, but done peacefully.


Like the nationalists of a century ago, we need a cause—and one that’s different, greater, and more advanced than the conservative “hot button” issues that are fading into irrelevance.  We need to be more than mere “reactionaries,” who spasmodically ignite in the face of some new liberal innovation—all the while being gradually pushed in their enemies’ direction, towards accepting their enemies’ assumptions, towards defeat. We need a telos, an outcome or end goal—something that we are working towards, that channels our energies. We need an ideal. And ideals are greatest when they at first seem “impossible.”

The ideal I advocate is the creation of a White Ethno-State on the North American continent.

Vis-a-vis most contemporary states that are putatively based on the Rights of Man and “democracy,” our project would be a new kind of political and social order. It would be a state for the 21 century—or 22nd: reflecting advances in communication and transportation, it would be a home for Germans, Latins, and Slavs from around the world. On one level, it would be a reconstitution of the Roman Empire. The Ethno-State would be, to borrow the title of a novel by Theodor Herzl (one of the founding fathers of Zionism), an Altneuland—an old, new country.

* * * 

I’m sure there’s no shortage of people, most likely even people in this room, who’d inform me that an Ethno-State would be beautiful but, alas, “infeasible.”  In the face of this, we need to remember something very important: the creation of a White Ethno-State on the American continent is perfectly feasible. Indeed, it is a modest project in comparison to brining democracy to the Middle East, narrowing the SAT score gap, or inspiring young women to become mathematicians, or countless other looney and infantile trillion-dollar initiative with which the American government is currently engaged.

We shouldn’t forget that before the current government dedicated its resources to equalizing mankind, it channelled billions—created industries, created whole cities—for the goal of space exploration. (It has since given up this project in favor of boosting the Muslim world’s self-esteem.)

When I travelled to my hometown recently, I noted that the wealthy Whites of Dallas, Texas, have dedicated their disposable income to a charity hospital skyscraper, built in the hopes of taking care of other peoples‘ children and other peoples‘ problems. (It’s hard to get them to give 100 bucks to AmRen or NPI.)

Action is, in a way, the easy part.

Channelling action, setting a goal, identifying a telos—saying yes and saying no—that is what is difficult.

In this way, our challenge is one of the spirit.

Our task is to capture the imaginations of our people (or the best of our people) and shock them out of their current assumption of what they think is possible.  The means of doing this is not to promise a 20-percent reductions in immigration or sales taxes—or the narrowing of the scope of government. To the contrary, we need to offer our people what Herzl called “the voluptuous idea.”

We need an ethno-state so that our people can “come home again,” can live amongst family, and feel safe and secure. But we also need an Ethno-state so that Whites can again reach the stars.  Before the onset of the “equality” sclerosis, Europeans had a unique ability to risk everything for ends that are super-human. We must give up the false dreams of equality and democracy—not so that we could “wake up” to reality; reality is boring—but so that we can take up the new dreams of channelling our energies and labor towards the exploration of our universe, towards the fostering of a new people, who are healthier, stronger, more intelligent, more beautiful, more athletic.  We need an ethno-state so that we could rival the ancients.

In Altneuland, Herzl wrote, referring to his “utopian” plan for a Jewish state in Palestine: “If you wish it, it is no fairy tale. . . If you don’t wish it, it is a fairly tale and will remain one.”

Or, to quote another historical figure: “I have a dream.”

No Comments on Facing the Future As a Minority

America’s Orphans

Much of who we are is decided before we are born.

We spend the rest of our lives filling in the gaps. For some it’s easier than others; you fill the gaps in with family, church, heritage or in our deracinated age, brands. Fitting in is easier for some of us than others, but as long as we stick to the script, keep our heads down and recite “all men are created equal,” we do just fine as good Americans.

Much of who we are is decided before we are born.

We spend the rest of our lives filling in the gaps. For some it’s easier than others; you fill the gaps in with family, church, heritage or in our deracinated age, brands. Fitting in is easier for some of us than others, but as long as we stick to the script, keep our heads down and recite “all men are created equal,” we do just fine as good Americans.

For White people, buying into American identity is easy. It’s the default setting; it’s your pre-packaged default. You’re not “White,” but American, and anyone can be an American as long as they recite the pledge of Allegiance, for then the only colors they’ll see are Red, White, and Blue. At least, that’s what so many White Americans are desperate to believe.

White America deludes itself so much that it’s hard to know where to begin untangling the multitude of delusions. It puts its faith in institutions that have long since devoted themselves to their dispossession. Yet they cling on , born ceaselessly into the past , ever more endangered of becoming it. So they while away the hours, identifying with trivia instead of trials. Nowhere is this more evident than White America’s, and especially White American Men’s, devotion to the National Football League (NFL) and other ubiquitous “sportsball” related enthusiasms.

Church of Sunday Night

Football, especially in its professional form, has come to be a crux of American identity, and more importantly, White identity. The NFL’s audience is 83 percent White and over 64 percent male, while Blacks make up more than 70 percent of its players. But players and fans alike all stand up before every game to sing the national anthem and take their oaths to America.

The America represented by the NFL is usually nothing more than a sterile shopping mall. Just a quick look at the last Super Bowl is more than enough to confirm this. But to many of its fans, it represents something more: it is an identity. One in which America isn’t divided by black or White, but by Green Bay Packers and Dallas Cowboys , who still come together every week to reaffirm their “American” identity at the beginning of each game. To its White fans, professional football is the outward celebration of the American creed, that all people are created equal and that the American dream as enunciated by “Dr.” King has come to pass.

Many have likened the NFL to the gladiator games of ancient Rome.

In some ways that’s fair, but for White America their meaning is more than that. The average White American male probably identifies more with his favorite NFL team than he ever has his race, or even his religion or family. The NFL is an outward celebration of the America he’s been told to believe in. He worships the strength of others, because he’s been told that his own strength is evil. He cheers for others because he’s been told cheering for his people is “problematic” or “oppressive”. Finally, he worships and adores some rag tag team of convicts and thugs because it’s the only avenue for an identity he has.

We still spend Sundays in Church, only now the church comes in through our screens every Sunday night. And just as in Church, sacrilege and heresy will not be tolerated.

Mulatto America

Colin Kaepernick was born to a mother that didn’t want him and a father he would never know.

He was adopted by a nice White Midwestern family from Wisconsin who lost two of their previous children. Kaepernick excelled at sports, achieving notoriety in baseball and American football. I’m sure his adopted parents were at almost every game, beaming with pride at how well their “son” was doing. In addition to his prowess on the field, Kaepernick was a “devoted Christian” who made numerous references to his “faith” and offered a mocha-shaded version of “Tebowing” after a touchdown, to Russell Moore’s delight no doubt.

Kaepernick has probably gone his whole life trying to “fit in” and figure out who he is. Lucky for him, his athletic ability fetches top dollar in today’s America, and being a pro-athlete, especially a Black or mulatto pro-athlete, is about as close to deification as we come in secular America. But I’m sure he never really fit in with his “family” or the doughy Midwestern identity they represent. Of course, it wasn’t the only card he was dealt.

Being a mulatto in America gives you a lot of options. Just ask Barack Obama.

Blackness has come to be the standard of masculinity and coolness in today’s America . Her sons grow up worshipping Black athleticism while her daughters grow up lusting for it. More than that, to be Black in America is to have a grievance, to be a victim. In the Current Year there is no more powerful moral narrative than that of the victim.

Despite being raised in White America, and achieving relative affluence, Kaepernick chooses to identify with lower class Blacks rather than the effete American elite or his slovenly White fans, who one surmises he despises. Like Barack Obama, or Roger “Too” White II in Tom Wolfe’s A Man In Full, Kaepernick has discovered the power of Blackness to shape narratives in today’s America.

When Kaepernick refused to stand for the pledge of allegiance he wasn’t rejecting America, but attempting to claim it. Already, the usual suspects in the press are going into overdrive to defend him, to wrap his actions up as his right as an “American.” We’re already hearing the comparisons to Muhammad Ali who has gone from a pariah to a patriot in just a few decades.

Sure, White America was shocked by Kaepernick. That’s because his refusal to salute the flag makes him take a pause from his Bud Light fueled soma-coma long enough to make him feel something. He feels an anger, though it’s misplaced. Conservative media are already crowing about how anti-American this is, or how ungrateful Kaepernick is to Our Great Country^tm.

The truth is, Kaepernick and others like him make these demands because they can. Because they have an identity made up of more than cheap beer and chicken wings. Kaepernick’s fiancée is a member of the Black Lives Matter movement, and a vehement Black nationalist. Also, if reports are to be believed, Kaepernick has renounced his feel-good Christianity in favor of Islam.

It’s useful to be in the rising tide of color.

America’s Orphans

Kaepernick was born as close to a blank slate as any liberal could hope for. He even got the all-American smiling happy family in the Midwest. But for him, it was not enough. The call of blood is stronger than any adopted bond. By embracing his Blackness, he has become more of who he is than he’s probably felt at any other time in his life. That’s why “losing endorsements” or other pecuniary repercussions do not matter to him as long as he has an identity.

White Americans are in many ways orphans themselves. America is one big foster home where they bounce from surrogate family to surrogate family, hoping to find the one that will take them in. The truth is, they either gave it up or were tricked into giving it up generations ago. Today they just grope and yawp for anything that reminds them of what they had, be it star spangled beer commercials or negro athletes decked out as Captain America.

White America is angry about Kaepernick.

But really he’s just ahead of the curve. He’s found his tribe, and it ain’t the San Fransisco 49ers, but something more real, something based on blood.
White Americans are willful orphans to their identity. It’s time for them to come home.

No Comments on America’s Orphans

The Global Favela

Reality has a well-known racist bias. And the White minstrel and courtier Stephen Colbert veered a little too close to what leftists used to call the reality-based community when describing…

Reality has a well-known racist bias. And the White minstrel and courtier Stephen Colbert veered a little too close to what leftists used to call the reality-based community when describing the chaos of the upcoming Rio Olympics.

To the laughter of his SWPL audience, Colbert hammed it up and made silly faces as he recounted the violence, corruption, and incompetence as Brazil scrambles to put together the infrastructure needed to host the Summer Games. He noted billions of dollars were sent to companies which are currently being investigated for price fixing and kickbacks. He smirked about Brazil having one of the “highest violent crime rates in the world” and, making sure to trill his r’s for comedic effect, quoted the soccer player Rivaldo telling foreigners to “stay in their country of origin” because “here you will be running the risk of your life.” The meme-ready warning from police to arriving tourists “Welcome to Hell” was also featured. And though Colbert didn’t mention this, body parts recently washed ashore next to one of the key venues for the games.

Brazil, as de Gaulle said, is the country of the future and always will be. It will never be the First World nation its boosters fondly imagine. For racially aware American whites, this ironic prophecy has always held a more ominous connotation. Brazil was always the nightmare racially aware American Whites were seeking to avoid, a frenzied völker-chaos of crime and social dysfunction where the poor slaughter each other in the streets and the rich hide behind gated communities and militarized police.

As Colbert’s snark indicates, even the most deeply insulated shitlib shares this premise at some level. Leftists might find something like City of God romantic, but they don’t want to live there anymore than they want to spend time in the Baltimore neighborhoods they fetishize in The Wire.

Yet Brazil might actually be a best-case scenario. At least in the highly Germanized south of the country, there are areas which are wealthy and relatively free of crime and corruption. Not coincidentally, there is also a simmering secessionist movement. And in the recent controversy over impeaching leftist Dilma Rousseff, most of her opponents came from the whiter south.

Interestingly, The Hive leaped into action to defend Rousseff during the impeachment crisis, with the Huffington Post, Salon and other sources of Cat Lady morality warning against the “right-wing” coup. As the subtleties of Brazilian politics are poorly understood by American reporters and even less by American audiences, the situation was explained using the same Narrative applied to politics in every other nation. Rousseff’s defeat, warned one leftist, would mean a “roll back [of] affirmative action and efforts to redress discrimination against peoples of indigenous and African descent.” In other words, the pro-impeachment forces were Bad Guys because they wouldn’t steal enough of White people’s stuff. And Rousseff’s opponents were mostly males with light skin, ipso facto proof of malicious intent, racism, and sexism.

In a way, this Narrative captures something essential. Race creates the underlying conditions of all politics. The great deception of race relations in the West, the lie which justifies the entire political apparatus, is that people of European descent somehow benefit from the presence of “black bodies” and people of color to exploit. In reality, the most consistent pattern we see from Latin America to Europe is the desire of whites to escape multiculturalism, all while they continue to praise it in the abstract. Even in Sweden, the natives move away from “diverse” neighborhoods after only a small number of non-European immigrants enter. And this what really drives contemporary policy disputes, even if it is framed in terms of “limited government,” “local control,” “property values,” or “good schools.”

We flee, they follow, and then they complain we’ve oppressed them. From communist cult leaders to deformed actresses, the response we get is as to why these people are running to join us racists is the same – it’s Our Fault their society is the way it is.

But the truth is their societies are undesirable because they live there. If enough of them come here, our societies will be indistinguishable from theirs. Even if they were given a structural or environmental advantage, the outcome will be the same.

They need us. We don’t need them. We never did.

On those occasions in history when Europeans sought to integrate nonwhites into our system either as equals, slave labor, or something in between, we’ve always paid for it collectively. Whatever wealth was generated by slavery or colonization is nothing compared to the wealth and lives lost in the fratricidal conflicts and rebellions ultimately engendered.

Perhaps more than any other society in human history, status in the modern West is shown by loudly preaching egalitarian principles while isolating yourself from their effects. It’s not just right-wing snark to point out how Mark Zuckerburg is shilling for more immigration while buying property and building walls so as to protect himself from the rabble. This is the governing principle of our world.

The Open Society is a lie. It always was. The only question is where the borders will be drawn. We can have larger barriers outside the neighborhoods, countries and civilization we want to preserve, or we can have innumerable barriers around each home, shop, and gated community as we try to carve out a little space where we can watch our screens and live our virtual life as everything crumbles around us. And even if you’ve managed to find a decent community to raise a family, the American government has already made it quite clear it is coming for you.

In response to Brexit, we’ve seen a few “mainstream” columnists get excited about the idea that “nationalism vs globalism” will define the coming century. The “National Question” is certainly what Trump is staking his campaign on. In the aftermath of the EU Referendum, it was especially amusing to see the far Left shriek about the result on the grounds it would endanger the profits of stock jobbers. The mutual dependence of global finance and Cultural Marxism has never been more apparent.

But the conflict goes deeper than simply a dispute over sovereignty. While Brexit was certainly a sign of hope, the overwhelming support by young voters for remaining within the European Union is ominous. As the rapid progression of concepts like gay marriage and transsexuals in the military through the Overton Window has shown, most Millennials are quite comfortable with accepting the given Narrative. If “nationalism” is to triumph, there’s a time limit to recapture the state and the commanding heights of the culture to push new values.

Whether this is the beginning of some new age or the last gasp of the old Western order is wholly dependent on the electoral fate of figures like Donald Trump (who also relies heavily on elderly voters) and Marie Le Pen. If they win, they may set something in motion. If they don’t, things are going to get much worse before they get better.

If there are not victories in the short term, we’re going to see something far more existential and dangerous. Technology and transportation allow the elite to travel from global city to global city, unmooring them from traditional loyalties and reducing any stake they have in their native countries.

We have a ruling class with “no skin in the game” and to them, our entire society is expendable. The gamble most are making is they will remain invulnerable from the chaos of multiculturalism and global economic and technological progress, broadly defined, will continue. And if a self-conscious elite can beat back their own peoples, as Foreign Policy recently argued, they believe they will able to change the demographic situation such that their position will be invulnerable.

But as global society becomes more integrated and complex, it also becomes less stable. And now, the Western core countries are beginning to rot away, subsumed beneath a never ending and heavily subsidized tide of Third World humanity. The German government will spend over $100 billion to support “refugees” over the next five years, most of whom are worthless in terms of their ability to economically contribute. Sweden is already buckling under the weight of what they have admitted. And this is only the beginning of what is coming next, as Western subsidies have ensured an African population boom.

Assuming a nationalist or populist backlash can be beaten down by the System and Muammar Gaddafi’s prophecy of a “black” Europe is realized, what future does the West have, even for the wealthy? The global utilitarianism pursued through open borders is becoming a worldwide scheme of dysgenics, creating a deracinated, mediocre, and helpless human race.

If you were a wealthy South African businessman who didn’t care about his people, the end of apartheid was good for you. No sanctions, more opportunities for trade, and no social penalties. What do you care about the white trash leaving in squatter parks or gross Boers being butchered on their ancestral farmlands in front of their wives and children? You can watch the Springboks from your hotel in London.

But even these options are going to be cut off when bastions like Germany, the United Kingdom, and America itself buckle under the weight of demographic transformation. And can the “elite,” especially Jews, be as confident they will be able to penetrate East Asian markets as they did the West?

The events in Rio are simply a harbinger. A nation like Brazil can’t host something like the Olympics. As the West turns Brazilian (or worse), there will be fewer countries who can.

And as even though the Olympics themselves are just a variation of corporate degeneracy, it means something when a global fête backed by billions of dollars can’t guarantee the basic safety of its athletes, let alone guests. Even when the Soviet Union couldn’t supply supermarkets, it could accomplish great things if it bent every effort. Now, the “country of the future” can’t accomplish one big project.

When White America was about to fly to the moon, a group of blacks showed up in a mule wagon at the launch site, demanding welfare. As the entire world is converted into a giant favela, we’re going to see this on a mass scale. The astonishing advances in technology and health care which appear so close will never be realized. Instead, we’ll use the astonishing resources at our command to subsidize populations who hate us and make our lives worse by their sheer presence.

And as the walls close in, at least some SWPL’s are going to start to get it. Even Boulder, CO suddenly finds itself in the crosshairs for being insufficiently diverse. More broadly, we can only hope some of those who do have the ability to escape this dystopian future realize, some class traitors from the “elite,” realize what is coming is not worth living in and take action to build a different world.

The Alt Right is not just about grand dreams or some glorious destiny for our people. It’s the sole movement that can even consider real solutions to the problems destroying the lives of millions. Every father looking for a safe place to raise his family, every mother who worries about what will happen to her children, and every red-pilled Millennial who is beginning to understand he has no future has to look to us because no other movement offers him anything but annihilation.

We have a system that actively punishes virtue, destroys families, abolishes communities, and imports foreigners precisely because they have nothing to offer except votes for the leftist political party. It’s a conglomeration of monstrous evil. It has to be entirely destroyed not just so we can pursue the highest aspirations of our race but so a decent life is possible for ordinary people.

It’s not just a battle between nationalism and globalism. It’s about what kind of people we want to be. We can carve out a future for ourselves. Or we can acquiesce to being part of a global slum. But if nothing changes, we can see the “country of the future” and what it always will be.

It’s corpses washing up on a polluted beach. It’s hostile mobs using their dependence as a weapon. It’s a cultureless wasteland choking on its own filth. And unlike every other time in history, there will be nowhere to escape

No Comments on The Global Favela

Mitt Romney, “Conscious” Cuckservative

His eyes were misted with tears, but his jaw was set in resolute determination. There was a hint of tension in the facial muscles as he steeled himself to his duty. He stared into the eyes of his interlocutor, a former AIPAC employee and therefore a trusted moral authority. Resisting the quiver that threatened to creep into his voice, Mitt Romney boldly staked his claim as the conscience of a generation with words that will echo through the eons – “I don’t want to see trickle down racism.”


His eyes were misted with tears, but his jaw was set in resolute determination. There was a hint of tension in the facial muscles as he steeled himself to his duty. He stared into the eyes of his interlocutor, a former AIPAC employee and therefore a trusted moral authority. Resisting the quiver that threatened to creep into his voice, Mitt Romney boldly staked his claim as the conscience of a generation with words that will echo through the eons – “I don’t want to see trickle down racism.”

Even when trying to bare his soul, Romney can’t help but deploy a line obviously slapped together at a meeting of unemployed political consultants. And even this clumsy and lame formulation reveals the deep inner sickness. “Trickle-down economics” was the leftist smear term for Ronald Reagan’s “supply side” policies, whereby tax cuts for the rich would ultimately benefit the poor through economic growth. Here, Romney casually co-opts the leftist insult directed against the unquestioned deity of the GOP and recycles it against the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party. He can’t even come up with his own political attack lines.

It’s not surprising, as Mitt Romney outsources both the jobs of his employees and his deepest sources of his own morality. “Presidents have an impact on the nature of our nation, and trickle-down racism, trickle-down bigotry, and trickle-down misogyny – all these things are extraordinarily dangerous to the heart and character of America,” Romney intoned. Of course, to those in control of the media and academia who actually get to determine who is a “racist,” “bigot,” or “misogynist,” Romney is already an example of all three of these categories. And his statement begs not just one, but several questions. What is the “nature of our nation?” And do we have a “heart” and “character?”

If the nation is the people who created the state and its institutions, America was founded by men who were racists, bigots, and misogynists by today’s standards. They built a herrenvolk Republic designed for “ourselves and our posterity.”
The “American Idea” cited by the likes of Romney, Paul Ryan, and other cuckservatives is a kind of heresy derived from the actual beliefs of the Founding Fathers. They take the universalist and egalitarian ideas inherent in the Revolution and completely remove them from the context understood by the likes of Washington, Jefferson, and Adams.

But such a process was probably inevitable, as the most dangerous heresies are rooted in a grain of truth. And the end result of this Republic created by aristocratic slaveholders and landowners is a Third World disaster where the only people who keep the nation going, Whites, are not allowed to politically organize or possess a real identity.

After all, what “breaks your heart” about Trump, according to Romney, is the presumptive GOP nominee’s suggestion an ethnically Mexican judge might be prejudiced against him. Judge Gonzalo Curiel is a proud and active member of an organization whose purpose is to “advance the Latino community through political activity and advocacy.”

Obviously, Romney isn’t offended by ethnocentrism per se. Nor can he believe simple birth defines someone’s national identity. After all, his own father George Romney was born in Mexico.

Romney’s background provides a key to understanding Mitt’s mindset. George Romney, whom Mitt called pivotal to his political development, was a devout and active Mormon. His parents were missionaries and the family was forced to flee the country because of the violence in the Mexican revolution. This was simply the first step in a proud family history of being a condescending champion for the browns and blacks, fleeing when they burned down the neighborhood, moving somewhere whiter, and then lecturing new White people about racism.

George Romney went on to become Governor of Michigan, where he got to preside over the Detroit riots. He became a footnote in political history when his presidential campaign collapsed after he claimed he initially supported the Vietnam War because of “brainwashing.” After Nixon became President, Romney became Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, where he did his best to make sure all White neighborhoods ended up like Detroit, badgering residents about the “moral responsibility” to surround themselves with black people. He exempted himself from such burdens – when he died at 88, it was at his home in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, a town which at the time of his death was less than two percent black.

George Romney was noted for his religious devotion. But Romney didn’t really believe in the teachings of Joseph Smith and the text of the Book of Mormon, because the defining characteristic of Romney’s political beliefs was support for “civil rights.” And Romney was ahead of his time in helping convert the Mormon Church away from its own supposed scriptures so it could bend the knee to its new god. But interestingly, Romney didn’t publicly condemn his church for “racism,” instead, he quietly waited for it to change. Even as the substance was subverted, the form was maintained.

His son Willard Mitt Romney became a consultant and then helped form a private equity firm specializing in leveraged buyouts. What this means is that with borrowed money, Bain Capital would buy a company, try to increase its value, and then sell. Sometimes it would work, and it could be argued Romney and his colleagues had saved the company. In other cases, workers were laid off or the company later failed after Bain had taken its profits and run. For example, one of Romney’s declared “successes,” Sports Authority, has just been liquidated.

By all accounts, Romney was capable and intelligent and wasn’t involved in some of Bain’s more spectacular failures. But in cases of both success and collapse, Mitt Romney and his colleagues didn’t have a real stake in whatever company they had acquired or what it produced.

Donald Trump will forever be tied to the iconic tower in New York which bears his name. The world is different because he lived and there is a concrete (literally) legacy he leaves behind which goes beyond his political impact. Moreover, as a landlord, Trump understands how property values are tied to the larger community and demographics. He has a stake in the community where he invests.

In contrast, the companies Romney was involved with were simply resources to be exploited before he moved on. They were never anything other than numbers on a spreadsheet. There’s nothing substantial left behind from Romney’s career in business. He simply took the profits and left.

This summarizes Mitt Romney’s approach to politics as well. His “conscience” is flexible on the kinds of issues movement conservatives consider fundamental such as abortion and “limited government.”

Running as a pro-choice candidate against Senator Ted Kennedy in the deep blue state of Massachusetts, Romney declared himself to be pro-choice. In his gubernatorial campaign in 2002, Romney portrayed his stance as a question of principles and character, intoning, “”I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose and am devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard.” He also spoke at a Planned Parenthood fundraiser. However, once he started campaigning for national office, his stance changed. He eventually declared his opposition to abortion and declared he would ban all abortion. However, he would only extend the ban to cases of rape and incest if there was a national consensus on the issue.

As governor, Romney implemented a statewide health program which paved the way for Obamacare. Romney campaigned hard against Obamacare during his presidential run but once he lost, he actually bragged about how his initiative paved the way for Obama’s signature health care policy.

On immigration, another issue where “movement conservatives” suddenly discover a “conscience” when something threatens their supply of cheap labor, Romney was similarly fickle. In 2006, he backed amnesty. But during the 2012 Republican primaries, Romney crushed his opponents by running to their right on immigration, famously backing “self-deportation.” Once he lost politely after campaigning against Obama with far more restraint than he showed against his Republican opponents, he went back to supporting amnesty.

Of course, a politician qua politician is going to flip-flop. But for a movement ostensibly suspicious of the state, “conservatives” seem uniquely vulnerable to promoting politicians and pundits as moral leaders rather than political actors.

Thus, we have the self-discrediting invocations of “conscience” by various political hacks as the excuse for Republicans to stand against Trump. Soulless lobbyist Paul Ryan says Republicans need to “vote their conscience.” Republican delegates, many of whom backed Cruz during the primary, are pushing for a “conscience clause.” Steve Deace, with his permanently crazed expression, multiple chins, and general likeness to the child prophet from Children of the Corn after adding 200 pounds and a coke habit, declares his “conscience” won’t let him support Trump.

None of this can be taken seriously. And the most farcical figure in this circus is Romney. Mitt Romney, through his vocal opposition to Trump throughout the process, is the de facto leader of the #NeverTrump “movement,” despite how he hailed Trump’s endorsement of him in the last election. “You can see how loyal he is,” as Trump said. How can someone with no core have a “conscience?”

The dominant theme of “take the money and run” in Mitt and George Romney’s lives and careers can be found in the larger conservative movement. The premise is that a certain social order and certain civilizational norms can be taken for granted, that conservatives’ perception of being in control can never really be challenged an existential level. Thus, you are free to signal to leftists about your own status and virtue while showing indifference towards the collective interests of your European-American constituency.

If you lose an election, there’s always next time. If you lose a community, you can always move away. Indeed, in both politics and religion, community and identity are defined by abstract belief rather than anything inherent. What’s worse, the power to define those beliefs is outsourced to enemies. It’s not surprising that Romney has already gone the full David French, prominently featuring his adopted black grandson in family photos as a kind of ward against accusations of racism older Romney family photos inspired from leftists.

People like Romney are worthy of contempt because they ultimately rely on the very forces they undermine. At least the occasional leftist will actually believe in what they are saying and move to a diverse neighborhood, rationalizing the occasional muggings or property destruction as part of some larger revolt against the system. At least some of them will openly oppose institutions and ideals associated with Tradition or Western identity. In contrast, the Romneys of the world seek out the holdouts against the reigning liberal hegemony, establish themselves in positions of power and wealth, and then hollow out those communities and institutions. Then they go somewhere else. In the end, nothing substantial is left behind.

What’s changing is that we’re entering a zero-sum world, especially in politics. Republicans like Romney who think they can resist Trump and “get ‘em next time” are fooling themselves. The window of opportunity to “preserve America” in any meaningful sense is closing rapidly, and this November will show whether it is already gone. Another four years of mass Third World immigration will ensure it has vanished forever, leaving European-Americans with the question of how they can exit the catastrophe their former country has become.

There is no “next time.” There’s just a continuing death spiral, as the walls close on those few places remaining where ordinary people can live decent lives. We can either guard one border around our country, or we will be forced to set up innumerable small borders in the form of gated communities, private schools, increased security, closed social networks and the never-ending flight from diversity.

The Romneys of the world can hold out longer than the rest of us. They, therefore, have an interest in telling us not to get excited, to keep believing in the old ideas, to have faith that Republican Jesus (who doesn’t care if you are a Mormon, a Catholic, or an evangelical as long as you aren’t racist) will come down and make everything ok.

But we know protective stupidity is no longer an option. We know politics and culture are the constant results of a never-ending battle, not some objective circumstance we are mandated to accept. And now we are faced with the choice between confrontation or succumbing to eternal night as the darkness closes in around us.

We may win and establish a glory our ancestors could only have dreamed of. We may lose and dissipate into powerless tribes. But one thing we know for certain – however the battle fares, the Romneys of the world will be forgotten. They had their time. And that time is almost over.

No Comments on Mitt Romney, “Conscious” Cuckservative

The Case of George Will

Few writers who apply the label “conservative” to themselves have acquired so prominent a position in establishment media as George F. Will. A regular columnist for *the Washington Post* and *Newsweek*, a future on national television discussion programs, and a winner of the Pulitzer prize, Will has traveled a long way since he wrote articles for *the Alternative* in the early 1970s. With the possible exception of William Buckley and James Kilpatrick, it is difficult to think of any other self-described conservative publicist who has so strikingly “made it.” 

Editor’s Note: This article first appeared in Modern Age, Spring 1986

Few writers who apply the label “conservative” to themselves have acquired so prominent a position in establishment media as George F. Will. A regular columnist for the Washington Post and Newsweek, a future on national television discussion programs, and a winner of the Pulitzer prize, Will has traveled a long way since he wrote articles for the Alternative in the early 1970s. With the possible exception of William Buckley and James Kilpatrick, it is difficult to think of any other self-described conservative publicist who has so strikingly “made it.”

The secret of Will’s success is only in part attributable to his many merits-his willingness to explore controversial areas of public life in a manner remarkably free of cliches and conventional wisdom, his learning in the literary and philosophical classics, and his habitual articulateness. His success is due also to the general thrust of his distinctive formulation of conservatism and the way in which he applies his ideas to public matters, for it is evident in much of his writing that Will is at considerable pains to separate himself from most Americans who today regard themselves as conservatives and to assure his readers that there are important public institutions and policies, usually criticized by conservatives, with which he has no quarrel.

Statecraft as Soulcraft(1) is George Will’s first real book, as opposed to collections of his columns, and its purpose is to develop in a rather systematic way his political beliefs and to explain how these beliefs — “conservatism properly understood — are different from and superior to the ideas to which most American conservatives subscribe. The most distinctive difference, he tells us in the preface, appears to be his “belief in strong government,” and he says:

My aim is to recast conservatism in a form compatible with the broad popular imperatives of the day, but also to change somewhat the agenda and even the vocabulary of contemporary politics. To those who are liberals and to those who call themselves conservatives, I say: Politics is more difficult than you think.

Despite Will’s assertion that today “there are almost no conservatives, properly understood,” the principal line of argument of Statecraft us Soulcraft will be familiar to most and largely congenial to many American conservative intellectuals. It is Will’s argument that modern political thought from the time of Machiavelli has ignored or denied the ethical potentialities of human nature and has concentrated on passion and self-interest as the constituent forces of society and government. Modern politics therefore seeks to use these forces, rather than to restrain or elevate them, in designing social and political arrangements in such a way that passion and self-interest will conduce to stability, prosperity, and liberty. “The result,” writes Will,

is a radical retrenchment, a lowering of expectations, a constriction of political horizons. By abandoning both divine and natural teleology, modernity radically reoriented politics. The focus of politics shifted away from the question of the most eligible ends of lie, to the passional origins of actions. The ancients were resigned to accomodating what the moderns are eager to accomodate: human shortcomings. What once was considered a defect — self-interestedness — became the base on which an edifice of rights was erected.

The Founding Fathers also subscribed to the modernist school of political thought, particularly James Madison, whose “attention is exclusively on controlling passions with countervailing passions; he is not concerned with the amelioration or reform of passions. The political problem is seen entirely in terms of controlling the passions that nature gives, not nurturing the kind of character that the polity might need. He says, ‘We well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on.’”

The result of political modernism and its concentration on the lower elements of human nature has been the loss of ideals of community, citizenship, and the public moral order. With its emphasis on “self-interest” and the proper arrangement or equilibrium of passions and appetites rather than on their reform and improvement, modernism has opened the door to the privatization of politics, distrust of public authority, the pursuit of material and individual self-interest, and the proliferation of individual rights in the form of claims against government and society.

Once politics is defined negatively, as an enterprise for drawing a protective circle around the individual‘s sphere of selfinterested action, then public concerns are by definition distinct from, and secondary to, private concerns. Regardless of democratic forms, when people are taught by philosophy (and the social climate) that they need not govern their actions by calculations of public good, they will come to blame all social shortcomings on the agency of collective considerations. the government, and will absolve themselves.

Contemporary American conservatism, in Will’s view, as well as contemporary liberalism, are both derived from political modernism.

They are versions of the basic program of the liberal-democratic political impulse that was born with Machiavelli and Hobbes. Near the core of the philosophy of modern liberalism, as it descends from those two men, is an inadequacy that is becoming glaring. And what in America is called conservatism is only marginally disharmonious with liberalism. This kind of conservatism is an impotent critic of liberalism because it too is a participant in the modern political enterprise. . . . The enterprise is not wrong because it revises, or even because it revises radically. Rather it is wrong because it lowers, radically. It deflates politics, conforming politics to the strongest and commonest impulses in the mass of men.

For Will, then, the proper corrective to the degeneration of democracy and the substitution of private indulgence for the public good is the restoration of ancient and medieval political and ethical philosophy and its vindication of the role of government in constraining private interests in deference to the public moral order and in inculcating virtue — in other words, “legislating morality”:

By the legislation of morality I mean the enactment of laws and implementation of policies that proscribe, mandate, regulate, or subsidize behavior that will, over time, have the predictable effect of nurturing, bolstering or altering habits, dispositions, and values on a broad scale.

He goes on: The United States acutely needs a real conservatism, characterized by a concern to cultivate the best persons and the best in persons. It should express renewed appreciation for the ennobling, functions of government. It should challenge the liberal doctrine that regarding one important dimension of life — the “inner life” — there should be less government — less than there is now, less than there recently was, less than most political philosophers have thought prudent.

Despite Will’s predilection for putting down contemporary conservatives, the theoretical dimensions of his argument will come as no great shock to many of them. It has been articulated in one form or another by a number of American writers since the 1940s — Russell Kirk, Leo Strauss, and Eric Voegelin, to name but a few. Will is quite correct that the libertarian and classical liberal faction of American conservatism will dissent vigorously from his thought and that they are not conservatives in the classical sense of the term. Yet many prominent libertarians have resisted and rejected being called conservatives, and it is hardly fair to criticize them for not adhering to a body of ideas with which they have never claimed any connection. Nor is it fair for Will to categorize all conservatives or even the mainstream of American conservatism as libertarian. Although this mainstream has been oriented toward the defense of the bourgeois order as expressed in classical liberal ideology, its principal exponents have generally been aware of the moral and social foundations of classical liberal values and have accepted at least some governmental role in the protection and encouragement of these values.

American conservatism is in effect a reformulation of the Old Whiggery of the eighteenth century and has sought to synthesize Burke and Adam Smith, order and liberty, in what was ascribed to its most representative voice, Frank S. Meyer, as “fusionism.” There are of course serious philosophical problems in effecting this synthesis, and the problems have never been satisfactorily resolved; but the efflorescence of conservative thought around these problems in recent decades shows that American conservatives are neither as simple-minded nor as illiterate as Will wants us to believe. In the last decade conservative political efforts have increasingly emphasized moral issues in campaigns against pornography, abortion, and the dissolution of the family and community, and in favor of public support for religious faith. It is therefore simply a gross error to claim that the American Right, old or new, is oblivious to the role of government in sustaining morality.

Will, moreover, knows this, because he is himself a well-informed man and because he was at one time an editor of the National Review and has had close intellectual and professional connections to the conservative movement. Yet at no place in Statecraft and Soulcraft is there any acknowledgment of the richness or variety of contemporary conservative thought, any appreciation for the intellectual and political contributions of serious conservatives to sustaining and reviving premodern political ideas, nor indeed any reference at all to any contemporary conservative thinker. There is only a constant barrage of patronizing and often contemptuous generalization about “soidisant conservatives,” “something calling itself conservatism,” and “‘conservatives.’” Although the traditionalist and most antimodern orientation within American conservatism will probably experience little discomfort at Will’s development of his ideas, it may have problems with some of his applications of his philosophy to contemporary policy. Although Will is consistent in his strong support for the illegalization of pornography and abortion, he also tries to use premodern or classical conservatism to endorse the welfare state and to justify the civil rights legislation of the 1960s, which are the principal creations of modern liberalism and which constitute revolutionary engines by which the radicalizing dynamic of liberalism is built into contemporary American government.

Although Will acknowledges that the “almost limitless expansion of American government since the New Deal . . . was implicit in the commission given to government by modern political philosophy: the commission to increase pleasure and decrease pain,” he also believes that “the political system must also incorporate altruistic motives. It does so in domestic policies associated with the phrase ‘welfare state.’ These are policies that express the community‘s acceptance of an ethic of common provision.” He cites Disraeli and Bismarck as conservative architects of the welfare state and regards as the conservative principle underlying welfare the idea “that private economic decisions often are permeated with a public interest and hence are legitimate subjects of political debate and intervention.”

Will is certainly correct in his assertion of this principle, but the centralized, redistributive welfare apparatus created by liberalism and resisted by conservatives is not legitimately derived from the principle. The classical conservative vision of society as an organic, hierarchical, and authoritative structure of reciprocal responsibilities implies a social duty to the poor, but it also implies a responsibility on the part of the poor that the liberal “right to welfare” denies. Moreover, the virtue of charity endorsed by classical conservatives presupposes an inequality of wealth and an ideal of noblesse oblige that the architects of liberal welfare states abhor. Nor is the classical conservative ideal of public welfare necessarily or primarily restricted to a centralized apparatus or even to government, but rather allows for social provision of support through family, community, church, and class obligations as well as at local levels of government. Finally, the classical conservative welfare state usually developed in nondemocratic societies in which the lower orders who received public largess did not also possess electoral control of the public leaders who dispensed it. The mass democratic nature of the modern welfare state ensures the indefinite expansion of necessary and desirable public provision into a socialist redistribution of wealth that reduces the public order to a never-ending feast for the private interests and appetites of the masses while destroying their families and communities, ingesting them within the cycles of mass hedonism of bureaucratized capitalism and enserfing them as the political base of the bureaucratic-political complex in whose interests the welfare state is operated. At the same time, the administrative apparatus of the centralized welfare state subsidizes a bureaucratic and social engineering elite that devotes its energies to the further destruction and redesigning of the social order.

Will offers some suggestions “for a welfare system that supports rather than disintegrates families” and which “will use government to combat the tendency of the modern bureaucratic state to standardize and suffocate diversity.” It is frankly not easy to see how this can be accomplished, since governmental welfare replicates, usurps, and thus weakens the functions of the family and community and must necessarily proceed along uniform legal and administrative lines. lndeed, Will’s defense of the welfare state suggests no awareness of the important differences between the concept and the actual functioning of the classical conservative welfare state and those of modern liberalism. An important part of his case is the pragmatic argument that conservatives must accept the welfare state or find themselves consigned to political oblivion. “A conservative doctrine of the welfare state is required if conservatives are even to be included in the contemporary political conversation,” and the idea of the welfare state “has now come and is not apt to depart.” “Conservatism properly understood,” then, is to accept the premises and institutions of contemporary liberalism and must not challenge them if it is to enjoy success and participate in dialogue with a dominant liberalism. Hence, any discussion of the very radical and unsettling reforms that would be necessary to construct a welfare state consistent with genuine classical conservatism, as opposed to the abridged, expurgated, and pop version presented by Will, would defeat his pragmatic purpose by alienating and frightening the liberal and establishment elites he is trying to impress.

Similarly, Will’s defense of the civil rights revolution in terms of classical conservatism is an erroneous application of a traditionalist principle. “But the enforcement of the law,” he writes, “by making visible and sometimes vivid the community values that are deemed important enough to support by law, can bolster these values.. . . Of course, nothing in a society, least of all moral sentiment, is permanent and final. Indeed, there have been occasions when the law rightfully set out to change important and passionately held sentiments, and the law proved to be a web of iron.” One such occasion was the abrogation of the rights of owners of public accommodations to deny service to blacks, enacted in the civil rights legislation of the 1960s. The exercise of this right became “intolerably divisive” and therefore had to be abridged by congressional action.

The most admirable achievements of modem liberalism — desegregation, and the civil rights act — were explicit and successful attempts to change (among other things) individuals’ moral beliefs by compelling them to change their behavior. The theory was that if government compelled people to eat and work and study and play together, government would improve the inner lives of those people.

“Moral sentiment” does indeed change, but absolute moral values do not, and only if we believe that egalitarian values are superior to the rights of property can we accept the legislation Will is defending as legitimate. Nor it is clear that the civil rights revolution has really improved our inner lives or even changed our external conduct to any great degree, and if it has, the change has derived not only from government but also from social and nonpublic sanctions as well.

That “stateways” can make “folkways,” that coercive imposition by an apparatus of power can eventually alter patterns of thinking and conduct, is true. The Christian emperors of Rome after Constantine certainly did so, as did Henry VIII and his successors in the English Reformation. What the conservative wants to know, however, is by what authority a state undertakes such massive transformations and whether what is gained adequately compensates for the damage that is inevitably done. In the case of the suppression of paganism and its replacement by Christianity, Christian conservatives will have little doubt of the authority and ultimate value of the revolution. The processes by which the civil rights revolution was accomplished are more questionable. It is not clear that they have led or will lead to more justice and tolerance or to greater racial harmony. They certainly did damage to the Constitution by allowing the national legislative branch to ovemde state and local laws. They also damaged the political culture by popularizing and legitimizing the idea that every conceivable “minority” (women, sexual deviants, and all racial and ethnic groups) may use the federal government to satisfy its ambitions at the expense of local jurisdictions, the public treasury, and the social order. Nor is it clear on what authority Congress overrode traditional property rights to impose new rights. The exploitation of the national government to abrogate and create rights by which the ambitions and private dogmas of a faction may be satisfied is no less an instance of the degeneration of modernism than the abuse of government by the constituencies of the welfare state. The civil rights revolution and the welfare state are not, then, reactions against the tendencies of modernism as Will presents them, but rather their fulfillment.

Indeed, for all his expostulations in favor of the high-minded and aristocratic enforcement of virtue, Will repeatedly expresses his deference to the conventional and the popular. The rights of proprietors in 1964 “had become intolerably divisive,” so conservatism properly understood accepts the will of those who initiated the division. “An American majority was unusually aroused,” so authority must follow the majority. The welfare state is an idea whose time “has now come,” so conservatives must accept the idea and must not resist the times. “If conservatism is to engage itself with the way we live now,” it must adapt itself to current circumstances, and perish the thought that we might really change the way we live now by rejecting the legacies of liberalism, dismantling its power structure, and enforcing and protecting the real traditions of the West rather than indulging in Will’s elegant pretense that that is what he is doing and expressing open contempt for the only force in American politics that has ever seriously sought to do it.

Throughout Will’s articulation of what he takes to be conservatism there is an ambiguity or confusion between the respect for tradition and a given way of lie that animates genuine conservatives, on the one hand, and the desire to impose upon and “correct” tradition by acts of power, on the other.

The primary business of conservatism is preservation of the social order that has grown in all its richness — not preserving it lie a fly in amber, but protecting it especially from suffocation or dictated alteration by the state. However, the state has a central role to play. The preservation of a nation requires a certain minimum moral continuity, because a nation is not just “territory” or “physical locality.” A nation is people “associated in agreement with respect to justice.” And continuity cannot be counted on absent precautions.

Will says that “proper conservatism holds that men and women are biological facts, but that ladies and gentlemen fit for self-government are social artifacts, creations of the law.” Once again, his idea is unexceptionable, but there is no clarification of what the role of the state, government, and law might properly be. The state is certainly not the only agency that enforces morality, and while it is true that “ladies and gentlemen” are indeed social artifacts, it is untrue that they or many other social artifacts are “creations of the law.” Will is again correct that “the political question is always which elites shall rule, not whether elites shall rule,” but elites do not always rule by means of the formal apparatus of the state. They also hold and exercise power, provide leadership, enforce public morality, and inform culture through nongovernmental mechanisms in the community, in business, in patronage of the arts and education, and in personal example. Only in the managerial bureaucratic regimes of modernity have elites relied on the state for their power, and they have done so only because the roots of their power and leadership in society have been so shallow that they possess no other institutions of support.

That government has an important and legitimate role to play in enforcing public morality no serious conservative will doubt; but it is nevertheless a limited role and one that is performed mainly not by government but by the institutions of society. Will defines no clear limits either to how far government may go in enforcing moral improvement or how much man can be improved and on more than one occasion he appears to confuse the legitimate role of the state in protecting the moral order with a kind of environmentalist Pelagianism. Thus, he speaks of “the ancient belief in a connection between human perfectibility and the political order,” although few ancients, pagan or Christian, and no conservative of any time or faith ever believed in the perfectibility of man. By failing to clarify the limits and precise functions of the state in enforcing moral norms, Will fails to define classical conservatism adequately or to formulate a theoretical basis for distinguishing the legitimate and proper role of the state that conservatism justifies from the statism and social engineering of the Left.

Will’s embrace of the modern bureaucratic state as a proper means of encouraging “soulcraft” is neither realistic nor consistent with the classical conservatism he espouses. It is not realistic because the bureaucratic state of this century is predicated on and devoted to a continuing dynamic of moral and social deracination and cannot merely be adjusted to protect and sustain the moral and social order. It is inconsistent with classical conservatism because classical conservatism flourished in and upheld an aristocratic and limited state that operated on predicates completely different from those of its bloated, abused, alien, suffocating, and often ineffective modern descendent — “bureaucracy tempered by incompetence,” as Evelyn Waugh described modern government. Will’s ideology is consistent, however, with the agenda of liberalism and the structures that cany out its agenda, and his self-professed aim “to recast conservatism in a form compatible with the broad popular imperatives of the day” is in fact an admission of his acceptance of and deference to the liberal idols that modem statecraft adores.

Although Will is sometimes called a “neo-conservative,” he is not one. Neoconservatives typically derive more or less conservative policy positions from essentially liberal premises. Will in fact does the opposite: he derives from more or less unexceptionable premises of classical conservatism policy positions that are often congruent with the current liberal agenda. It is because he accepts, and wants to be accepted by, the “achievements” of modern liberalism that he ignores or sneers at the serious conservative thinkers and leaders of our time who have sought to break liberal idols and that he voices no criticism of the powers that support liberalism. It is therefore not surprising that his commentary is welcomed in and rewarded by liberal power centers. They have little to fear from him and his ideas and much to gain if his version of “conservatism” should gain currency. He enjoys every prospect of a bright future in their company.

(1)Statecraft as Soulcraft: What Government Does, by George F. Will, New York Simon and Schuster, 1983. 186 pp. $13.95.

No Comments on The Case of George Will

The Priests of Weakness

An attempt to encourage reporters to be more fair-minded and accurate when it comes to guns has led to one of the more startling admissions from a journalist. Rachael Larimore, a token Republican at Slate of the Rick Wilson variety, urged journalists to become familiar with firearms and conduct interviews with gun owners which don’t come off like an anthropologist studying the bizarre customs of some isolated tribe. 

An attempt to encourage reporters to be more fair-minded and accurate when it comes to guns has led to one of the more startling admissions from a journalist. Rachael Larimore, a token Republican at Slate of the Rick Wilson variety, urged journalists to become familiar with firearms and conduct interviews with gun owners which don’t come off like an anthropologist studying the bizarre customs of some isolated tribe.

She wrote:

The mainstream media lobbies hard for gun control, but it is very, very bad at gun journalism. It might be impossible ever to bridge the divide between the gun-control and gun-rights movements. But it’s impossible to start a dialogue when you don’t know what the hell you are talking about…

If the media wants to work toward actual solutions for gun violence, to do right by the people who are senselessly murdered, they need more than righteous indignation. They need to be better informed and more willing to engage honestly with their opponents.

Many of the comments interpreted her position as an “apology” for gun owners. To admit gun owners even have a position and a rational basis for their beliefs is too much. A Muslim terrorist is inspired by “root causes” which have nothing to do with his religion and must be understood. There’s nothing to understand about White American gun owners. They are simply to be disarmed and crushed.

Yet Larimore’s advice is actually more revealing than the usual inchoate rage emitting from progressives.

First is the characterization of the media as political actors who already have “actual solutions” in mind and “lobby” for them.

Second is the implicit admission that to “bridge a divide” or “start a dialogue” means to facilitate a left wing advance on a particular issue. (Why can’t we “bridge the divide” by having gun control proponents leave us gun owners alone?)

Finally, there is the blunt admission that gun owning Americans are simply “opponents” of journalists.

As Paultown might say, “What did she mean by this?”

She could have meant it simply as analysis. Alternatively, she might be doing the traditional cuckservative job of helping leftists achieve their goals by perpetuating the illusion right wingers should engage them in good faith.

In the end, it doesn’t really matter. As she implicitly admits, reporters and commentators are simply political activists. Talking to one or expecting fair treatment from a reporter is as foolish as welcoming “antifa” into a meetup and then being surprised when they try to hurt the people inside. They aren’t open to being convinced and they aren’t there to observe the facts. “Journalism” is simply a political tactic, no different than street protests. And if reporters were less clumsy in their agitprop, they would be even more effective.

Though she didn’t make the comparison, contemporary reporting on guns is similar to much of the reporting on immigration. The leftists have slogans and an aggressive sense of moral self-righteousness but they don’t really know what they are talking about when it comes to specifics. It’s the restrictionists who can tell you whether E-Verify works, the relevant statutes, or what powers the President of the United States actually has to ban the entry of undesirable foreigners. However, in the eyes of the media, this knowledge is somehow damning. Just as it’s somehow dangerous and weird to know the specifics of the AR-15, it’s immoral to know anything about immigration other than a vague belief that national borders should be abolished.

If journalists listened to Larimore, they would be more effective. But her analysis will go unheeded. The lying press cannot conceal the rage and hatred it feels toward European-Americans or the contempt it has for dissidents on issues like guns, immigration, and sovereignty.

The 2016 election is not Donald Trump versus Hillary Clinton. It’s Trump supporters versus the media. And one of the many benefits of the 2016 campaign has been the exposure of the press as hostile enemies. Trump has thrown down the gauntlet to the lying press, calling them “scum” and “dishonest.” In return, journalists have abandoned even the pretense of objectivity, conspiring openly against Trump and his voters.

There is no greater enemy to freedom of speech than contemporary journalists. Far from serving as a check on power and conduit of information, journalists deliberately protect our rulers from criticism, hunt down dissidents, and misinform us. We see the consequences in the constant threat of violence directed against European-Americans as the media constantly incites hatred against us, usually on the basis of hoaxes.

The media complex directed against us offers snark in lieu of information. And snark is, after all, simply an expression of perceived status. The purpose of the profession is to prevent the audience from finding out the truth about issues like race, crime, and terrorism. It’s no coincidence the most effective leftist thought leaders (and the figures endlessly signal boosted by journalists) are “comedians” such as Samantha Bee, John Oliver, or Seth Meyers. Indeed, progressives now beg these figures to “save them” from Trump and what he represents. Such figures can emote and snark at us, then put on the clown nose if someone challenges them. They can’t argue with the Alt Right because they’ve already determined engaging with us is automatically illegitimate.

Much of the media’s hatred has an ethnic motivation, as we’ve seen with the reaction to the “echo” meme. The spectacle of NPR hosts solemnly declaring parentheses around people’s names as “a modern day burning cross” speaks to a profound sickness, a shrieking chaos concealed within the ostensible thought leaders of our media-saturated society.

Jew or Gentile, those who thought they were untouchable and unaccountable find themselves on the receiving end of the Alt-Right’s own Callout Culture. Many of these content generators make less than the European-American truck drivers, plumbers, or construction workers they hold in contempt. Yet they are reacting to even this harmless online name-calling with the rage of medieval German princes receiving news their peasants are in revolt.

The media’s reaction to Orlando encapsulated this hatred, as a terrorist attack on Americans was followed by frantic calls to disarm and punish Americans. For all intents and purposes, ISIS and the press are on the same side.

But there’s a logic to it. The United States is under threat from terrorists motivated by a “caliphate” enabled by our government’s foreign policy, and carried out by hostile Muslims frantically imported by the feds at our expense. One member of this leftist client group then turned its guns on homosexuals, another leftist client group, showing the contradictions inherent within the Coalition of the Oppressed. And Donald Trump is now making it clear he wants to split that coalition.

The only way to keep the show going is to double down on anti-White hatred, the binding agent for the entire progressive project. What else can they do?

There’s also something deeper. The weaker, more pathetic, and more cowardly Americans become, the more the media’s power grows. Guns allow Americans, especially Whites, to exist outside the managerial state’s system of control. Therefore, they must be taken away.

Consider one Gersh Kuntzman, who was recently “terrified” when he fired an AR-15. In most cases, taking someone to the range creates a lifelong passion for firearms. But Kuntzman said it made him literally ill:

I’ve shot pistols before, but never something like an AR-15. Squeeze lightly on the trigger and the resulting explosion of firepower is humbling and deafening (even with ear protection.)

The recoil bruised my shoulder, which can happen if you don’t know what you’re doing. The brass shell casings disoriented me as they flew past my face. The smell of sulfur and destruction made me sick. The explosions – loud like a bomb – gave me a temporary form of PTSD. For at least an hour after firing the gun just a few times, I was anxious and irritable.

Kuntzman was, quite appropriately, shamed for this. Yet much like some cuckservatives tried to claim the “cuck” label for themselves, Kuntzman actually bragged about his weakness. To bring it all full circle, he wrote:

I wear it as a point of personal pride that conservative darling Erick Erickson posted a story on The Resurgent with the headline, “My 10 Year Old Daughter Is Tougher Than Gersh Kuntzman, Author of the Stupidest Thing on the Internet Today.”

That right goys, this guy was essentially called a low T pussy by none other than Erick Erickson.

Kuntzman says: “This weapon scared the crap out of me… An AR-15 is a weapon of mass destruction, a tool that should only be in the hands of our soldiers and cops… I don’t think that there’s anything unmanly about pointing out this fact.”

It makes me weary to remind a supposed writer that his whining about the need to disarm Americans isn’t a “fact,” but just his opinion. A “fact” is something that is objectively true regardless of the biases of the author, like racial differences in IQ or the disproportionally high crime rate of blacks.

Of course, to put on the bow-tie for a moment, one has to bring up the invisible gun in the room. Violence is Golden. What Kuntzman wants is men with guns to use force to take guns away from other men whom he doesn’t like. Traditionally, in Germanic societies, all free men who could bear arms had a voice in the state. Now, it is precisely those who have nothing to contribute, who are actually incapable of using force, who claim the right to direct power and violence against their enemies.

But even though Kuntzman is an idiot as well as a weakling, his point here is important. The power of the press lies in its ability to construct the Narrative and promote a certain vision of morality. Few religions, oaths, or bonds of friendship or loyalty can stand in the way of a determined media offensive. But this power is dependent on the moral weakness of the population. It’s dependent on people believing that they are incapable of protecting themselves, uncomfortable with upholding their own identity, and unwilling to sacrifice their “reputation” in the eyes of people who hate them anyway.

One of the best things about the Alt Right is the aesthetic of strength and achievement. Conservatives have often been mocked (accurately) as “too cowardly to fight, too fat to run.” In contrast, the Alt Right, broadly speaking, talks about the need to lift, train, and become prosperous. Some people are even looking to Trump as a kind of self-help guru. It’s important because a worldview shouldn’t be something that is simply abstract or that exists online but something you actually live out.

But there’s a drawback. In a media-dominated culture, achievement is actually a vulnerability. Strength is a weakness. However tough and independent you think you are, even if you can deadlift 600 pounds and have your jujitsu brown belt, if your livelihood and social life are dependent on the opinion of your transgender human resources director, you’re xir bitch.

Kuntzman’s braggadocio about being a weakling actually increases his power. Though he is holding The Microphone, Kuntzman is declaring he is under threat from uppity Whites with guns and for his safety and security, we must be disarmed. If Kuntzman had actually enjoyed firing the gun and become comfortable with it, his political power would have decreased. He would have less of an ability to enforce his will on us.

In a “victimhood” culture like ours, power comes from the ability to claim oppressed status and successfully demand the resources of others as compensation. Strong, accomplished men are easily destroyed if the fall under the Eye of Sauron that is the media. Other “elite” figures can get away with it.

Ultimately, it is the journalists and the reporters who serve as the clergy in this new creed of decay, the Priests of Weakness who determine who is to be spared and who is to be hunted down and sacrificed. More importantly, they, in partnership with their antifa allies (or really, co-workers), are the ones who seek out those who are trying to build an alternative to the status quo and work to actively destroy them.

In the end, the shriveled creatures produced by post-modernity aren’t even people with identities or values of their own. They are simply content to be farmed on social networking, their views, friendships, and values utterly dependent on whatever is spat out by an algorithm. The reporters are the enforcers, weakness is the aim. In the end, we are to be reduced to simple products.

The battle to save our race isn’t just about building a future for ourselves and our posterity. It’s to prove that we are, in fact, human. That we have a real identity and an existence worth fighting for, that we’re something more than another account on Netflix. That we will resist the collective downgoing of our entire species. It’s a refusal to become The Last Man, to Start the World and undo the End of History.

No Comments on The Priests of Weakness

Review: “Right Wing Critics of Conservatism” by George Hawley

Western Civilization, the #TruConservatives tell us, consists of nothing more than classical liberalism. And American conservatism, insofar as we are offered a definition, is a vague belief in “limited government” and “the Constitution.” These are combined with “Judeo-Christian values,” said to be eternal but actually evolving at a stately pace a few years behind the leftist avant-garde. Knowledge is dangerous for any respectable conservative because if you explore the history of one of your heroes before 1965, you’ll find views on race and identity as bad as anything within that gross Alternative Right.


Western Civilization, the #TruConservatives tell us, consists of nothing more than classical liberalism. And American conservatism, insofar as we are offered a definition, is a vague belief in “limited government” and “the Constitution.” These are combined with “Judeo-Christian values,” said to be eternal but actually evolving at a stately pace a few years behind the leftist avant-garde. Knowledge is dangerous for any respectable conservative because if you explore the history of one of your heroes before 1965, you’ll find views on race and identity as bad as anything within that gross Alternative Right.

At the same time, even those on the far Right are often unwilling to identify as such. Instead, they (or we) are “beyond Left and Right” and part of some exciting new paradigm, even though we inevitably find ourselves falling back on those old labels from the French Revolution to describe the politics of today.

Do any of these labels matter anymore? And how can we examine an American conservative movement which constantly reinvents its own history and redefines its supposed “principles?”

The invaluable new book from Professor George Hawley, “Right Wing Critics of American Conservatism,” is an indispensable beginning to confronting these questions. Hawley first came to my attention with his research on voting patterns, demographics, and the impact of the immigration issue in elections. His book on the White Vote, that dominant and yet almost unexamined demographic in American elections, is a starting point for anyone interested in Identitarian politics because it provides the hard numbers behind the voting behavior of European-Americans. It also dispels many of the goofy myths propounded by GOP “strategists” entranced by visions of Detroit Republicans.

Hawley takes on a much broader topic here. In so doing, Hawley has to not only describe the history of the American conservative movement, but define what he means by “Left” and “Right.” Hawley easily dismantles classification schemes based on a person’s view of human nature or the old “individualism vs. collectivism” canard. Borrowing from Paul Gottfried, Hawley says, “The political left will be defined as containing all ideological movements that consider equality the highest political value.” In contrast, the Right is defined as: “[E]ncompassing all of those ideologies that, while not necessarily rejecting equality as a social good, do not rank at the top of the hierarchy of values. The right furthermore fights the left in all cases where the push for equality threatens some other value held in higher esteem.”

This largely fits with what I’ve argued in the past, that the Left “refers to those who hold equality as their highest value, whereas the [Right] refers to those who recognize hierarchy.” This System also avoids the trap that American conservatives are constantly stumbling into, where the Left is simply “anything I don’t like” and the Right is “whatever version of post-1965 Republican slogans won’t get me called racist.”

As Hawley notes, this means thinkers as diverse as Murray Rothbard, Wendell Berry, Pat Buchanan and Alain de Benoist can all be meaningfully characterized as on the “Right,” though they have little else in common. It also implies action – you are only on the Right if you are part of something which “fights the left.”

Though Hawley does not say this, this suggests there are many “Rights,” as each right wing movement has its vision of The Good, The Beautiful, and The True it will fight for. We can talk about the Islamic State or Polish nationalists as both being “right-wing,” even though they would gladly slaughter each other. Though every right wing movement will hold its own source of excellence or morality as supreme, in truth there are as many as there are peoples, faiths, and ideologies. The principle of hierarchy (and opposition to degeneracy, however defined) itself is the closest we can come to defining a singular, universal “Right.”

With this framework, we are able to do what “movement conservatives” can’t and see how “the conservative movement” wasn’t some primordial truth handed down from antiquity but an artificial conglomeration clumsily pieced together for temporary political needs. Hawley identifies the prewar “Old Right,” exemplified by figures such as Albert Jay Nock, H.L. Mencken, and others as libertarian, antiwar, and suspicious of egalitarianism, democracy, and Christian religious belief. In contrast, the postwar conservative movement pieced together by William F. Buckley Jr. was a creature of the Cold War, with a diverse group of thinkers lumped together to oppose international communism, even if this meant, in Buckley’s words, “[accepting] Big Government for the duration… [and] a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores.”

The ideological coherence (such as it is) of the conservative movement today is an effect, rather than a cause – the conservative movement was a tactical creation, something put together to oppose the Soviet threat. And the work of many of the key thinkers present at the beginning, men like Russell Kirk or Richard Weaver, has been all but ignored despite the occasional rhetorical tribute.

This is critical for the modern American Right because it implies a new crisis and could create a new realignment. It has now been almost two decades since the hammer and sickle fell and insofar as there is any wishful thinking about a global revolution led by Russia it’s one coming from the Right. Though there’s been a half-hearted attempt to substitute “Islamofascism” as a way to get the old band back together, we face utterly new challenges based on identity, not ideology. The brutal demographic realities behind the migration crisis could prove to be the key catalyst for a new movement.

Hawley tells the familiar story of the purges which have defined the American Right, a story many of you are already familiar with. The expulsion of the John Birch Society and Ayn Rand and the Objectivists both served as one-offs. However, the conservative movement’s determination to police itself over race is a continuing, and one suspects, never ending drama.

Hawley observes: “The question is why the conservative movement made this about-face on the issue of race. It is worth remembering that during the pivotal years of the civil rights movement the major voices of American conservatism – including Barry Goldwater and National Review – were openly against legislation such as the Civil Rights Act. Some of the most prominent early conservatives defended the social order of the antebellum south.” Hawley accurately characterizes the conservative acceptance of civil rights as a “surrender” and suggests the opposition to candidates such as David Duke was in many ways driven by “embarrassment.” Even National Review couldn’t find many problems in Duke’s platform, just that he used to be in the Klan.

Even after Duke faded, respectable conservatives are constantly forced to confront dissidents who become a little too vocal about racial realities. The purges of Peter Brimelow, Sam Francis, John Derbyshire, and Jason Richwine are all addressed.

Hawley also recognizes race may not be the only issue the conservative movement will retroactively interpret. He slyly observes, “It is not implausible to imagine that within a few decades the movement will try to disassociate itself from the anti-gay marriage stance it promoted during the Bush years, and perhaps even claim that acceptance of gay marriage represented a victory for conservatives.”

There’s also a great deal of attention given to a story paleoconservatives know well, but the younger Alt Right may have never heard of – the battle between Harry Jaffa and M.E. “Mel” Bradford. Hawley identifies Harry Jaffa, a student of Leo Strauss, as one of the first nominally conservative thinkers to argue “equality” itself was a conservative virtue. This is what allows conservatives today to argue with a straight face that Martin Luther King Jr. was actually a “true conservative,” even though, as Hawley accurately observes, conservatives all but unanimously opposed him while he was alive. Jaffa is thus fondly remembered at outlets like The Federalist for pushing the American Right in a pro-Lincoln direction with “all men are created equal” as the defining idea of the country. We might even call Jaffa the Founding Father of Cuckservatism.

Bradford, a Southerner, rejected Jaffa’s push to reinvent the likes of Abraham Lincoln as a conservative hero and instead attacked the “cult of equality.” Hawley writes: “Bradford was concerned with the issue of rhetoric, and he excoriated conservatives for allowing the left to define and redefine America’s most important political values. In order to remain respectability, conservatives have conceded key points to their ideological opponents.”

Plus ça change…

Bradford was famously prevented from securing a post at the National Endowment for the Humanities in the Reagan Administration, despite support from the President himself and Bradford’s hard work in the election campaign. Though Jaffa himself actually supported him, Bradford was vocally opposed by conservative commentators such as George Will (now a leading figure in the #NeverTrump movement) and was ultimately replaced with pudgy simpleton William Bennett. And these kinds of bureaucratic struggles have a huge impact. Egalitarianism and universalist posturing was boosted within the American Right, Bradford died in relative obscurity, Jaffa was lionized and Bennett gets more money to blow at the casinos. (Hopefully Trump got some of it.)

These kinds of struggles continue today. As this is written, protesters are storming the parliament in Baghdad, the latest episode of our more than decade long disaster in Mesopotamia. As Hawley notes, “The mainstream conservative movement was in nearly complete agreement with these policies [the invasion of Iraq].” Yet the “unpatriotic conservatives” who opposed it, were duly purged and were proven correct by the aftermath still struggle for access to the mainstream media and funding from major institutions. Meanwhile, William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer still scream at me from the telescreen every night about what great foreign policy experts they are.

Hawley profiles a number of castaways from different schools of thought, including localists, mainstream and radical libertarians, atheists, and paleoconservatives. Identitarians and white nationalists are also analyzed, though Hawley does feel the need to virtue signal against us, presumably to avoid suffering the fate of his subjects. Overall though, Hawley is fair and informative and his book serves as an excellent introduction to the various subcultures which have ultimately created what we call the Alt Right.

He also slips through some questions which suggest he’s at least confronting the arguments rather than just pathologizing them like some shitlib at The Daily Beast. “Why, for example, is Zionism generally considered an acceptable political position, but an individual who wanted to create a republic restricted to white Christians would be barred from mainstream debates?” he asks. Why indeed.

Hawley does make some mistakes, but much of this is simply a product of when the book was written, before the Emperor descended from the Golden Throne on the escalator at Trump Tower. A typo in which “Young Americans for Liberty” should have read “Young Americans for Freedom” is actually revealing of the focus, as Hawley devotes far more coverage to libertarian and anti-state activists than nationalists. As he argues in his conclusion, “Moderate and mainstream libertarianism is the right-wing ideology most likely to enjoy greater influence in the coming decades,” citing the triumph of figures like Justin Amash. Hawley also speculates about Rand Paul securing the GOP nomination. But all it took to destroy Paul was a New York real estate developer saying he was having a “hard time tonight,” suggesting the fabled “libertarian moment” was always a pipe dream.

Donald Trump is not even mentioned in the book. But of course, before the “Mexicans are rapists” speech, why would he be?

For many on the Alt Right, libertarianism is a kind of gateway drug, a safe way of attacking egalitarianism, the establishment conservative movement, and “the System” more broadly. Most are gradually redpilled. Eventually, you move on, unless you can find a way to be paid for being part of the “liberty movement.”

Hawley writes, “(M)any, perhaps most, of the energetic young activists on the right are decidedly libertarian in their views, and today’s young activists will eventually take on prominent leadership roles in the conservative movement’s leading institutions and within the GOP.” It is more accurate to say that many energetic young activists start as libertarians, but they don’t stay there. It’s questionable whether libertarianism can ever really be a movement for itself as opposed to either a phase in a person’s ideological progression. After all, groups like Students for Liberty now proudly proclaim they don’t care about freedom of association, because homosexual rights, and fighting nationalism is the most important thing. Meanwhile, many of the same people now fantasizing about building Trump Walls and eventually reclaiming Constantinople were screaming about using shiny rocks as currency only a few years ago.

Hawley quotes SFL’s cofounder Alexander McCobin as saying: “We know what’s up for debate, and so we also know what’s not. The justifications for and limits on intellectual property? Up for debate. Racism? Not up for debate.” But as Richard Spencer argued, libertarianism itself was a kind of mask on white identity for some time. That is being abandoned as we get closer to the real thing. Those libertarians who put egalitarianism first, like Cathy Reisenwitz, eventually just become SJW’s. The majority move in our direction.

Who, after all, has a greater impact these days – Students for Liberty, with its multimillion dollar budget, or The Daily Shoah?

Hawley deserves praise for providing a useful introduction for anyone who wants to familiarize themselves with Radical Traditionalism, the European New Right, or the Conservative Revolution without being completely overwhelmed with jargon and occultism. The chapters “Against Capitalism, Christianity and America” and “Voices of the Radical Right” are required reading for anyone on the Alt Right seeking to understand why American conservatism could never succeed. It’s also sobering reading for anyone who wants to understand the history of the pro-white movement. Richard Spencer and the saga of the First Identitarian Congress in Budapest are also outlined.

Still, one can’t help but wish Hawley had just waited a few more months to write this book. So many of the things he suggests as distant possibilities here are actually occurring. For example, Hawley writes, “If the mainstream conservative movement loses its status as the gatekeeper on the right, white nationalism may be among the greatest beneficiaries, though even in this case it will face serious challenges.” According to the hall monitors of the Beltway Right, that’s precisely what’s happening right now.

And ultimately, Hawley recognizes change, of some kind, is coming. He refers to the “calcified” nature of conservative thought, pointing out the rhetoric has not changed since Goldwater. “Only on the issue of race have we seen a dramatic change in the mainstream conservative movement since the 1960s, at least when it comes to public statements,” Hawley writes. Rhetorical blasts against “elites” have become so predictable and stale they no longer have any meaning. Conservatives are simply running out of things to say.

There are also broader historical patterns conservatives are confronting.

First, the Bush Administration “badly damaged the Republican Party’s brand,” and the legacy of that era is something the Beltway Right still seems utterly unwilling to confront. Hawley also brings up the scandals from the Bush years, including Duke Cunningham, Mark Foley, and Tom Delay. (The book was written too early for a reference to the nightmarish case of Dennis Hastert). Bush’s failure to reform Social Security showed conservatives are incapable of meddling with the welfare programs most Americans have grown to accept and rely upon. The Iraq War also fatally discredited the GOP’s perceived foreign policy expertise in the eyes of many Americans.

Second, organized religion is declining in America. The Religious Right is discredited and leaderless. Jerry Falwell is dead and so is D. James Kenned. Ted Haggard is disgraced after a gay prostitution scandal. Homosexual marriage is a reality nationwide. Open borders shill Russell Moore is busy trying to prove Nietzsche right by pushing for more nonwhite immigration. Though Hawley doesn’t go into this, it’s striking how the once powerful Religious Right has been reduced to trying to keep trannies out of bathrooms in the South. (And failing at it.)

Third, and most importantly, is the growing nonwhite population. Hawley argues even if the GOP utterly reversed its position on immigration to try to win Latinos and Asians, “nonwhites are considerably more progressive, on average than whites… even if immigration is completely removed from the table.” Hawley says unless the GOP can create a huge shift in the voting patterns of nonwhites (unlikely given their progressive attitudes) or win a larger share of the white vote, the Republican Party will be unable to credibly contest national elections.

And this is where the Alt Right comes in. This is a reality the conservative movement cannot assimilate. It is an existential threat. The GOP can’t appeal to minorities without entirely abandoning conservative policies. And it can’t appeal to whites as whites without abandoning its universalist pretensions and infantile sloganeering. Though Hawley doesn’t say it, this fact alone is why the American Right’s future lies in Identity. All other alternatives have been exhausted except slow death. And make no mistake – running out the clock while squeezing out a few more shekels is what passes for a strategy within Conservatism Inc.

Reading and studying what Professor Hawley has written is an important first step for all of us. With the rise of Trump, the explosion of interest in the Alt Right online, and the flood of recent mainstream media coverage, there’s a real sense momentum is on our side. Yet we should not be deceived. Dissident forces on the Right have risen in the past and reached levels of power and influence far exceeding what we have today. All have been crushed.

We must understand their ideas, their history, their successes and their mistakes so we can avoid their fate. We don’t want to just end up as footnotes in some future edition.

No Comments on Review: “Right Wing Critics of Conservatism” by George Hawley

The Logic of the Conservative Purges

In a commentary, “Golden Days,” commemorating the 50th anniversary of National Review, Jonah Goldberg describes how his magazine’s founder dealt with ideological dissent:

Buckley employed intellectual ruthlessness and relentless personal charm to keep that which is good about libertarianism, what we have come to call “social conservatism,” and what was necessary about anti-Communism in the movement. This meant throwing friends and allies off the bus from time to time. The Randians, the Rothbardian anarchists and isolationists, the Birchers, the anti-Semites, the me-too Republicans: all of these groups in various combinations were purged from the movement and masthead, sometimes painfully, sometimes easily, but always with the ideal of keeping the cause honest and pointed north to the ideal in his compass.

A few lines later, we learn the ideal that William F. Buckley assigned to his movement existed “only on paper,” that “conservative dogma remains unsettled, and that conservatism remains cleaved ideologically.” Nonetheless, the movement Buckley built was for Goldberg a breathtaking success—and had been achieved with minimal commotion.

This essay appears in The Great Purge: The Deformation of the Conservative Movement a Radix Journal volume edited by Paul Gottfried and Richard Spencer. In the light of #NRORevolt, it’s worth revisiting.

Rethinking William F. Buckley’s Quest for “Respectability”

In a commentary, “Golden Days,” commemorating the 50th anniversary of National Review, Jonah Goldberg describes how his magazine’s founder dealt with ideological dissent:

Buckley employed intellectual ruthlessness and relentless personal charm to keep that which is good about libertarianism, what we have come to call “social conservatism,” and what was necessary about anti-Communism in the movement. This meant throwing friends and allies off the bus from time to time. The Randians, the Rothbardian anarchists and isolationists, the Birchers, the anti-Semites, the me-too Republicans: all of these groups in various combinations were purged from the movement and masthead, sometimes painfully, sometimes easily, but always with the ideal of keeping the cause honest and pointed north to the ideal in his compass.[1]

A few lines later, we learn the ideal that William F. Buckley assigned to his movement existed “only on paper,” that “conservative dogma remains unsettled, and that conservatism remains cleaved ideologically.” Nonetheless, the movement Buckley built was for Goldberg a breathtaking success—and had been achieved with minimal commotion.

E.J. Dionne, in a similar tribute in the Washington Post, NR’s putative adversary, proclaims that Buckley was not only a man of splendid parts but also one who had “determined to rid the right of the wing nuts. He was, to his everlasting credit, the scourge of anti-Semitism that had once infested significant parts of the right.”[2] Dionne blasted the strange conspiracy theories of the John Birch Society, which he applauds Buckley for unmasking. Unfortunately, little truth can be found in most of his remarks and no more than a sliver in Goldberg’s.

The NR staff devoted a special feature on October 19, 1965, to denouncing the Birch Society, but not for being anti-Semitic (of which there was scant evidence). The complaint was the Birchers did not support the war in Vietnam and had given up the struggle against Communism.[3] It’s worth noting that the best man at Buckley’s wedding, Revilo Oliver, was an outspoken anti-Semite, as well as a formidable classicist and Sanskrit scholar.[4] Oliver continued to write for Buckley’s publication well into the 1960s. Most of those expelled from his magazine and from Buckley’s movement were Jewish libertarians, like Ayn Rand, Frank Chodorov, Murray Rothbard and Ron Hamowy.[5] If the movement before Buckley’s interventions had been dominated by “anti-Semites,” his excommunications hardly amounted to a crusade against them. Goldberg’s mentor was especially hard on Jews who opposed his call for an accelerated struggle to overthrow the Soviet Empire. In Rand’s case, he turned against someone who was stridently atheistic.

Even more astonishing, although not likely to be challenged by the liberal-neoconservative media, is Goldberg’s suggestion that purges occurred in the conservative movement only quite rarely. To the contrary, they were frequent; one could say that they shaped the conservative movement.

English historian A.J.P. Taylor once observed, with regard to the Habsburgs, that “countries were episodes in the history of a dynasty.” In a like way, purges were episodes in the journalistic careers of those who led the conservative movement. And these expulsions took place so frequently that it may be helpful to divide them into different periods in accordance with the changing interests of movement elites. The purges did not all take place for the same reason, and identifying this complicated process with “fighting the scourge of anti-Semitism” is to indulge in fantasy.

“Being thrown off the bus” had implications beyond being kept from writing essays for National Review. As the conservative media empire took form, thanks largely to steady infusions of money each year from Australian benefactor Rupert Murdoch, being banned by one of its organs brought huge consequences. Someone banned from Wall Street Journal, The Weekly Standard, or National Review, for example, would not likely be welcome in an affiliated movement publication or be put on FOX News, which enjoys the same sponsorship and represents the same ideology.

There are exceptions to this rule, as seen by the occasional appearance on FOX of Pat Buchanan, someone who is clearly offensive to NR and The Weekly Standard. But this exception may have been allowed because Buchanan is a widely read journalist. His occasional appearance on FOX may also be conditional on his not stirring the pot unduly on a channel run by neoconservatives and the Republican establishment. During his recent TV appearances, Pat (to my knowledge) has never contradicted his host, which may be why he is allowed to maintain his exceptional status.

There may be another reason for this status, namely that Buchanan had been removed from a Democratic rival channel, MSNBC. For years the directors of this channel had provided a berth for a figure of the Old Right; and it featured him on a regular basis, unlike FOX, which only permits Buchanan to participate in its discussions every now and then. Like other members of the Old Right, Buchanan was sent into limbo in the early 1990s for having ticked off Buckley’s esteemed New York friends.[6] A bad enough sin under the old order, this faux pas has proved even costlier under Buckley’s successors. His epigones may be driven even more than their master by desire for acceptance from mainstream journalists. The Heritage Foundation, The American Enterprise Institute, National Review, The Wall Street Journal, and other movement fixtures have had nothing to do with Buchanan for decades. They have carefully maintained their distance, although Buchanan’s books on politics and international relations have soared on the New York Times bestseller list.

For the less successful and less fortunate, however, being kicked off the bus has usually brought catastrophic results. The campaign of vilification that has accompanied marginalization has usually left its object socially and professionally ruined. Typical targets of this process were the Southern conservative M.E. Bradford and the populist journalist and critic of managerial democracy Samuel T. Francis. The elimination of Bradford as frontrunner for the National Endowment for the Humanities Directorship in 1981 and, 10 years later, the removal of Samuel Francis as the star columnist by the already neoconservative-controlled Washington Times followed a now-familiar course. Those condemned as outcasts by movement leaders suffered repeated journalistic attacks and were accused of being bigots rather than “conservatives.” Liberal journalists joined these campaigns and often seemed to be working in tandem with their neoconservative acquaintances, in order to drive “wing nuts” out of respectable conservatism. Printed assaults against the designated extremists were so devastating that their victims never regained standing as respectable writers.

Speaking as a minor target of such attacks, which operated in my case mostly surreptitiously, I noticed that my adversaries were working doggedly to isolate me. Mine, of course, was not a typical purge. Unlike others who were purged more dramatically, I never left a paper trail on such abrasive issues as Jews in the media. The recent decision of Intercollegiate Studies Institute to sever any connection with me as a writer did not arise because I was thought to be a “racist.” This action was taken because, through my leadership of the HL Mencken Club, I have associated myself with people who stress hereditary cognitive differences.[7] But in the 1980s, I fell out of favor for less ridiculous reasons. I was marginalized merely because I insisted too loudly that generic leftists had been permitted to take over the Right.

I had no illusion when neoconservatives slandered me to the administration at Catholic University of America, which resulted in my being denied a graduate professorship that was about to be offered to me, that the attacks would thereafter stop. After this incident, I was never again allowed to write for “movement conservative” publications. The editors of these, also not incidentally, refuse to review my books; and my name has scarcely appeared in a movement magazine after my rejection at CUA. One of the rare times it has was in David Frum’s wholesale denunciation of the non-aligned Right, “Unpatriotic Conservatives.” Here, he claimed that his friends had done nothing to harm me professionally, let alone to occasion my outbursts; indeed I had fabricated my narrative because I was a troubled person.[8]

My case was exceptional because aside from suggestions that I had taken leave of my senses, there was no campaign waged against me as an “anti-Semite” or “racist.” I held on to an academic post until I retired in 2011, although I might have obtained higher professional prizes, if neoconservatives had not weighed in against me, as I subsequently learned, at other institutions beside CUA. But I cannot claim that I was as badly battered as other exiles.

The more abused victims died within a relatively short time of their humiliation, emotionally as well as professionally crushed. Goldberg’s comment about people in his movement being pushed off the bus only from time to time borders on the puerile. the American Communist Party looked like a band of cloistered monks in comparison to the cannibalistic movement that Buckley founded, and which Goldberg continues to slobber over.

For accurate classification, certain distinctions should be made. Not all of those who were thrown off the bus suffered their fate for the same reason, although according to movement leaders and those who prepared the Wikipedia biography of Buckley, purge targets were mostly raging anti-Semites or obnoxious racialists. All the worse for the facts! In the early days, those who were expelled from Buckley’s movement were critics of his Cold War politics and often uncompromising libertarians. Misrepresenting why they were expelled was easy enough because Buckley’s idolaters, like E.J. Dionne, collaborated in writing the authorized accounts. In the 1980s, intellectuals and authors on the right were thrown off the bus because the neoconservatives who took over the conservative movement found them to be (well!) troublesome.

These undesirables fell into two camps: Southerners like M.E. Bradford and his followers, who made no apologies for the Confederacy and expressed misgivings about the civil-rights revolution; and critics of the aggressive liberal internationalist foreign policy that was associated with the neoconservatives. those who fell into the two camps coalesced for a time as a “paleoconservative” insurgency; and they were soon joined by libertarians of a socially traditionalist stripe, like Murray Rothbard and, for a time, Lew Rockwell.[9] the movement smeared all these dissenters, with the all-purpose charge of “anti-Semitism.” It was the late Joe Sobran, a former Senior Editor of National Review and himself the victim of a neoconservative purge, who noticed the shifting meaning of “anti-Semite,” from someone who hates Jews to someone whom certain Jews in high places don’t like.

In the late 1990s, such journalists as John O’Sullivan and Peter Brimelow were pushed out of positions at National Review for having failed to take the obligatory neoconservative line in favor of third World immigration. Commentary, the Wall Street Journal, Policy Review and other neoconservative information sources were then gushingly pro-immigration, and O’Sullivan and Brimelow, who had moved demonstratively in the opposite direction, fell afoul of his patrons.

By then, however, racial illiberalism became even more serious grounds for excommunication, as illustrated by the Francis affair. Pro-immigration advocates Linda Chavez and John Miller went after Francis for his statements, made in response to an apology by the Southern Baptist Convention for their ancestors’ practice of slavery, that the Bible did not condemn this peculiar institution.[10] Chavez and Miller found an ally a few months later in a reliable neoconservative author Dinesh D’Souza, who denounced Francis as an isolated representative of 19th-century White racism. This may have been a conspicuous act of ingratitude, since D’Souza borrowed from Francis and the self-described “race realist” Jared Taylor in writing his not very original and not very accurate tome The End of Racism.[11]

By the end of 1995, a mainstream right-of-center journalist, with a biting wit and distinctive literary style, went from being a nationally syndicated writer to a professionally isolated figure. Since then, other widely publicized purges have taken place. The firings of John Derbyshire by National Review and of Jason Richwine by The Heritage Foundation had related causes.[12] In both cases, highly gifted researchers and writers were thrust out of their employment, once having been stigmatized as “racists” by the leftist press. Conservative employers fired these subordinates out of consideration for or fear of their leftist acquaintances.

It is hard to establish a single ideological pattern for all these events. But there is a definite gestalt that can be easily identified since the 1980s. The most salient purges have been at the expense of those who displeased neoconservative and/or liberal journalists. Although White racism and anti-Semitism have been the usual causes given, one must wonder whether these consistently provide the true explanation for what happened. Those who were purged may have been considered unpleasant types who were resisting a changing party line. A neoconservative favorite Victor Davis Hanson posted statements about blacks in a column for National Review Online in July 2013 that looked strikingly like Derbyshire’s indiscretions. Indeed Derbyshire published a column on Vdare. a few weeks after the posting of Hanson’s column, showing rhetorical parallels between his offending remarks and those of Hanson.[13] But there is a difference: Hanson occupies a higher position in the movement than the ones previously held by Derbyshire and Richwine. For years, Hanson has dutifully upheld most standard neoconservative views on just about everything, and according to the neoconservative press, if not in fact, he is among America’s “premier classical historians.”[14]

Richwine lost his job as a researcher because of the discovery of statistics in a doctoral dissertation, approved at Harvard University, in which there are detailed references to the relatively low IQs of recent immigrant groups.[15] But why did the placing of such material in a Harvard dissertation years before result in the recent dismissal of someone employed by a “conservative” institution? Again, other factors should be taken into account. At the time of his firing and subsequent blackballing by movement foundations and magazines, Richwine had not achieved high distinction within what is euphemistically styled “the conservative policy community.” He therefore seemed easily expendable to the newly named director of the Heritage Foundation, Jim DeMint. A skittish Southern Republican, who has labored to prove he’s not a “racist,” DeMint was not dealing in Richwine’s case with a prominent figure, say, of the stature of Charles Murray, a man who has been an ally of the neoconservative establishment. Murray has put into sharp relief the IQ differences between ethnic and racial groups. Yet nothing approaching Richwine’s fate befell the author of The Bell Curve, who has been celebrated in such neoconservative shrines as the American Enterprise Institute, National Review, and Commentary. Unfortunately for his career, however, the young Richwine was not in the same league as Murray in terms of his value to the movement.

The relation between purge victims and the movement’s leadership may be critical for understanding the events in question. Much can be forgiven and even shoved down a memory hole for those who count. Although Norman Podhoretz as editor of Commentary ranted against gays for decades, as documented by Gary Dorrien in The Neoconservative Mind[16], this did not prevent Podhoretz’s allies from hypocritically decrying Buchanan as a “homophobe” in 1992. This transpired, let us note, after Buchanan, speaking at the Republican national convention, made a reference to the strange lifestyles that prevailed among members of the opposition party. But this was small beer in comparison to what neoconservatives had said about gays a few years earlier. As late as 1984, a neoconservative heroine, Jeane Kirkpatrick, in an address before the Republican National Convention, sneered at the Democrats for their “San Francisco values.”[17] Her sneers elicited resounding applause from neoconservative journalists. And so homophobia, we may assume, was not the real cause for the animus against Buchanan: Neocons hate him not as a homophobe but as a harsh critic of the Zionist lobby and as someone whom they perceive as an isolationist. As late as the spring of 1992, it was feared that Buchanan might win the presidential nomination against the politically weakened, tongue-tied George Bush, Sr.

Similar double standards were at work in the character assassination of Bradford in 1981, in which neoconservative journalists, particularly George Will and the editors of the Wall Street Journal, played key roles. Bradford’s alleged offense was to have characterized Lincoln as a tyrant and to have likened his invasion of the South to Hitler’s attack on Germany’s neighbors and Cromwell’s invasion of Ireland. The invectives against Bradford, which focused on a footnote in one of his many books, were remarkably virulent, considering the sparse space given to the controversial comparison as against Bradford’s total output as a literary scholar.[18]

The attacks were also profoundly dishonest as one learns from a revealing essay published by Podhoretz in 1963 in Commentary, “My Negro Problem—and Ours.”[19] Unlike Bradford, who never expressed dislike for Black people, Podhoretz explained in agonizing detail how he was managing his “hatred” for Negroes. These effusions, however, did not serve to disqualify this co-father of neoconservatism (along with Irving Kristol) from leadership in the conservative movement. Nor did his stated revulsion for those of different skin color diminish Podhoretz’s considerable clout in the Reagan administration. After all, not all anti-Negroes are created equal. Some are blessed with New York Jewish liberal as well as National Review friends, and then there are the others, who speak with Oklahoma or Texas twangs and who attend Baptist churches. Let’s not get the two confused!

Piling on to Bradford in 1981 were also Buckley and Heritage president Edwin Feulner. Both of these movement dignitaries, whose fortunes by then were intertwined with the neoconservative ascendancy, visited newly elected President Reagan. They asked him to reconsider the nomination of Bradford and presented their Southern friend of many decades as someone who would bring disgrace to the NEH Directorship. While on their visit to the White House, the same conservative luminaries plugged the candidacy of a liberal Democrat, William Bennett, whom the neoconservatives were prepping for the office they intended to close off to Bradford.

The assault on the courtly Texan Bradford was based on, among other things, crass material interest. The neoconservatives hoped to put their own favorite in a position that would yield them pecuniary benefits. If things worked out as they hoped (as, indeed, they did), they would have hundreds of millions of dollars in NEH grant money to distribute to their minions. Their destruction of Bradford’s reputation and, ultimately, life was collateral damage in this money grab. As I documented in the second edition of The Conservative Movement[20], among the payoffs for the hit on Bradford was a grant of hundreds of thousands of dollars that went to a Stalinist historian, who has since morphed into a figure of the multicultural Left, Eric Foner. This then neoconservative ally published a defamatory commentary against Bradford as a prejudiced Southerner, in what became a widely distributed newspaper column.

These incidents illustrate the difficulty of attributing all purges in the conservative movement to changes in ideological direction. Equally important were the social dynamics and the political and material goals of movement players at the time the purges unfolded. Smearing those who are purged as “right-wing extremists” has often been a tactic for winning the Left’s approval, rather than the major reason for the purge. Although Jason Richwine had done nothing critical to offend the Left at the time of his dismissal, his employer may have decided this young employee wasn’t worth being saved. throwing Richwine to his enemies had greater value to Heritage than trying to defend a relatively unknown research scholar.

A look at John Derbyshire’s fate at National Review in 2012 reveals more complicated circumstances. Although Derbyshire was a popular contributor, who distinguished himself as a writer on mathematics and political subjects, he may have been too hot for the chief editor, Rich Lowry. A different editor may have reacted differently to the attacks on Derbyshire, but Lowry had worked to ingratiate himself with the New York journalistic establishment, and so he lost no time in removing “Derb.” Lowry was as decisive here as he had been in courting the friendship of the far-left editor of The Nation, Victor Navasky. In his autobiography, Navasky comments on Lowry’s eagerness to please, seen in his abstinence from the kind of “right-wing propaganda” that Navasky had spent his “life fighting.”[21] Presumably, Lowry was also preparing at the time of Derbyshire’s dismissal his recently published tribute to Lincoln, the Great Emancipator. The NR-editor was staking out for himself a reputation as a champion of Black civil rights, naturally after the fact. A British mathematician who might hinder this image-building had to be sacked, no matter how brilliantly he was able to put together his sentences.[22]

“Being thrown off the bus” has not in all cases entailed beginning from the same spot but it has meant ending in a marginalized situation. This is the second generalization about being purged: though not all expulsions occurred for the same reasons, every one of them was spun in the same way: as a dismissal of various “right-wing” fanatics. Since those purged were forever tainted with racism and anti-Semitism—and in some cases, Holocaust denial—it would thereafter become impossible for them to regain lost professional ground. Nor would the attacks on them from movement leaders necessarily stop after they had been fired from a conservative magazine, dismissed from a GOP foundation, or removed from the board of a self-described traditionalist or libertarian institute. At best, these targets would be treated as bodies that had dropped off the planet (which has been my fate). In other cases, those thrown off the bus were exposed to further abuse, as happened to Murray Rothbard in an obituary published by Buckley in National Review.[23] In this outburst, one finds a far-fetched comparison being made between Rothbard and cult leader David Koresh. Neither apparently had more than a handful of followers: Rothbard had “as many disciples as David Koresh had in his redoubt in Waco.” “Yes, Rothbard believed in freedom; David Koresh believed in God.” What is glaringly evident here is the animus, if not rage, present in Buckley about his victims. What else could have motivated him to publish these graceless statements?

And the fact is the expulsions have gone forward for more than one reason. Still, this generalization may be hazarded: In the last 30 years, purges have reflected the leftist course of the conservative movement and, more generally, of the Republican Party. Anti-racism, anti-Anti-Semitism, moderate feminism and, certainly in the younger generation of neoconservatives, enthusiasm for gay rights, including gay marriage, have all become characteristic positions of a transformed conservative movement. Conservatism, Inc. has moved exactly in the same direction as the Center Left, albeit more slowly, and it has made critical distinctions between what count as permanent concerns and what may be changed. Clearly, support for the Israeli Right, liberal internationalism as a foreign policy, and improving the tax and trade situation for large corporations are more important to the movement than whether an editor at National Review endorses gay marriage as a human right. Social issues are brought up in such circles as a parenthetical activity, to jolly along the GOP’s Evangelical base and to appease subscribers and donors to certain publications.

The Australian media baron Rupert Murdoch, who keeps the neoconservative-GOP media awash in funds, is a leftist on most social issues but also a fervent Zionist. Murdoch therefore is willing to put up with social positions that offend him because he grasps the depth of support for his cause coming from Evangelical Christians. But his media beneficiaries can distinguish between core issues and less weighty ones. Those decidedly leftist positions they took on social issues did not keep Rudy Giuliani and Joe Lieberman from enjoying the favor of the conservative media when their names were floated for the presidential nomination. In 2008 and earlier, William Bennett—the beneficiary of the war against Bradford, who has wasted his fortunes as a conservative celebrity on his gaming habits[24]—was a vocal proponent of Joe Lieberman for president. Despite the fact that this Connecticut senator took stands on social and most economic issues that coincided with those of Barack Obama, he was a hawk on foreign policy, and that’s what really mattered.

Equally relevant, the effect of the leftist shifts of the conservative movement, which are usually accompanied by widely publicized purges, has helped push permissible political discussion in the same direction. It is naïve to believe, like rank-and-file conservative groupies, that their movement has moved to the left only in response to where “the culture” has drifted. the conservative movement, no less than its center-right counterparts in Canada and Europe, has contributed to how our political culture has developed.

The establishment opposition will habitually move leftward, often taking up ideological positions previously held by its enemies (for instance, MLK idolatry or moderate feminism). this move builds consensus, to a certain degree, but it ultimately encourages the Left to venture on more boldly. the conservative movement has thus not simply been dragged along by the leftward drift of American culture; it has ensured the success of its putative enemies. Conservatism’s younger spokesmen often sound like the opposition because they have been educated in the same institutions, picked up the same ideas, and inhabit the same social world. Because of the pervasiveness of the neoconservative-GOP media outreach and the lack of a fearless alternative on the right, rank-and-file Republicans assume that the anti-Democratic side must be conservative. the Left is as eager as Fox News and National Review to make this identification stick.

Beyond this ideological factor, there is another condition that is contributing to the purges. It is the context in which the conservative movement acts and speaks. It belongs to a larger media empire and plays by its rules and pursues the same interests as its slightly more leftist dialogue-partners. the conservative movement works to be “inclusive,” but not by including those on its right in its televised discussion but by hosting the Left. Conservative groupies never seem to notice this tilt. Instead, they gush with delight over how Jonah Goldberg or Bill O’Reilly has challenged an insufficiently patriotic Black guest or an opponent of bombing Syria. this prescribed debate rarely if ever strays from the values of the political establishment.

All members of this establishment share certain beliefs, however much they may bicker over elections and hot-button issues. they each accept a vast welfare state, opportunistically invoke the spirit of Martin Luther King Jr., accuse the other side of “racism,” and celebrate the advance of feminist and gay rights. If there are acceptable political differences, then the authorized participants define what they are. For example: do we want the novelty of Obamacare or the legacy programs of LBJ? Or, are we being loyal to the legacy of Martin Luther King by introducing more anti-discrimination laws or do we have enough of such measures at the present moment, so that the slain civil rights leader would not have wanted any more of them? Though one might note a certain acerbic quality to these examples, they are not exaggerations, and I mention them to underline the narrow range of differences that exists within the media class. Their debates are usually full of sound and fury, signifying very little. Implicit throughout is an agreement to limit discussion to a tight range of subjects.

Those who have been purged were seen as having gotten in the way of business as usual. They raised unwanted questions or were trying to re-introduce ideas that the media class no longer wanted brought up. In this authorized public discussion, the conservative media thrive as “the other team.” Although not as numerous or as influential as the liberal Left, Team B participates in a largely ritualized dialectic. As such, its journalists are given access to the New York Times, Washington Post, and other liberal organs. Unlike the long-vilified “paleoconservatives” or the younger and more obstreperous racialists and “alt” rightists, the Murdoch Empire enjoys the status of a respectable adversary. Integral to keeping this status, as Samuel Francis noticed in the 1980s, is a willingness to purge and humiliate right-wing dissenters.

As of this writing, there are many indications that FOX is moving with deliberateness toward embracing gay marriage. It is relying upon one of the channel’s comely commentators, Megyn Kelly, to talk down or trivialize opponents of this newly discovered human right. This is not so much a volte-face as it is a predictable accommodation of the Left. All social questions from the standpoint of the Murdoch media empire are negotiable, providing the authorized dissenter never challenges liberal internationalism and providing that it stays close enough to the Left as to make debate with the rest of the political establishment possible. One may expect new purges to occur against those who hold out against gay marriage or who divert us inappropriately from those few issues that are featured as necessary for getting Republicans elected.

Aside from the Birchers, who constituted a mass movement that was independent of Buckley, most of the objects of past purges posed little danger to official conservatism. But movement leaders were intent on proving their “moderateness” by warring against right-wing specters. the most recent purges help us better understand those that took place in the first two decades of conservatism’s ascendancy. Looking back on the Birchers in 2008, Buckley claimed to be seeking to isolate a lunatic fringe that could damage the serious Right. But at the time of the purge (October 1965), James Burnham wrote clearly in NR that the contributing editors were reacting against the Birchers’ “unpatriotic”—a term Frum would later latch on to—opposition to America’s latest foreign intervention.[25] The leader of the Society, Robert Welch, had “given up on the Vietnam War,” and he and his members were accused of representing “the isolationist tradition that survives in many parts of the country, though it no longer gets much recognition, even from many of those who still share it.” In other words, virtually every purge since that of the Birchers, whether justified on the basis of “racism,” “anti-Semitism,” or “homophobia,” has been more of the same.

In summation, the conservative movement that came into existence in the 1950s, contemporaneously with the founding of National Review, did not engage in purges only every now and then; nor did it remove people, with the cooperation of liberal journalists, because its targets were “wing nuts:” Its victims became “wing nuts” by virtue of having been purged and slandered. the purges were not a passing or merely ancillary aspect of conservatism; they were a defining characteristic of a movement, whose function was to stake out ground where the Left had been the moment before. “Conservatism” turned by design into a “harmless persuasion” (Samuel Francis’s memorable term) vis-à-vis the progress of liberalism, including Cultural Marxism. through its alliance with corporate interests and ethnic lobbies and through a carefully limited (and thus easily abandoned) opposition to such initiatives from the Left as the Voting Rights Act and the feminist revolution, Conservatism, Inc. has been able to survive and grow as a media power. It has also depicted the therapeutic welfare society in which we live, for better or worse, as a product of “free-market capitalism.”

Not all purges are necessarily disastrous; and one can think of some, like driving quacks out of the medical profession or Communist agents out of government security posts after the Second World War, which some of us would applaud. But the purges discussed have been less constructive. For decades the movement’s power brokers have been blacklisting original and independent minds; and what has been lost from the public debate is a generation of serious critical thinkers on what is now the non-aligned Right.

The calls by the conservative movement for “tolerance” in universities and the media ring hollow, given their tainted source. Conservatism, Inc. has been no more open to intellectual freedom than the forces of the Left it has sanctimoniously attacked. In fact, the Left has contributed to the respectability of this faux Right by helping to hide its cannibalistic habits. Perhaps someday, in a less controlled media culture, these truths may become more widely known. But at the present time, such an airing of inconvenient facts is not likely to occur.




PAUL EDWARD GOTTFRIED has been one of America’s leading intellectual historians and paleoconservative thinkers for over 40 years, and is the author of many books, including Conservatism in America (2007), The Strange Death of Marxism (2005), After Liberalism (1999), Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt (2002), and Leo Strauss and the Conservative Movement in America (2012). A critic of the neoconservative movement, he has warned against the growing lack of distinctions between the Democratic and Republican parties and the rise of the managerial state. He has been acquainted with many of the leading American political figures of recent decades, including Richard Nixon and Patrick Buchanan. He is Professor Emeritus of Humanities at Elizabethtown College and a Guggenheim recipient.



  1. Jonah Goldberg “Golden Days: Standing with Buckley & co. & at 50 years young,” National Review Online, October 27, 2005, accessed January 15, 2015, (http://www. nationalreview.com/articles/215784/golden-days/jonah-goldberg). ↩︎
  2. E.J. Dionne, “Buckley: The Right’s Practical Intellectual,” Washington Post, October 11, 2005, accessed January 15, 2015, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/10/AR2005101001204.html. ↩︎
  3. See William F. Buckley Jr., “Goldwater, the John Birch Society, and Me,” Commentary, 1 March 2008, accessed January 15, 2015, http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/goldwater-the-john-birch-society-and-me/. ↩︎
  4. Oliver wrote frequently for both National Review and the publications of the John Birch Society, but had broken with both organizations by the mid-1960s. See Revilo P. Oliver, America’s Decline: The Education of a Conservative (London: Londinium, 1981); Nesta Bevan, “The Forgotten Conservative,” Taki’s Magazine, 22 September, 2009, accessed January 15, 2015, http://takimag.com/article/the_forgotten_conservative/print#axzz3TjqVkraQ. ↩︎
  5. See Murray Rothbard, The Betrayal of the American Right (Auburn, Al.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2007). ↩︎
  6. Buckley, In Search of Anti-Semitism (New York: Continuum, 1992). ↩︎
  7. See Paul E. Gottfried, “When Will Intercollegiate Studies Institute Disassociate Itself From Notorious Racist Russell Kirk?” Vdare.com, August 29, 2014, accessed January 15, 2015, http://www.vdare.com/articles/when-will-intercollegiate-studies-institute-disassociate-itself-from-notorious-racist-russell-kirk. ↩︎
  8. David Frum,“Unpatriotic Conservatives,” National Review, 25 March 2003, accessed January 15, 2015, http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle. aspx?ARTID=19130. ↩︎
  9. See Paul E. Gottfried, “A Paleo Epitaph,” Taki’s Magazine, April 7, 2008, accessed January 15, 2015, http://takimag.com/article/a_paleo_epitaph/print#axzz37HaJQ11l. ↩︎
  10. See Samuel T. Francis, Essential Writings on Race, edited by Jared Taylor (Oakton, Va.: The New Century Foundation, 2008). ↩︎
  11. Dinesh D’Souza, The End of Racism: Principles for a Multiracial Society (New York: Free Press, 1995); Jared Taylor, “The ‘Tainted’ Sources of The End of Racism” American Renaissance, November 1995, accessed March 7, 2015, http://www.amren.com/archives/back-issues/november-1995/#article2. ↩︎
  12. Rich Lowry,“Parting Ways,” National Review Online, 7 April, 2012, accessed January 15, 2015, http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/295514/parting-ways-rich-lowry; for typical response to the Jason Richwine’s “resignation” from The Heritage Foundation, see Dylan Matthews, “Jason Richwine doesn’t understand why people are mad at him,” Washington Post, August 9, 2013, accessed January 15, 2015, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/09/jason-richwine-doesnt-understand-why-people-are-mad-at-him/. ↩︎
  13. Victor Davis Hanson, “Facing Facts about Race: Young black males are at greater risk from their peers than from the police or white civilians,” National Review Online, July 23, 2013, accessed March 7, 2015, http://www.nationalreview.com/article/354122/facing-facts-about-race-victor-davis-hanson; John Derbyshire, “Will National Review Derbyshire Victor Davis Hanson?” Vdare.com, July 25, 2013, accessed January 15, 2015, https://www.vdare.com/articles/john-derbyshire-wonders-will-national-review-derbyshire-victor-davis-hanson. ↩︎
  14. See F. Roger Devlin, “The Case of Victor Davis Hanson: Farmer, Scholar, Warmonger,” The Occidental Quarterly, Vol. 3, No. 4, accessed January 15, 2015, http://www.toqonline.com/archives/v3n4/TOQv3n4Devlin.pdf. ↩︎
  15. Jason Richwine,“IQ and Immigration Policy” (Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard Graduate School of Art & Sciences, 2009), accessed January 15, 2015, http://delong.typepad.com/pdf-1.pdf. ↩︎
  16. Gary Dorrien, The Neoconservative Mind: Politics, Culture, and the War of Ideology (Mapping Racisms) (Temple University Press, 1993). ↩︎
  17. Jeane Kirkpatrick, “Blame America First,” Speech to Republican National Convention, August 20, 1984, accessed January 15, 2015, http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/conventions/san.diego/facts/GOP. speeches.past/84.kirkpatrick.shtml. ↩︎
  18. Mel E. Bradford, A Better Guide Than Reason: Studies in the American Revolution (Peru, Il.: Sherwood Sugden & Co, 1979). ↩︎
  19. Norman Podhoretz, “My Negro Problem-And Ours,” Commentary, 1 February, 1963, accessed January 15, 2015, http://www. commentarymagazine.com/article/my-negro-problem-and-ours/. ↩︎
  20. Gottfried, The Conservative Movement, revised edition (Woodbridge, Ct.: Twayne Publishers, 1992). ↩︎
  21. Victor Navasky, A Matter of Opinion (New York: New Press, 2005). ↩︎
  22. . Navasky,“Protest and Survive: Thoughts on the critical role of the journal of dissent in America,” The Nation, 28 April, 2005, accessed January 15, 2015, http://www.thenation.com/article/protest-and-survive#. ↩︎
  23. William F. Buckley, Jr., “Murray Rothbard, RIP,” National Review, 6 February, 1995. ↩︎
  24. See “Relentless Moral Crusader Is Relentless Gambler,” New York Times, May 3, 2003, accessed January 15, 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/03/national/03GAMB.html. ↩︎
  25. James Burnham, “Get US Out!” National Review, 19 October, 1965. ↩︎

No Comments on The Logic of the Conservative Purges

Dylann Roof and Political Violence

My hope had been to say nothing about the shooting in Charleston, South Carolina, and the alleged perpetrator, Dylann Roof.  This didn’t derive from an unwillingness to face a difficult subject; I generally find it distasteful to drag someone else’s pain into a political discussion.

My hope had been to say nothing about the shooting in Charleston, South Carolina, and the alleged perpetrator, Dylann Roof. This didn’t derive from an unwillingness to face a difficult subject; I generally find it distasteful to drag someone else’s pain into a political discussion.

Then again, the Charleston shooting, like every media event, quickly became an information war. The winners have been those who most effectively fit what happened into their pre-existing narrative. This began with the cheap moral grandstanding of politicians and media personalities, who self-righteously condemned an act that everyone on earth found appalling. It spiraled into a debate over gun control and then to demands to remove the Confederate Battle Flag, which, for the time being at least, still flies at the South Carolina State House.

As I write, it appears that the shooting has become the tipping point in this decades-long controversy. Roof’s crime, of course, had nothing at all to do with the Confederacy, or how best to honor those who died in a lost cause. That so many have justified removing the flag on the basis of the shooting demonstrates the power of symbolism and narrative over history and fact.

Moreover, it is necessary for us to talk about the meaning of this event, and its political after-effects, for the reason that it was not a “senseless act of violence,” much like John Hinckley Jr. apparently shot Ronald Reagan in order to impress Jodie Foster.

Dylann Roof was, most likely, suffering from a severe mental disorder, and he also might have been on psychiatric medication, either of which could have precipitated his actions (or not). Nevertheless, his “manifesto,” if genuine, reveals that Roof conceived of his murderous act as a kind of politics. Much like Anders Breivik, Roof wanted to send a message. Indeed, he felt compelled to do so—“I have no choice.”

Well someone has to have the bravery to take it to the real world, and I guess that has to be me.

There is a strange quality to this writing, which putatively marks Roof’s last words before the attack. He is in a rush to get on with the bloody business, and even apologizes for typos. Nevertheless, what he published was no insane screed, the kind of thing in which madness is palpable. For our movement’s sake, it would have be better if Roof had produced something that was crazy or stupid, and thus easily dismissed.

Roof might fit the bill of a “loser” or “reject”—a high-school drop-out, he lived a life of trailer-park poverty, one in which, it should be pointed out, he developed friendships with African-Americans. But his writing indicates that he was capable of critical thought and had seriously pondered the implications of race on American society.

We owe a few things to anyone in Roof’s state. He deserves a fair trial, for one, and we should also try to take his words seriously and try to understand him, if not approve of him.

He writes,

Only a fourth to a third of people in the South owned even one slave. Yet every White person is treated as if they had a slave owning ancestor. This applies to in the states where slavery never existed, as well as people whose families immigrated after slavery was abolished.

In seeking a scapegoat, the media has centered on the Council of Conservative Citizens, and in particular its website, in which it links to stories about Black-on-White crime, most of them from local news organizations and most of them ignored by the mass media.

But Roof dug deeper than that, and recognized that things like slavery, Jim Crow, and the Confederacy—or, in other contexts, the Holocaust and fascism—are not so much historical facts as symbols of collective guilt, overhanging all aspects of society. A White person who immigrated to South Carolina from Poland in 1980 is haunted by the same specters as a direct descendant of Jefferson Davis.

Now White parents are forced to move to the suburbs to send their children to “good schools”. But what constitutes a “good school”? The fact is that how good a school is considered directly corresponds to how White it is. I hate with a passion the whole idea of the suburbs. To me it represents nothing but scared White people running. Running because they are too weak, scared, and brainwashed to fight. Why should we have to flee the cities we created for the security of the suburbs? Why are the suburbs secure in the first place? Because they are White. The pathetic part is that these White people dont even admit to themselves why they are moving. They tell themselves it is for better schools or simply to live in a nicer neighborhood. But it is honestly just a way to escape niggers and other minorities.

Roof’s feeling is that so much of the “American way of life” and “American Dream” are shot through with lies and delusions. These painful truths about America, which Roof stumbled upon, became a burden to him, a burden he could not bear, at the least not alone. And he must have known that, even if he survived his violent attack, his life would effectively be over.

“Doing Something”

Whether political violence is considered to be legitimate and necessary—or illegitimate “terrorism”—is determined by its success and symbolic impact. We forget that the vaunted “Founding Fathers” could have, so easily, been remembered as dangerous eccentrics, who rebelled against their rightful (and quite liberal) monarch out of personal ambition or avarice. In turn, the Confederacy could have been remembered as a just, Jeffersonian order, if it had achieved military victory.

Whatever the case, Roof’s actions have been disastrous to the extreme. It’s hard to imagine a worse political symbol than firing upon unarmed, peaceful people in a church. For that, he has achieved nothing but ignominy.

In my years as a writer and organizer, I’ve heard a familiar refrain coming from young and old: “When are we going to do something!?” This was, in effect, the question Roof was asking himself, obsessively.

These “doing something” suggestions have, in my experience, never involved violence; instead, there have been vague notions of running for office, engaging in protests, or issuing political agenda or new constitutions. The assumption is that talk is cheap, and that holding up a sign or having an official title is more impactful than writing. (The history of the world says otherwise.)

That’s not to say that many of us don’t dream of The Day, when everything will change. For Identitarianism is, after all, a revolutionary movement, one that envisions a new type of society, something different and higher than our current dispensation, an “old-new land,” to borrow a phrase from Theodor Herzl.

But any “visionary” movement must be backed by hard realism. We must recognize the immense moral thrust that drives political correctness, globalism, egalitarianism, and all the rest. In other words, we must be realistic about “why they hate us” and not believe that some new candidate, or new data point, or policy argument could change any of this.

We must also recognize that, at the moment, any kind of extra-legal or violent action—no matter how brilliantly conceived—would bring to Identitarianism the shame and horror that will forever accompany the name Dylann Roof.

In building a new culture, we are doing what we should be doing, and we are doing the only thing we can be doing.

Or as another writer advised: Keep calm. Ride the Tiger. Dream of the Day.

No Comments on Dylann Roof and Political Violence

Black Like Her

There is a poetic coincidence that Rachel Dolezal and Caitlyn Jenner emerged into the public imagination around the same time. Both, you could say, are grotesque examples of the postmodern—and deeply American—ideal of self-creation and reinvention . . . of “bein’ who you wanna be” . . .  even to point, in the cases of Madonna and Lady Gaga, of existing as a series of images and masks.  

Rachel Dolezal and the Quest for Identity

There is a poetic coincidence that Rachel Dolezal and Caitlyn Jenner emerged into the public imagination around the same time. Both, you could say, are grotesque examples of the postmodern—and deeply American—ideal of self-creation and reinvention . . . of “bein’ who you wanna be” . . . even to point, in the cases of Madonna and Lady Gaga, of existing as a series of images and masks.

Many conservatives have asked, ironically, “If Caitlyn, then why not Rachel?” That is, if our culture has sunk so low as to embrace transsexuals, then how can we condemn “transracials,” this latest human category in need of civil-rights protection?

But all of this really misses the point.

What’s important—that is, what’s revealing about contemporary consciousness—is the asymmetry between the mass media’s embrace of Bruce/Caitlyn and their mocking condemnation of White/Black Rachel (or, at the very least, their assumption that something is very wrong with this woman and her choice of careers).

The media punished anyone who voiced what was, no doubt, all of our gut reactions when we saw Annie Leibovitz’s Vanity Fair cover: “That’s gross/ridiculous/sad.” But behind this enforcement of dogma lay a tacit sense that little was really at stake, that Caitlyn’s act was ultimately personal and harmless to others. In the words of Kris Jenner, Caitlyn’s supportive ex-wife, “[I]t’s about you, and I just want you to be happy.”

Rachel’s transformation is something altogether different. Putting aside legal questions of fraud, Rachel engaged, not in self-actualization, but in identity theft. She stole and demeaned African-Americans’ being and history. The media’s punishment of Rachel—greater than that inflicted on those who ridiculed Caitlyn—reveals the degree to which race really matters, especially to those who identify as liberal and leftist.

In understanding this, it is important not to take leftist dogma at face value. According to “social justice” logic, Rachel was, in fact, Black. For some eight years, she forewent “White skin privilege” and lived her life as a Black woman, recognized as such by White and Black alike. But ultimately, she can’t be Black. And in a month or so, at the end of her running the media’s freak-show gauntlet, she will be remember as a disturbed . . . hilariously bizarre . . . maybe tragic White woman. That’s a fate Rachel will never escape.

The American Left is, we are told, committed to the proposition that “race doesn’t exist” and functions as a “social construct.” In repeating such mantras, we overlook how much liberals and leftists are passionately and genuinely committed to the existence of race. Race is denied on the level of biology, to the extent that it is correlated with intelligence, behavior, and social outcomes, and thus becomes an unchosen “fate” for individuals. On the other hand, race is embraced as the formation of collective identity, meaning, history, and culture.

It is the Left that has been most active in racial consciousness formation: on campus, they have created not only African-American Students Association but “Asian” Students Associations, that is, racial consciousness where little cultural commonality existed.

Conservatives like to demean such things as “identity politics,” as just another car on the gravy train. But the reality is that Leftists are engaging in the kind of ideological project that traditionalists should be hard at work on—the formation of “meta-politics,” consciousness that transcends and precedes any political issue. Put simply, thinking racially—and by that I mean thinking spiritually, historically, and mythologically.

It is self-styled “conservatives,” not liberals, who “don’t get race”—and most furiously want to resist its power and meaning. “Conservatives” have erased identity in themselves, in favor of suburban bourgeois nothingness; they demand that other peoples follow their lead.

It might be tempting to see Rachel’s parents—missionary Christians from rural Montana—as “heroes” in this saga, for they were the first to tell the truth. In fact, there is little that is admirable about them, and they seem to suffer from the same psychosis as their daughter.

A striking aspect of Dolezal’s deceit is that she didn’t just pursue a secret identity as a Black woman but re-imagined her life and genealogy. She created what could be called a “useable past.” Whiteness is a big zero—an identity that lacks authenticity and carries only the taint of oppression. Rachel thus imagined that she grew up in a teepee, hunted for food with a bow and arrow, and even spent time in post-Apartheid South Africa. This reached its limit when she claimed that her biological father was a Black man and, further, that her “step father” (her real biological father) subjected her to abuse. And it was abuse that Dolezal envisioned in the most sadomasochistic and absurdly “racist” fashion, involving torture instruments used for baboons and slaves. In reality, Rachel’s father is as dedicated to the Black race as she is; a decade ago, he left his family to work in South Africa, spreading the gospel (as well as Young Earth Creationism) to the downtrodden.

Of course, we should ask, What kind of woman would invent such lies? But we must also ask, What kind of parents have a daughter like Rachel Dolezal? For something doesn’t come from nothing, and no child is an island, all to herself. Even—or especially—when children rebel or reject their parents, they are being influenced by them.

Rachel first began identifying with Black culture after her parents adopted African infants in the mid-‘90s. (Rachel would later claim that these adopted siblings were her “children.”) Rachel’s parents observed that their daughter began “sounding African-American on the phone” in 2007. And as she moved up the ranks of the Black political infrastructure—becoming the leader of the Spokane, Washington, NAACP chapter as well as a part-time African-American Studies professor—she became increasingly estranged from her parents. This ended in the ultimate insult—her rejection of them, to the point of denying their existence.

But then, psychoanalytically, Rachel’s transformation could be seen as a desperate, ambivalent attempt to please mom and dad. In this line, Rachel viewed her parents’ adoption of African children as symbolizing that she wasn’t good enough or special enough. Her entire adult life—from being fascinated by Black culture to marrying a Black man to becoming Black herself—was, unconsciously, an attempt to make herself into the child her parents really wanted.

No doubt, this reading carries a kernel of truth . . . though, as an explanation, it also seems a little too easy, much as it would be too easy to conclude that Rachel is simply a “sociopath” or “master manipulator.”

The answer to “Who are the Dolezals?” might be found in biology and history, more specifically, in a certain historical American type.

Knut Hamsun described the migration of men to America as such:

Day after day, day after day, a world’s mass of people flooded the prairie, people of every race and language, countless good men, bankrupts and criminals, adventurers and the insane, priests and Negroes—all limbs of the pariah breed from the whole of the earth. And no noble souls.

America’s self-styled “conservatives” like to boast of their right-wing, uncouth ways vis-à-vis the over-civilized, over-liberal, over-indulgent, de-natured Europeans (“cheese-eating surrender monkeys,” as they were called during the run-up to the Iraq war). But in reality, there are aspects to the American personality and mentality that remain shockingly anti-traditionalist to any European. (Here, I’m not referring to “naive optimism” or the “can-do spirit,” which can be laudable traits.)

While decadent Europeans might vacation in the Third World, dutiful American Christians go there to save, convert, or kidnap and bring home non-White races. What kind of people do this? What kind of people adopt Africans as their “children”? What kind of people willfully erase their history and identity? (One should remember that even if Dolezal was untruthful, she was genuinely dedicated to uplifting the Black race.)

Some “limbs of the pariah breed,” as Hamsun called them, who left their homelands for America, were those Europeans most prone to hyper-religiosity, hyper-altruism, and hyper-conformism. They defined portions of the American nation, culturally, spiritually, and genetically—much as they defined the nations of Europe through their absence. Rachel Dolezal might have been the latest expression of this selfless, missionary breed.

1 Comment on Black Like Her

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