Radix Journal

Radix Journal

A radical journal

Category: Politics

Long Live the Emperor!

Editor’s Note: This is the text version of a speech recently given by National Policy Institute President and Radix editor Richard B. Spencer at NPI’s Become Who We Are 2016…

Editor’s Note: This is the text version of a speech recently given by National Policy Institute President and Radix editor Richard B. Spencer at NPI’s Become Who We Are 2016 conference

I don’t think I’m alone in thinking how surreal this all is.

Of course, those of us on the Alt Right always took President-elect Donald J. Trump and his chances seriously. Unlike everyone else, we weren’t surprised, or at least not that surprised. We knew he could win. Many of us thought all along he would win. The mainstream media, or perhaps we should refer to them in the original German—Lugenpresse—never did.

This was the year when random shitlords on Twitter, anonymous podcast hosts, and dissidents working deep within the Beltway Right proved they objectively understood politics better than the “Republican strategists” and “political consultants” snarking at us every night on MSNBC. It’s not just that they are leftists or cucks. It’s not just that many are genuinely stupid. Indeed, one wonders if those people are people at all, or instead soulless Golems, animated by some dark power to repeat whatever talking points John Oliver said the night before.

But even though we always took Trump seriously, there was still a moment of unreality – or perhaps too painfully intense reality – when the state of Pennsylvania was called for Donald Trump, the moment when we knew Kek had smiled upon us, that meme magic was real. And though these terms are used half-jokingly, they represent something truly important–the victory of will. We willed Donald Trump into office, made this dream into reality. If you will it, it is no dream, a quote I’m sure our friends at the Anti-Defamation League know well. And this is only the beginning.

After all, what does it mean, to bring your dreams into reality? Dreams are chaotic and hard to understand. They can be self-contradictory and confusing. But at some level, they represent our deepest yearning, our desire to make the impossible real. As TE Lawrence wrote, we’re aren’t the dreamers of the Night, whose dreams are mere vanity. We are the “Dreamers of the Day,” those who do not want our visions or even our fantasies to be escapes from reality. We want them to be the reality.

In a culture which offers video games, endless entertainment, drugs, alcohol, porn, sports, and a thousand other distractions to convince us of another reality, we want to cut all of that away. We demand to live in the world we imagine.

Today, there is an effort by the humiliated mainstream, those commissars who are lashing out against us and who are whipping up the mobs outside this very building, to push back against us. Despite winning the election fairly, despite winning in the face of near unanimous opposition from the mainstream media, despite destroying both the Republican and Democratic establishments, there is a concerted push to deny the new president-elect legitimacy. It’s especially amusing considering the indignant whining we heard only two weeks ago about how unconscionable it was that Donald Trump was supposedly going to refuse to accept the election results and how he was going to unleash his supporters into the streets. Really, who can take these people seriously ever again?

In the later part of the campaign, Peter Thiel, one of the few people of wealth and status who endorsed Trump, talked about America as a “normal” country, a country with a functional government not constantly at war with the rest of the world. This was the promise of Trump to many of his supporters. And yet, for the cultural Left and its propagandists in the controlled media, then main argument we here today, if you can call it an argument, is that Trump should not be “normalized.” This of course begs the question–what is normal today?

In the Current Year, late-night comedians don’t tell jokes, but give us lectures on what we should not be allowed to laugh at. Worn-out celebrities like Madonna, who have based their entire lives into transforming themselves into clumsy symbols of sexuality and materialism, claim to be offended by the “indecency” of Donald Trump. Journalists don’t fight for free speech, but lead the charge to restrict it. In the Current Year, the state wars against the nation, rather than protecting it.

What is the state of the world? What is this status quo that our “normal” President, Barack Hussein Obama, the community organizer from Chicago, is now shilling for on his last foreign tour?

Let’s look at what our government does. The bulk of the threats we face, especially the Islamic State or Muslim terrorists operating within our own societies, have been enabled by our own government. Massive armies, huge navies, terrifying weapons which could destroy the whole world over and are subsidized at ruinous cost, are actually used to further policies which make all of us less safe.

In the Europe defended by American armies, refugees who commit horrific crimes are set free, but citizens who criticize them are arrested. Meanwhile, at home, the protection of the borders, the primary–and to some libertarians, the only national security responsibility of the government–is ignored.

Indeed, Western governments go out of their way to seek out the most dysfunctional immigrants possible and relocate them at taxpayer expense. The “non-government” organizations who support this colonization effort are given huge amounts of money to make their own communities worse. Is this “normal?” Would the Founding Fathers who created those “American ideals” we hear so much about think this is ok?

Let’s look at the culture.

In the Current Year, one’s career can be ruined and life destroyed if you express anything other than admiration for a man who wants to cut off his genitals and say he’s a woman.

In the Current Year, we are told the great threat to our democracy is “fake news” – and then hear breathless accounts, backed little no evidence, that Breitbart.com is “White Nationalist.”

In the Current Year, a white who takes pride in his ancestors’ accomplishments is evil, but a white who refuses to accept guilt for his ancestors’ sins is also evil.

In the Current Year, white families work their whole lives to send their children to universities where they will be told how despicable they are.

In the Current Year, the powerful lecture the powerless about how they don’t recognize their own “privilege.”

In the Current Year, a wealthy Jewish celebrity bragging about the “end of white men” is “speaking truth to power.’

In the Current Year, if you are physically strong, you are fragile. Black is beautiful, but whiteness is toxic. Government doesn’t stop crime, but subsidizes it. “White Privilege” is real but race and sex are just constructs. And if facts are too disturbing, you can always retreat into the ‘safe space’ of box juice, teddy bears, and endless empathy where realty doesn’t matter anymore.

Today, neurotics and degenerates are presented to us as heroes. Beauty is openly denigrated as an offense against equality. And we are ruled by a government which, despite confiscating an outrageous amount of our wealth, can’t fulfill its basic responsibilities defending a people and territory.

This is a basic-bitch argument, but the pre-made signs of those leading the protests against Trump, probably some of those outside this building, come from some of the most extreme Communist groups in the country, the most murderous ideological force in history. It feels almost embarrassing to make this argument, because we know no one will take it seriously. Yet this very day breathless editorials screech that random Internet comments on websites the mainstream media don’t like mean Donald Trump shouldn’t appoint this or that person to his staff.

We need to remind ourselves of these things. None of this is natural. None of this is “normal.” This is a sick, disgusting, society, run by the corrupt, defended by hysterics, drunk on self-hatred and degeneracy. We invade the world and frantically invite entire populations who despise us. We subsidize people and institutions who make our lives worse just by the sheer fact of their existence. We run up deficits and pretend the laws of history simply don’t apply to us because of “American Exceptionalism.”

This cannot go on any longer. And it won’t.

At some level, we demand the impossible. Even those half-joking memes about Donald Trump as God-Emperor or as the progenitor of some glorious Imperium testify to the yearning for something more. Yes, we should insist on our dreams – on the conquest of space, on the development of revolutionary technology, for a humanity that is greater than we are today, for a race that travels forever on the upward path.

But at another level, what we want is something normal, something almost prosaic maybe even boring.

Why is something as simple as starting a family, owning a house, and leaving a legacy to your children seen as an almost impossible dream for so many Americans? Why must there be two incomes for a family simply to break even? Why is it impossible to build a real civic society because the whim of a federal bureaucrat or a Social Justice Warrior can impose Section 8 housing, refugee resettlement, or some other population transfer scheme deliberately designed to break apart functional white communities?

Why do institutions of higher learning turn out graduates who are personally and emotionally broken, as well as ignorant? Even those who can build something in this environment spend the money they earn to isolate themselves from all that vibrancy they feel the need to defend publicly.

It’s not just that this society makes it impossible for us collectively to accomplish great things. It’s that collectively, we can’t even accomplish small things anymore. We take for granted our culture is filth, that the mass transit won’t work, that the cities are rotted out from within, that the great art and architecture of the West has all essentially been made. We collectively know that our country’s best days are behind it.

That was the ur-myth that animated the Trump campaign. To say “Make America Great Again” is both radically pessimistic and boyishly optimistic at the same time. It is an admission America is not what it once was, that it is no longer that nation capable of achieving what it once did. Even liberals at some level know this, as they occasionally pay wistful tributes to the early 1960s America of the moon race and the middle class lifestyle, while conveniently forgetting that American society was 90% white at the time.

Yet MAGA is also forward looking. This idea that we can do this, that America can be what it was, that this idealized past can be restored. More than that, that it can reach new heights, be “greater than ever before,” as President-elect Trump put it. We’re going to win so much, we’re going to get tired of it. This is the new “normal” we are promised, an America of greatness, but also of functional communities and the possibility of a satisfying life for ordinary people.

Contrast MAGA with Marco Rubio’s “For a New American Century,” literally cribbed from the neocon think tank that planned the Iraq war. Contrast this with Hillary Clinton’s poll-tested “Stronger Together.” What does this even mean? Her coalition was made up of mutually hostile tribes, only united because of their hatred for what Peter Brimelow called the “historic American nation,” which is to say, us.

In the last week of the campaign, Trump was hosting several rallies a day, including one near here in Northern Virginia. A friend who was there told me he was several hours late but no one wanted to leave. But it became so late that small children – there were many families at these rallies – started falling asleep. Parents actually put coats on the ground to form a kind of bed for the children to sleep, and surrounded them to guard the sleeping youngsters. There was this kind of effortless high-trust environment you saw at these rallies, an entire people awakening to their own existence – and realizing not just that they exist and have an identity, but that they are strong.

Contrast that to the Hillary constituency. The black political machines and the guilt ridden liberal suburbanites who work their entire lives to move away from them. The left wing activists who think they are fighting the System by working for the federal government. The multinational CEO’s and the Latinos they’ve imported to clean their houses and cut their lawns. “Stronger together?” There are no two parts of this coalition who could even be in the same room together for any length of time.

And this contradiction goes to the heart of the Left. The Left couldn’t decide this year whether America was already great or whether it was never great. Is America some noble multiracial experiment that belongs to everyone and to no one, or is it the product of conquest and settlement by mean ol’ racist Europeans?

Is it a beacon of hope to the rest of the world or an enemy to be destroyed? Because, as the outgoing President would say, let’s be “clear” – despite these supposedly egalitarian “values,” America was, until this past generation, a White country, designed for ourselves and our posterity.

It is our creation, it is our inheritance, and it belongs to us.

The Alt Right is not just an alternative to the moribund “conservative movement,” that Beltway Right of direct mail scam artists and shills whose eternal “values” constantly trail the Left’s vanguard by a dozen years. It’s an alternative to a whole system of lies.

What are we fighting for is a “new normal,” a moral consensus we insist upon.

Donald Trump is a step towards this new normal. But even he is deeply compromised by the perversions that define this decadent society. Donald Trump warred against segregated establishments. He supports affirmative action, or put more bluntly, state-sponsored discrimination against whites. He will be perhaps the most pro-Zionist president ever put into office, turning a blind eye to continued Jewish settlement in the Palestinian territories. He opposes the Iran nuclear deal, which, we should admit, isn’t exactly that bad. He has, let us remember, left the door open for some kind of amnesty at some future date, talking about keeping “the good ones” in the country.

The hysteria surrounding his election doesn’t show that he is extreme, but it shows how unhinged the press and the chattering classes have become. We are told of a massive rush of hate crimes against nonwhites by evil racists emboldened by Trump’s victory. Amazingly, these crimes never seen to be captured on video. That violence which does exist seems to consist of direct physical attacks against Trump supporters. And even when this is captured on video, CNN political commentator and former press secretary for Bernie Sanders can smirk, “oh my goodness, poor white people.”

What we see is that the liberal hegemony which governs this society will not permit any reform, even the kinds of moderate reforms which could salvage the whole System. The undercurrent of almost all press coverage in the days since Trump’s ascendency is that white people should not be permitted to vote. What’s more, the news should be censored to ensure that people are only given the “correct” viewpoints.

Far from reflecting on why they lost or extending even a modicum of empathy towards European-Americans, the press has clearly decided to double down and wage war against both the legitimacy of Trump and the continued existence of White America.

But they are really opening the door for us.

You can imagine, hypothetically, some situation where a President Trump or whoever slaps some ramshackle America together and it limps along for a few more decades . . . where the boot is lifted off the neck of white America just long enough to keep the whole thing going. Yet the Left can’t permit that. Environmentalism, workers’ rights, income inequality, mass transit, whatever stated values it supposedly has are thrown out in order to pursue a remarkably crude and simplistic anti-white hatred that is driving it all.

And even more than during the election itself, the mask has been ripped off since Trump’s election. SJW’s always project and the American Left is driven by anti-white hatred – full stop. It has no other goals, no aspirations, nothing to look to. It is a nullity. And we have nothing in common with these people.

It is different for us. Race is real … but in some sense, whiteness really is a social construct. Think of the concepts that are now designated “problematic” and associated with whiteness — power, strength, beauty, agency, accomplishment. Whites do and other groups don’t. In the banality of normal life and in our most outlandish dreams, in both our Narrative and theirs, to be white is to be a striver, a crusader, an explorer and a conqueror. We build, we produce, we go upward.

And we recognize the central lie of American race relations. We don’t exploit other groups. We don’t gain anything from their presence. They need us, and not the other way around.

Whiteness, or, rather, identity, is being forced on the deracinated, consumerist Last Man that was the European-American. No one is going to be permitted to escape this process. Great historical changes are imminent when people are forced into a binary choice – fight or flee, join or die, resist … or cuck.

That is the position of white people. Two weeks ago, I might the have said the election of Donald Trump would actually lessen the pressure on white Americans. But today it’s clear his election is only intensifying the storm of hatred and hysteria being directed against us.

As Europeans, we are, uniquely, at the center of history. We are, as Hegel recognized, the concept of world history. No one will honor us for losing gracefully. No one mourns the great crimes committed against us. For us, it is conquer or die. This is a unique burden for the white man, that our fate is entirely in our hands. And it is appropriate because within us, within the very blood in our veins as children of the sun lies the potential for greatness.

That is the great struggle we are called to. We were not meant to live in shame and weakness and disgrace. We were not meant to beg for moral validation from some of the most despicable creatures to pollute the soil of this planet. We were meant to overcome–overcome all of it. Because that’s natural for us.

Because for us, as Europeans, it’s only normal again, when we are great again.

Hail Trump. Hail our people. Hail victory.

No Comments on Long Live the Emperor!

The Knight of the Long Knives

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

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

No Comments on The Knight of the Long Knives

The Napoleon of the Current Year

We should all be grateful to Donald J. Trump. For he saved us from the tedious inevitability of an electoral season. 

He saved us from a year of Republican electioneering, featuring candidates seemingly chosen for their repulsive, annoying, or sleep-inducing qualities.

He saved us from another six months of “Hillary v Jeb,” and commentators pretending that it’s all so important and exciting . . . pretending that we’re not just watching two oligarchic families duke it out to see who’ll remain on top the longest before the coming election of President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho. 

Against all of this stood Trump.

We should all be grateful to Donald J. Trump. For he saved us from the tedious inevitability of an electoral season.

He saved us from a year of Republican electioneering, featuring candidates seemingly chosen for their repulsive, annoying, or sleep-inducing qualities.

He saved us from another six months of “Hillary v Jeb,” and commentators pretending that it’s all so important and exciting . . . pretending that we’re not just watching two oligarchic families duke it out to see who’ll remain on top the longest before the coming election of President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho.

Against all of this stood Trump.

Donald Trump, of course, does not challenge the oligarchic nature of American politics and elite rule. In a way, Trump’s “self-funded” campaign has made a mockery of the democratic process.

In the minds of Trump haters, Trump has turned the presidency into the bauble of an eccentric, narcissistic billionaire . . . an asshole of wealth and privilege . . . a man who delights in demeaning women and appealing to the basest instincts of the “poorly educated”, whom he loves . . . a man who aims to transform the American Republic into a surreal, horrifying Wrestlemania . . . a gold-plated fascism, with torchlight parades for the Great Leader, female journalists burned at the steak . . . all the while an appeased Vladimir Putin marches his armies across Europe.

What’s most remarkable, perhaps, about the fever dream of all the Trump haters—which I’ve exaggerated, but only slightly—is its schizoid nature.

For months, we were told, by people from the mainstream Left and Right, Donald Trump is not real: he’s not serious . . . he’s about to drop out . . . his numbers are fake . . . the whole thing’s a vanity project . . . don’t be a sucker.

Then, we were told that Trump is, in fact, all too real: he became a screen upon which his haters projected all their nightmares: White nationalism . . . a resurgent Russia . . . fascism . . . a Big Man who doesn’t listen to the “experts,” “policy wonks” and “neocons” for his ideas, and who would probably dispense with such people if given the chance.

This schizoid reaction—that Trump isn’t real and all too real—is the reaction of someone repressing something, repressing a deep and dark truth.

Trump—the phenomenon, not just the man—has been a very long time coming. For something has been rotten in the state of America for a very long time.

And Trump haters are right about one thing: the phenomenon can only be understood as an expression of White Americans’ growing awareness of their demographic displacement . . . the erosion of their security, power, and influence . . . and the cutting off of their future.

In other words, the Trump phenomenon derives from what could be the called The Great Erasure: former White countries being transformed, humiliated, and ultimately invaded and raped. This is what is happening right now, and it might be the most important historical development of the last 500 years.

The System, you could say, is looking into that place where it dares not look. And it finds Trump there, staring back at it. When or how this phenomenon would arise, as well as who would lead it, nobody knew. But that it would come was inevitable.

A Crack in the System

Trump was the most powerful potential challenge to the status quo in my lifetime—the most powerful potential challenge to “The System,” and by that I don’t just mean the government. I mean the entire corporate and economic structure . . . the media, entertainment, and culture industries . . . hegemonic discourse . . . the way we talk and think and breathe and dream.

Perhaps the most dominating component of “The System” is not its bombs or bureaucrats or police or taxes but its Narrative and Paradigm.

The System is most powerful when it cuts off that something else, that dream of another world and the will to bring it into being. The System, in other words, presents itself as “inevitable,” as everything you could ever want. Far from being brutal or unfeeling, The System has “thought of everything”—it has even thought of the ways in which you will oppose The System.

If you’re a White man filled with angst at your declining income and foreclosed home . . . and the fact that you don’t know your children anymore . . . never fear! You can vote for the greasy televangelist from Texas, named Ted or Jeb or Dubya, and make the “The Constitution” and “freedom” a cozy substitute for your existence.

Or if you’re a young White liberal with 100k in student-loan debt . . . so big can’t even think about getting married and having kids . . . never fear! You can support Bernie (and settle for Hillary) and signal that you’re one of those cool, virtuous, post-White White people . . . one of those who, you know, will get a place at the table in the minority America of 2050 . . . pretty please . . .

The System is its own opposition, its own problem and solution, its own critique and its own redemption. The System endlessly satisfies us . . . and we are endlessly unhappy, always feeling empty. (Even leftists don’t really get what they want.)

The System is, in other words, inevitable.

But something else was always inevitable: Sooner or later, there was going to be a “crack in system” . . . a deep fracture . . . and this wound would not be inflicted on The System from an outside power. It would come from within.

This contradiction would eventually undermine The System . . . would make new things possible . . . things The System’s policemen and high priests were always guarding against and which they believed were no longer imaginable.

Trump was this contradiction . . . that thing that none of us could have predicted . . . but which now seems inevitable.

Some of us might have day-dreamed of some foreign intervention that would save us from The System—as if America might be invaded and liberated by Putin’s Red Army or Marion Le-Pen of Arc. Red Dawn, Part II: The Good Guys Win This Time!

But that would have been too easy.

The Contradiction of The System—the figure that brings about its breakdown—must be part of The System. He must be something vain, sometime absurd . . . a gambling and real-estate tycoon . . . and star of a “reality show.” He must be something real and unreal at the same time.

In The Current Year, the Contradiction could never be someone like Joan of Arc; it must be someone like Donald Trump.

For Trump isn’t just part of The System; he’s an undisputed maestro of the vulgar and stupid.

So much about Trump offends us, maybe even appalls us. But then we don’t get to choose. We don’t get to decide the way in which The System will crack and turn on itself. . . and we don’t get to choose which man will embody and bear something far bigger than himself, something far bigger than he recognizes.

Today, the word “Napoleon” has such a glow that it needs no qualifier, surname, or historical context. Napoleon embodies that upwards striving in our souls . . . that will, not merely to increase the glory of France, but to build a Grand Empire for all Europe. He’s a man who could only be expressed through a symphony.

But that’s now.

There’s no doubt that so many conservatives of his time viewed Napoleon as a “vulgar” Corsican . . . some military upstart . . . someone far too tainted by the times and The Revolution. Conservatives, no doubt, would have preferred an ancient King or priest or troubadour as their leader. But Napoleon was Napoleon; and only Napoleon could be Napoleon.

Trump might be, in his vulgar and stupid way, the Napoleon of The Current Year.

Trump might have “gone to the greatest schools,” but he never passed through The System’s cursus honorum, its “path of honor, to become a political leader: first, law school and low-level officialdom, then up the latter of media talking points, focus groups, ass-kissing, and selling one’s soul.

Trump never went through the gauntlet, which impresses the “right opinions” upon potential leaders and weeds out those who actually care about their people and civilization . . . or who are simply interesting.

The Republican and Democratic parties are tools of the American oligarchy, of Super Pacs and the donor class. Trump, on the other hand, led a populist movement not in spite of the fact that he’s an oligarch but because of it. Trump has, indeed turned oligarchy into a kind of populism.

Other candidates might talk about being the son of a mailman or bartender, and relish getting themselves photographed wearing plaid or eating a slice of pizza. Trump, on the other hand, has never hidden the fact that he’s rich guy (and that he’s the kind of man who eats pizza with a fork . . . which is weird).

But in this way, Trump is the only candidate who can legitimately say he could never be bought.

Trump has also been the most radically transparent candidate about the current political dispensation. Forget the idiotic demand that he release his back taxes. When Trump says that he “got along with lots of politicians,” he is effectively bragging that he bought them at auction. Such honesty is only offensive to those who are hopelessly delusional about the nature of American democracy, or who benefit by keeping the racket going.

In turn, Trump is a serious politician not in spite of the fact that he’s a narcissist and reality show star—but because of it.

Trump is not a celebrity like Tom Cruise or George Clooney or Elizabeth Tailer: distant, isolated, unapproachable, and strange.

Trump has, through the television set, been in people’s homes, eaten dinner with them, gone to bed with them, you could say, for three decades. He’s been a kind of friend to admire and envy, even a source of authority. He’s been a one-man “reality show”—a real person, who’s larger than life. This kind of power, whatever we might think of it, is its own political campaigns and “ground game.”

True Lies

Trump is the man who boasts that his opponents come to him on their hands and knees . . . while sweating profusely . . . the only women who can resist him are those menstruating through their eyeballs.

All of that is bullshit, of course—“truthful hyperbole.” But then to understand it as mere bullshit is to understand nothing.

“Public relations”—and postmodern “image production”—is, as Baudrillard observed, all about signs without references . . . words without meaning . . . sound and fury signifying nothing . . . bullshit within bullshit.

But Trump’s genius is to embed truth within his vulgar and stupid bullshit: deep truths, sometimes hard or harsh truths . . . dangerous truths.

One can see this, first and foremost, in his slogan “Make America Great Again”—the most memorable one-liner of the year.

Eight years ago, Barack Obama’s “Hope We Can Believe In” revealed, early on, the vacuous and entirely non-revolutionary nature of his presidency. In turn, Marco Rubio’s “A New American Century” is, quite literally, a name adopted from a neoconservative think-tank that planned the Iraq War.

On the surface, you could say that “Make America Great Again” is just a big patriotic foam-hand announcing “We’re #1!” On a deeper level, Turmp’s slogan implies directly that America is not great . . . that America power might be an illusion . . . that we’re coasting on the fumes of the 20th century . . . and that it’s time to rethink everything. Trump has thus, amazingly, brought a awareness of The Great Erasure and American Decline into public consciousness, in a way that we never could. In other words, “Make America Great Again” is a true lie, as opposed to the lying lies we’ve become inured to.

After September 11, George W. Bush had a real opportunity (maybe the last one) to re-found White America: he could have shut down immigration entirely, or at least immigration from non-European countries, and gotten away with it politically.

Instead, “Dubya-style” nationalism became the ultimate expression of patriotic bullshit. Let’s attach a flag to our SUVs, y’all . . . fight the Muslims by going shopping and taking out mortgages . . . Why question any of this? Why seriously examine the direction our civilization has taken—that would be letting the terrorists win!

The Dubya years represented the ultimate bullshit Clash of Civilizations: consumerism, democracy, and “human rights” will destroy the extremists . . . or seduce them into becoming the same passive nihilists we are!

Trump’s Wall, on the other hand—along with his demand to cease Muslim immigration—becomes something else entirely: it becomes existential . . . a declaration of difference . . . a symbol of our will to survive.

Trump, whether he knows it or not, is announcing the return of Grand Politics . . . politics on the greatest scale . . . politics as the struggle between races and civilizations.

And Trump’s so-called “Bromance” with Vladimir Putin is just as radical as The Wall, perhaps even more so.

The history of the 20th century has been a history of a long civil war, a Brothers War. Trump and Putin—this is the image of two of the three great blocks of the White Race—North America and Russia—finally reaching an understanding. It is a cancellation of the the 20th century. A sign of hope that Europeans can finally stop fighting each other, and losing the whole world in the process.

TRUMP—the name itself—is a true lie—something combining bullshit and greatness, something stupid and primal.

For Trump is a billionaire not just because of buildings and casinos but because of TRUMP, because of the brand and all that it implies. TRUMP isn’t associated with any one product or real-estate development or beauty pageant or mouth-watering steak. TRUMP is all of it and more. TRUMP is a thing in itself—intangible, inexpressible, invaluable. TRUMP represents that golden longing for success . . . for power . . . for winning . . . and for indulging in just enough decadence, sex, and arrogance. TRUMP represents that will to power . . . to be great . . . and to be something more than a man.

The Alt and the Right

Perhaps my least favorite opinion about Trump is that he is the “last chance” or the “last hope” of White America. There’s something reactionary and weak about getting excited about “last chances,” as it implies propping up something that deserves to die. Trump is powerful as something new, as a first stand of European identity politics.

Seven year ago, when I first started using this term “Alternative Right,” it was my own passionate plea for that something else— something outside The System and the thought-prison of “conservatism.”

The Alt Right was, at its beginning, a kind of “rebellion without a cause” or, you could say, conservatism for when there’s nothing to conserve.

And to be honest, I became a bit disenchanted with the term “Alt Right.” After a while, I wanted to get beyond Left and Right and assert European Identity—identitarianism—as the foundation and sine qua non of my ideology. I didn’t want to just be an “alternative.”

But “Alt Right” took on a life of its own, outside my control. And it’s much bigger than me or any single individual. (Ramzpaul mentioned to me that while he was abroad, he was approached by a Romanian fan in a bar, who announced to him, “Paul, Ramzpaul. Greetings! I am Alt Right shitlord.”)

“Alt Right” has taken a journey but remained remarkably true to my original conception. And it is all these Shitlords—with all their Trumpean vulgarity and “take no prisoners” attitude—who are doing much more than any establishment journalist to uncover what really matters in the world.

As I look back on it now, there seems to be a wonderful contradiction between the words “alternative” and “Right”: something new and frenetic and uncontrollable (“alternative”), and something old and traditional and eternal (“the Right”).

Our movement must itself be a contradiction: alternative Right . . . conservative revolution . . . radical traditionalist . . . archeo-futurist . . . anarcho-fascist. All of these seem to implicitly recognize that we might need to unleash a little chaos . . . some hashtags and dank memes . . . some Trumpean vulragiry . . . before we put society back together again. Trump is, in this way, an authentic hero of our movement.

He is expressing deep contradictions within The System . . . deep unrest among White people that has been boiling for decades . . . and has revealed the utter uselessness of self-styled “conservatives.”

Trump has done this, to an extent we shouldn’t underestimate, unknowingly. In Donald Trump’s brain, the Trump phenomenon probably is all about Donald Trump.

But for us, and the world, the Trump phenomenon is much bigger than the man. He is a vehicle, unwittingly, bringing forth ideas and emotions that are terrifying to The System.

In turn, we project on him our hopes and dreams. We Photoshop Trump, not as a casino magnate, but as what he could or should be—as a Roman . . . an imperial general . . . or great conqueror in some Dune-like archeo-future.

Not too long ago, the Brietbart writer Milo Yanisagreeklastname, spoke at a college and was, predictably, disrupted and harassed by Black Live Matters groupies. When the Whites in the crowd actually stood up and started to fight back, they chanted “Trump . . . Trump . . . TRUMP!”

This was not mere election-year cheerleading. For we must remember that before the Trump phenomenon, these White people had nothing to chant; they had no call or word that expressed their spirit and soul.

TRUMP has become a killing word. And Trump, maybe despite himself, has become the Napoleon of the Current Year.


But then let’s take a step back.

Over the past months, there have been many nonsensical calls by journalists for Trump to “distance” himself from “racism” and the phantom menace of the Ku Klux Klan. (Trump, being Trump, has mostly refused to cower to political correctness.)

But in a way, it’s more important for us to distance ourselves from Trump. (And I don’t just say that in the sense that identitarians are not really helping Trump much when we endorse him or wax enthusiastic about him.)

I say this in the sense that our movement should never be defined by one single man. We should never put all our eggs in one basket. For the revival of European identity must last much longer than the Trump phenomenon, longer than my life or that of anyone here.

Our movement is, on one hand, about Yesterday, about our ancestors and the bedrock of who we are. And on the other, our movement is about Tomorrow, and the Day After Tomorrow.

It is not about Today, for the Current Year belongs to the whores and politicians. Tomorrow belongs to us!

No Comments on The Napoleon of the Current Year

Time for Heroes

It was never supposed to happen like this. 

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

It was never supposed to happen like this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, how those fires are spreading.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No Comments on Time for Heroes

Beyond NATO

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

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

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

The Origins of “Atlanticism”

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

Reality has moved on, but Atlanticism has stayed put.

1. Hitler’s Germany

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

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

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

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

2. Stalin’s Russia

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

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

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

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

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

New Enemies, New Threats

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

1. The Specter of Radical Islam

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

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

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

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

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

2. Turkey—A Dangerous Ally

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

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

3. Managing the Rise of China

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

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

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

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

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

4. The Collapse of Mexico

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

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

Replacing NATO

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

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

1. Cooperation with Russia

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

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

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

2. Reviving Western Europe

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

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

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

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

3. An Eye to Common Threats

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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


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

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

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

The Rigged System

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No Comments on The Rigged System

Found Out

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No Comments on Found Out

Weaponized Morality

Morality is a weapon. Hierarchy is a constant. And the will to power can never be removed, only expressed in different ways. 

Thus it is that in the Current Year, facing what is (for once) actually The Most Important Election In Our Lifetime, we aren’t discussing issues like immigration, health care, or foreign policy. Instead, the critical issues of our time are whether Donald Trump was rude to a sociopathic whore decades ago or whether he engaged in lewd talk about women in a private conversation. 

Morality is a weapon. Hierarchy is a constant. And the will to power can never be removed, only expressed in different ways.

Thus it is that in the Current Year, facing what is (for once) The Most Important Election In Our Lifetime, we aren’t discussing issues like immigration, health care, or foreign policy. Instead, the critical issues of our time are whether Donald Trump was rude to a sociopathic whore decades ago or whether he engaged in lewd talk about women in a private conversation.

Like most of the smear campaigns against the Republican nominee, the first story is nonsense. Alicia Machado, a former beauty pageant winner, put on 60 pounds after her victory and apparently Donald Trump criticized her. In anything resembling a real nation, rather than a crumbling shopping mall writ large, the person who even brings up this trivia would be stripped of the franchise.

But the decline is in the details and there’s something revealing about all this. Like most of those who are held up as heroes today, Alicia Machado is being blessed by the priests of weakness in the media because of her worst qualities. We know she cheated on her fiancé (on television), was involved with a Mexican drug lord and probably had his daughter, and may have been involved in a murder. Yet this is the person Hillary Clinton is holding up as a hero and a new valuable addition to our national family. All because she violated a contract and couldn’t restrain from gorging herself like an animal.

Eldritch abomination Lindy West, who with each fetid breath proves Spengler was right and that the West is already dead, called for fat people to “rise up,” not to get exercise, but to join with nonwhites and defeat Trump.

While nonwhites are born members of the Coalition of the Oppressed, Whites become part of the Rising American Electorate only when they define themselves through some form of degeneracy. Not surprisingly, if they can’t just switch races entirely, they simply come up with increasingly outlandish faux-identities.

Even as we are lectured that we as Whites have no culture, have no identity aside from oppression, and did not create the (former) greatness of Western nations, we are still held responsible for every failing of nonwhite people throughout the entire world. Many of the worst atrocities such as newly invented genders, redefining yourself as some kind of animal or whatever other form of psychopathy will be tomorrow’s civil rights crusade is a kind of cry for help. Weak Whites are desperately trying to break away from being considered part of the officially hated group.

But there’s another form of escape, which is the retreat into some kind of “principled” morality which is designed not to hold people to their duty, but to allow them to escape from it. Which brings us to the second “scandal,” Donald Trump talking about hitting on women in a private conversation.

Like the useless and despicable cucks that they are, the likes of Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, and Jeb Bush have fallen all over themselves to virtue signal. The lying press is openly pressuring Donald Trump to drop out of the race. And the feminists are claiming this conversation itself constitutes “assault.”

This is impossible to take seriously. All of this faux outrage is being ginned up to help Hillary Clinton, whom we know exists only because she latched on to the coattails of her lecherous husband and helped conceal his crimes. Bill Clinton’s career was only saved because his defenders during the impeachment trial convinced the public the scandal was about sex with an intern, an act which, even if consensual, would get your average middle manager somewhere brought up on charges of sexual harassment or simply fired (if he’s lucky.)

We’re told that we must always “listen and believe,” even by Hillary herself, even though Juanita Broaddrick has maintained for years she was raped by the former president. As Joe Eszterhas noted in American Rhapsody, a poll taken soon after Broaddrick was interviewed with Lisa Myers showed over 80 percent of Americans thought the president of the United States was a rapist – but his approval ratings remained high.

With Bill Clinton’s scandals, the excuse was “everybody lies about sex.” This isn’t really true. It only seems that way in the cesspool on the Potomac, which really should be renamed so as to stop disgracing the Father of Our Country. But in most of the country, not everyone is an adulterer, a rake, or some kind of a pervert.

That said, there is not a single adult man or woman alive, no matter how Christian, sheltered, or principled, who has not had a conversation or bull session about sex and relationships he or she wouldn’t want made public. Every single person claiming to be outraged by this is arguing in bad faith.

Indeed, the wildly disproportionate reaction about this conversation is a society-wide case of “doth protest too much.” These swine are feigning shock because they are all guilty. Find me one DC journalist whose relationship would survive a significant other seeing his or her browser history, let alone transcripts of all conversations.

The fact Donald Trump is being crucified because of a taped private conversation more than a decade old is a condemnation of our entire contemptible society. To use the parlance of our time, he dindu nuffin. He is being convicted for thoughtcrime.

Weimerica is in no position to be moralizing about this. In a media-saturated culture, the dominant public “morality” is simply what our press tells us to be outraged about. Our celebrities, America’s closest equivalent to aristocracy, are slightly less subtle versions of prostitutes, marketed to children. Our institutions of higher learning turn out hapless and incompetent graduates with carefully cultivated neuroses to be used as weapons against their fellow citizens in a culture and economy based on weakness and artificial victimhood. We’re on the brink of war with Russia, which the press tells us is an enemy because the Orthodox masses aren’t properly enthusiastic enough about America’s highest national value of sodomy. And the party of Bill Clinton and Anthony Weiner is now being hailed as the stern guardian of public morality. To use Paul Ryan’s phrase, that is “who we are” as a nation in the Current Year.

Morality is a tool to be used to destroy foes. Just as aristocrats of the past were carefully trained in sophisticated etiquette to keep down their social inferiors and compete against their equals, so our elite uses the rhetoric of egalitarianism to defend their position. Every society is hypocritical, but it was left to the modern post-Western world to be completely defined by duplicity.

Consider the case of (((Mark Cuban))). His family name was changed from Chabenisky to Cuban after his family fled Russia to inflict us with their presence. Cuban made the bulk of his money by cashing out of Yahoo at the right time near the end of the tech boom. In terms of style, Cuban adopted the kind of “dudebro” lifestyle condemned as inherently immoral by the Left. Despite being a billionaire, he dresses in t-shirts. He’s a pornographer and publicly claimed: “Girls Gone Wild” did not objectivity women, something which is rationally more “sexist” than anything Trump did. He taunts Trump not for being too right wing, but for not being rich enough.

Yet Cuban is spared from the outrage culture and is now a trusted surrogate for the Hillary Clinton campaign. Cuban initially praised Trump’s run for office and even expressed openness to being Trump’s running mate. But Cuban switched sides, ostensibly because he didn’t think Trump understood nuclear deterrence.

It’s hard to take this seriously. More likely, Cuban took a hard look at the financial blowback Trump suffered after condemning illegal immigration and made a cynical decision. Indeed, he now smirks that Trump has destroyed his brand and will be bankrupt within a few years if he does not win. He might be right. If Trump does lose, he will have to bend the knee in some form to save the family business for his children.

Like in the Roman civil wars at the fall of the Republic, today it’s all about making sure you are on the right side. And because Cuban chose to align with the president Weimerica deserves, he is held up as a business expert, a respected political pundit and even some kind of a moral leader.

There’s a great deal of debate about what does and does not constitute the Alt Right and who properly belongs in or out of the movement. I’d add one essential characteristic that makes the Alt Right distinct from paleoconservativism, White nationalism, or National Socialism – a dominant sense of cynicism. No one who is on the Alt Right can honestly say he or she is fighting to save a System and a power structure which is basically healthy. The Alt Right is a culture of critique against the hegemonic liberal and anti-White Narrative and the institutions which perpetuate it. Even George Lincoln Rockwell had more faith in the American government than any anonymous shitposter.

Whatever you were first “redpilled” on – sex, race, Jewish privilege, American foreign policy, the conservative movement – all of it begins with the same terrible realization. They are lying to us. They are lying to us not because they actually believe this nonsense, but because it allows them to expand their own power. Since they only benefit if we believe what they are telling us, we should instinctively distrust them.

This is why so much of chan culture, which was such an important influence on the Alt Right, was built upon laughing at the “moralfags.” It was a recognition their bromides were a scam. Indeed, the only people who actually do seem to believe the ideals underlying liberal democracy on their own terms are American conservatives, who are eternal losers that can serve only as gullible fools or controlled opposition.

This is not to say we are without idealism. We have a vision of hierarchy, of glory, of the upward path. But in what used to be our country, what should be sacred is cast in the dirt and what belongs in the gutter is trumpeted as an ideal. Our idealism is fueled by this terrible sense of betrayal, the raging fury that the institutions and figures who were supposed to secure our future have abandoned their responsibility and betrayed their duty.

Donald Trump, for all his faults, is a better man than anyone in the political class. Our own supposed leaders proudly boast they are plotting our deliberate destruction. The people who talk the most about “propriety” and “tone” are the same people who have unleashed death and chaos in pointless wars around the world.

“Morality?” Today, it’s just a shit test on a global scale, a public relations campaign, a marketing scam. To see a “Republican strategist” or a Beltway journalist pontificate about decorum is self-discrediting. To see the same people who celebrate the Folsom Street Fair suddenly clutch their pearls is revolting. It’s not about being “beyond good and evil” or denying standards. It’s about not falling for this same old con anymore.

No Comments on Weaponized Morality

Brexit: Quake or Squib

The victory of Leave against Remain on June 23, 2016, which not even the bookies had expected (52% with a record over 70% turnout) was a blow to the intelligentsia. That said, the British referendum is ambiguous. It can be an Excalibur or a heavy blow to Great Britain and the European Union. Already a financial crisis is looming…here is an early analysis of this complicated event.

Editor’s Note: This article first appeared on Guillaume Faye’s blog “J’ai Tout Compris” here.

The victory of Leave against Remain on June 23, 2016, which not even the bookies had expected (52% with a record over 70% turnout) was a blow to the intelligentsia. That said, the British referendum is ambiguous. It can be an Excalibur or a heavy blow to Great Britain and the European Union. Already a financial crisis is looming…here is an early analysis of this complicated event.

The People Who Vote Wrong

Journalists, intellectuals, and politicians have criticized this anti-EU vote in derogatory terms: A victory for “populism” of the “uneducated”, “little whites”, even “racist”. This argument is openly undemocratic of course, the “real” democracy, that is to say, its simulacrum, the oligarchy (from the Greek “Government of a minority”). The people have no voice. Regarded as populist insolence from the rural areas and small towns against London and other cosmopolitan and urban sores, Brexit was seen with contempt and horror.

Ivan Rioufol, who is indignant at “this detestable EU, that is destroying Europe”(Le Figaro, 07/01/2016), quotes reactions from three icons of the hegemonic ideology, symbols of the cosmopolitan “superclass”. First Bernard Henri-Levy: “Brexit is not the victory of people, but of populism. Demagoguery not democracy”. In other words, true democracy is not the will of the citizens, but that of its politically correct leaders. Then Jacques Attali: “This is the dictatorship of populism and the selfishness of nations”. The Nation, that is the enemy. The EU must be a machine to crush common European ethnic identity.

Finally Alain Minc, the more explicit-and absurdly scornful: “The referendum is not the victory of the people of the elites, but of the uneducated”. Except that these “educated people”, devoid of common sense, ivory tower intellectuals, are, to use a word of deep French slang “idiots”. Where the common man is intelligent precisely because his mind is not polluted by brilliant, but stupid abstractions and because he has contact with every day experience-like with immigration.

The reactions of these three characters reflect both a total disregard for European peoples(rooted plebs in their minds) and class hatred by a cosmopolitan bourgeoisie disconnected from reality. Add to that Luc Ferry (Le Figaro, 07/07/2016) who refers to Montesquieu, apparently having never read him, added his two cents to anti-populism(anti-democracy), explaining that the referendum was always a bad thing because the people, who never graduated from anywhere, do not understand anything. What intelligence from Luc Ferry, a freelancer….

An Emotional Vote on Identity, not Economics

The English working class voted against the cosmopolitanism of the European Union, and in their minds, for national sovereignty. For François d’Orcival (Valeurs actuelles, 30/06 –06/07 2016) voting in favor of Brexit was all about immigration, with the invasive wave of 2016, fostered by a delusional Angela Merkel and European Commission decreeing admission quotes, organizing the invasion! Not to mention the workers from Eastern Europe.

Brexit won against serious economic arguments (the risk of a major recession) for reasons of ethnic and national identity. The electorate has been more sensitive to issues of identity , than materialistic considerations, economic and financial, even at the risk of a crisis. This is an important point for political scientists…in contrast to the cosmopolitan bourgeoisie, rooted people don’t think “money first”, but “identity first”. However, the vote in favor of Brexit comes with many ambiguities and unpredictable consequences. It’s a passport to the unknown, welcome aboard the phantom train!

Brexit Makes Sense: Britain Has Been Euro-Incompatible

Initially, the six founding nations (West Germany, Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands) were “Carolingian”-more or less consciously reconstituting the empire of Charlemagne, and therefore was incompatible with the British thalassocracy. In a January 14, 1963, press conference, General de Gaulle explained the veto of Britain into the European community as due to the antagonism between continental Europe and an anti-European merchant thalassocratic U.K. dominated as a geopolitical vassal by its former colony the United States.

De Gaulle predicted that Britain would never sincerely play the European game, but that of America. Obama fighting Brexit was quite normal, as it was for the U.K. to stay in the E.U. as a Trojan Horse.

Britain though has never really been a part of the E.U. It’s always had one foot in, and one foot out. It has not adopted the Euro or the Schengen agreement, or even 60% of the financial agreements. The British-mainly the English- schizophrenics never knew if they were European or not. The tragedy is that they show a supercilious devotion to sovereignty vis-à-vis the E.U. (and rightly so) but they abandoned their strategic sovereignty to America! Go figure…

The European Union Has Betrayed the European Idea

The idea of the European Union was initially well thought out. It is the governments of European countries, the authors of institutional abuse, political and ideological who are responsible for the failures, not “Brussels”.

Initially, with a common agricultural policy and a philosophy of continental protectionism, the European Community was going in the right direction. This has now been completely abandoned: The commission adopted unbridled free trade at the expense of European nations. (Fully opaque) negotiations to a transatlantic free trade agreement (TAFTA) is evidence of submission to the U.S.A. from a European Commission where corruption and lobbying from the U.S. are rampant. Mr. Junker, the president of the commission being the very model of transparency…

The totally absurd, European institutions (with too many “commissioners”, useless to appeal to all countries) have nothing but ineffective and undemocratic management. They are not built according to the needs of the peoples and nations of Europe, but to serve the interests of a privileged caste of eurocrats(technocratic and parliamentary) which paradoxically contains many Europhobes who abuse the system.

From the 50s, there were two visions of Europe: First, the founders Max Schumman, Alcide De Gasperi, and Konrad Adenauer: a Carolingian Europe reduced to six, with external protectionism and the maintenance of internal borders. This Europe was phased out in favor of the model of Jean Monnet(a proven Washington agent) which unfortunately prevailed over the vision of the fathers in favor of a purely mercantile and technocratic E.U. widened to nearly thirty states and led by an undemocratic Commission with grotesque regulations. So, the big jellyfish stung itself.

Do not confuse the initial draft of the European Community of Nations and the current European Union, which is really the anti-European fruit of many governments and their politicians.

The Possibility of a Neutered Brexit

Several European referendums against the E.U., notably in France and the Netherlands, have been invalidated, which is totally undemocratic. The Lisbon Treaty, ratified in 2007 by the parliament, violated the 2005 French referendum which rejected the European Constitution. It is quite possible that Brexit will suffer the same fate. It is entirely possible that the release of Britain from the E.U. will be entirely formal(legal) but not real.

It is conceivable that this British referendum if not followed by action, especially if a financial crisis arises, will not happen. Already David Cameron refused to use Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which initiates the divorce of a member country from the E.U. If his successor does, then it will be two years of negotiations before the actual departure of the United Kingdom.

The future British government will negotiate the divorce will cynically try to keep all the benefits (the financial center of the City of London may process throughout the EU, customs without access to the single market, etc.) by getting rid of disadvantages including its contribution to the EU budget. Brexit can, therefore, vanish as if it was a hologram.

Obituary For the U.K.

Great Britain(the United Kingdom), it is said, may be dismantled due to the possible secession of Scotland and Northern Ireland (Ulster), which would join the Republic of Ireland, and E.U. member. Both nations wish to remain in the E.U., not to mention Gibraltar which voted 98% remain. A new Scottish referendum on leaving the U.K. is being considered. The problem with this is that an independent Scotland applying for membership in the E.U. would face a potential veto by the Spanish State, due to the possible contagion of secession spreading to Catalonia. Not to mention Scotland phasing into the Euro.

The situation may be insoluble.

In short, the referendum for Brexit may result in the end of the UK. The Queen (or the future King) would reign only over England and Wales. This amputation of Britain would be a major geopolitical and historical impact for Europe. Think of the implications for NATO …

The European Union is No Longer Credible and Can Disappear

The European Union looks like a rather political or non-political monster. Why can it disappear? Because, like the USSR, it is a utopia; a technocratic-liberal utopia where the USSR was a technocratic-socialist utopia (or “communist”,same thing). To say this is not at all to show “anti-European” or paleo-nationalist(petty-nationalist) sentiment. A united Europe is a profound dream (Kant himself desired it) but the way it was built on the ideological project of Jean Monnet proved disastrous and, in fact, perfectly anti-European. And anti-democratic.

Further increasing the number of EU members, and integrating four new small ungovernable Balkan countries when it is already at 28 shows it is no longer seriously serious. Admitting Turkey, ruled by Islamic semi-dictator Erdogan for which negotiations continue would only be the nail in the coffin.

Technocratic bureaucracy and hyper-regulations to impose a competitive liberalism, which is a total contradiction. It makes our American competitors laugh. Not only there is no protection of borders (free trade dogma) but the EU encourages and organizes the migration invasion – with the complicity of Chancellor Merkel, it is true! A non-elected, perfectly anti-democratic body, the Commission, is assigned the kingly authority of the Council. The Parliament in Strasbourg, the blurred skills and undefined and inconsistent government, is useless except to provide exorbitant privileges to its members and their families.

Jacques Delors, former president of the European Commission, confessed to being the cynical architect of a “soft despotism.” For the European Commission, the proof of the undemocratic, and despotic, was given 4 May 2016 by the proposal to distribute authoritatively without consulting the indigenous peoples the “refugees” and “migrants” (invaders to speak clearly) on pain of a fine of € 250,000 if denied or repressed! Amazing.

Invent Another Europe!

The idea of European integration was ruined by anti-European forces in reality. The refusal to admit the “Christian roots” of Europe, is symbolic. Europe is desired without roots, open to all migratory invasions and without economic protection. The European Union or the European Colander was seen as a voluntary and objective way to destroy the historical and ethnic nations of Europe. All under the benevolent eye of Washington…
The National Front and other sovereigntists wish the demise of this current European Union, this charnel house of nations, but they have no clear alternative. The Europe of Nations, that is to say, a new European Union, is never seriously considered.

If not changed significantly, the European Union faces certain death. For its balance book is increasingly showing up in the red. The European Union has nevertheless improved economies in the East and the South through avalanche grants. But this is just a minor byproduct. In the medium and the long term, the idea of the European Union is decaying. It is very likely the European Union will break up. We need to invent something else.
It is repeated throughout the E.U. that we need it to avoid the World Wars of old. This is a bad argument because even without the E.U. this would not be possible because the next war has already begun. The war between Europeans and Muslims.

Now, after Brexit, they want to “refound the E.U.” on new foundations. But they are just drunkards swearing off a drink in the morning. For the rest of us, we must start dreaming of alternatives.

No Comments on Brexit: Quake or Squib

Exiled

Like fox-hunting, Pit Bull Terriers, and psychoactive substances, Richard Bertrand Spencer is now banned in the United Kingdom. 

Earlier this month, I received an official notice, packaged in an intriguing manilla envelope labeled “On Her Britannic Majesty’s Service.” The words reminded me of my favorite James Bond film . . . and gave me a foolish hope that I had just received a royal invitation for afternoon tea or perhaps been called into M’s office for an assignment. 

In reality, I had been banned from yet one more European country. 

Like fox-hunting, Pit Bull Terriers, and psychoactive substances, Richard Bertrand Spencer is now banned in the United Kingdom.

Earlier this month, I received an official notice, packaged in an intriguing manilla envelope labeled “On Her Britannic Majesty’s Service.” The words reminded me of my favorite James Bond film . . . and gave me a foolish hope that I had just received a royal invitation for afternoon tea or perhaps been called into M’s office for an assignment.

In reality, I had been banned from yet one more European country.

That makes 27.

Countries in which Richard Spencer is banned. Countries in which Richard Spencer is banned.

The good news is that 26 of these bans will be automatically lifted next year, as tey resulted from my Hungarian experience in 2014. That fall, I was arrested and declared a “National Security Threat” by the Hungarian government for the crime of attempting to host a conference. My punishment was a weekend in a (not-so-brutal) prison and a thee-year ban from the Schengen zone, the passport-less travel area in the heart of Europe.

In the case of Britain, my ban might get reviewed in three years, but ultimately there is “no statutory right of appeal.” Thus, quite a bit has to change in British political culture for me ever to set foot in the country again.

Who is responsible? None other than the then-Home Secretary and newly minted Prime Mistress, Theresa May. A “staunch conservative,” no doubt.

The woman herself is a mystery, much in the way that Angela Merkel is a mystery. Both are childless, frumpy, and lacking entirely in charisma, but then strikingly Machiavellian and effective. Certainly, Angela hasn’t maintained the German chancellorship for more than a decade by being a pushover. May, for her part, opposed Brexit and yet has benefited the most from it, more even than Nigel Farage, who made leaving the EU his life’s crusade.

During last summer’s refugee crisis, Merkel proved to be a self-loathing German of the highest order, even to the point of madness. May, on the other hand, has been hawkish on immigration and made clear that “Brexit means Brexit”; that is, there will be no second referendum under her leadership, and freedom of movement within the European Union will end.

Perhaps, as Matthew Tait suggested on a recent podcast, May’s office banned me as a way of balancing the scales of exclusion: for every 100 or so Muhammads, she’ll ban a couple of Richard Spencers, to signal she’s not “racist,” just an iron lady preventing “foreign influence.”

Her letter reads as follows,

Dear Mr Spencer
I am writing to inform you about the British government’s measures for excluding or deporting extremists under the Unacceptable Behaviour policy. The list of unacceptable behaviours covers any non-UK national whether in the UK or abroad who uses any means or medium including:

  • writing, producing, publishing or distributing material,
  • public speaking including preaching,
  • running a website,
  • using a position of responsibility such as a teacher, community or youth leader
    to express views that:
  • foment or justify terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs,
  • seek to provoke others to terrorist acts,
  • foment other serious criminal activity or seek to provoke others to serious criminal acts,
  • foster hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK.

Quoted are some choice passages from my speeches over the past five years in which I call for a European Ethno-State:

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 re-constitution 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.”

To sum up, I am banned from the UK for thought crimes. (No other accusations were made).

Whatever one thinks about that morally or practically, the claim that I would incite “inter-community violence” has actually already been put to the test. I’ve travelled to London many times over the past decade and spoken at two public events. To my knowledge, no neighborhoods were burned down, no adolescents were kidnapped, and no bombs were set off as a result.

And my ban can teach us two important things.

The first is. . .

The Dominance of left-liberal norms

Liberalism is fundamentally about How and What, that is, it is about “rights,” “procedures,” and “mechanisms,” with elected representatives tasked with making judgement calls. In this worldview, there is no difference between my discussion of an Ethno-State, which would protect European peoples and our shared myths and civilization, and, say, a Muslim calling for an ISIS-style Caliphate. Both are “illiberal” or “extremist.” That one is motivated as a defense of European identity, while the other is an explicit attack on it, is immaterial.

Furthermore, a true liberal ultimately has no way of opposing the transformation of a society—from an English one to an Islamic one, for example—so long as it is done socially and culturally, no laws are broken, and all the forms are filled out on time.

Nationalism and identitarianism, on the other hand, are fundamentally about Who (and not How). How a society is to be governed—whether it be a parliamentary democracy, dictatorship, constitutional monarchy, or any other form—is of secondary importance.

The second thing we learn is. . .

The need for skepticism of “conservatives” and petty nationalists

Hungary’s Viktor Orban banned me for reasons similar to those of “Aunt May.” Yet I still consider him to be the most promising politician in Western and Central Europe. His act of outlawing a conference I had organized and jailing me brought him nothing, to be sure. But I see in Orban a man who loves his people and has a sense of greater Europe.

The Brexit referendum, as so many polls have demonstrated, was fundamentally motivated by Orban’s concerns: mass immigration, cultural and physical displacement, and Islamic terrorism.

The most powerful piece of propaganda issued by the “Leave” campaign was the one called “Breaking Point,” which showed hordes of barbarians at the gates of Europe.

And yet what exactly has been accomplished by this miraculous referendum?

UKIP’s leaders, along with the Tory Brexiteer Boris Johnson, have explicitly stated that they are not interested in curtailing immigration—and, indeed, that they support amnesty and more immigration. Boris, before his Brexit apostasy, was once a vocal supporter of brining Turkey into the European Union!

The way the Brexiteers square the circle is to claim, not that they want Britain to remain White, but that they want to “take back control.” In other words, they want to dispossess their nation on their own terms. How Burkean!

For decades, it’s been convenient for British conservatives to blame Brussels for national decline. And certainly the current EU—a soulless bureaucracy, staffed by nerds, issuing arcane regulations, and incapable of confronting existential crises—is very difficult to love. But in fact, leaving the EU seems to represent little more than entering a smaller concentric circle of left-liberalism. By going back to Britain, Brexiteers will find an even larger bureaucracy per capita, one also staffed by unelected globalist liberals.

In this way, identitarianism and nationalism, properly understood, are not matters of decentralization (or secession in the U.S. context), greater democracy or parliamentarianism, or petty nationalism. Identitarianism and nationalism are about consciousness before they are about anything else. Meta-politics precedes politics; it does not come after (as the term implies). And without meta-politics, any political reform is meaningless; it is just one more loop-de-loop within the current paradigm.

And it is when this essential psychological change takes place—when we rediscover who we are—that I will proudly announce to Theresa May, I’ll be back, bitch!

Banned in the UK by richardbspencer on Scribd

No Comments on Exiled

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