Radix Journal

Radix Journal

A radical journal

Category: Race

America in 2034

One day, it is assumed, a tipping point will be reached: Decent folks will get fed up, and they will . . . they will . . . we’re never told exactly what they’ll do. Restore the Constitution? Kick the bums out? White Revolution?

Originally published at American Renaissance as a part of their “America in 2034” series.

The American Right seems to operate under a Howard Beale theory of history. The reference is to Network, the classic satire of mass media from 1976. In the film’s iconic scene, Beale, who had been a respectable news anchor, can no longer merely report on the outrages of daily life: the economic depression . . . the depravity and inhumanity . . . the corruption . . . the fear, numbness, and isolation of Americans who watch it unfold on their flickering screens. “I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!” says Beale, and he wants you to be mad, too. He exhorts viewers to get off the coach and scream out the window: “I’m a human being, God damn it!”

Network reflected a certain liberal disillusionment, but the character of Beale always struck me as a recurring avatar of right-wing reaction. He’s Nixon’s Silent Majority, who just wants the cops to crack down on hippies, hoodlums, and faggots . . . the Middle American who goes to Washington . . . the Tea Party patriot who’s ready to take his country back . . . . The most successful conservative personalities have been the most emotionally unhinged, that is, the ones who crafted their personae on Beale.

And conservatives of all varieties seem to think like Beale, too. According to their logic, as time goes on, things keep getting worse: taxes, gays, illegal immigrants, philandering politicians, race hustlers, und so weiter. . . . One day, it is assumed, a tipping point will be reached: Decent folks will get fed up, and they will . . . they will . . . we’re never told exactly what they’ll do. Restore the Constitution? Kick the bums out? White Revolution? Pastor David Manning predicts that at some point red-blooded, God-fearing white people will get so angry that they will riot. (The Pastor will join them.)

There is a kernel of truth to this view, as sometimes seemingly insignificant or passing slights or frustrations ignite historical struggles on the grandest scale: The French Revolution, for instance, was sparked by a bad grain harvest.

That said, “Bealeans” are blind to the way we can absorb and assimilate negativity, and thus maintain the hegemony of the status quo. This often takes the form of a recurring cycle:

  1. White America begins in a state of passivity and uneasy contentment. (In Beale’s words, “Let me have my toaster and my TV and my steel-belted radials, and I won’t say anything. Just leave me alone.”)
  2. At some point, a shock to the system occurs–something surprising, new, or exogenous: Wall Street Bailouts, Barack Obama, Benghazi, etc.
  3. White Americans are then presented formal ways of venting: voting for a political party, joining a mass protest movement like the Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street, etc.
  4. The shock dissipates, and whites are frustrated by the failures of activism. They return to where they started: passivity and uneasy contentment.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat. This circle is continuous, predictable, and, possibly, endless. In other words, we’re mad as hell and we are going to take this anymore!

In considering the future of race relations, I can envision a variety of macro-possibilities:

  1. A linear extension of what’s happening now: Life for Whites will get progressively more expensive, troublesome and unpleasant, but remain somehow bearable. The void of existence will be filled with techo-gadgets, make-work, and pornography. Dispossession will be a slow burn.
  2. Or there could be more interesting times ahead, as Gerald Celente and Piero San Giorgio have vividly described them: America’s elite loses control, loses it nerve, or goes too far: hyperinflation . . . political dissolution . . . war and civil unrest . . . in a word, collapse.
  3. Or perhaps the 20th century isn’t over. The revelations of Edward Snowden prophesy a new brand of totalitarianism in which all aspects of private life—even our thoughts—are monitored by a paranoid regime. The deconstruction of gender, race, and class (at the moment, an academic concern) will be enforced by the federal police. Perversity was once forbidden; it became a right; it will one day be compulsory.

Each one these scenarios follows logically from clear tendencies within our time. What’s critical is that in this spectrum, I can imagine most all white people just sitting back and taking it. (In Network, Howard Beale ultimately became a harmless parody, finally shot dead on camera after his ratings sagged.)

But I can also imagine, in any one of the above scenarios, white men rediscovering themselves and recapturing their world. And this need not happen when faced with annihilation or the jackboot. As Hamlet observed, the truly great man will “find quarrel in a straw / When honor’s at the stake.”

The past and future of race relations are truly the past and future of how Europeans understand themselves. Events, policies, demographics—these are of secondary importance in comparison to will. Man is a social animal, and he is also an interpreter: He is the one who (sometime desperately) makes sense of his being, his history, and his world–and in interpreting them, he changes them.

In 1893, Frederick Jackson Turner posited the “frontier” as the landscape of the American psyche. For the past 50 years, this has transformed into its quainter cousin, “suburbia.” The modern American Dream hinges on the assumption that we can comfortably escape social problems–which have largely been matters of race–by moving to the new development a half hour outside the city. There, one can create–at tremendous unseen cost–a simulacrum of a 1950s small town, replete with all-white schools and a Gap.

Whatever one might think of suburbia as a way of life, its bubble has most definitely burst. Might the closing of this frontier be an opportunity for us to finally confront the consequences, not only of race, but of our own blindness, weakness, and wishful thinking? I hope so. For the goal is not just to get mad at the world, but to change it.

No Comments on America in 2034

Christopher Priest’s Fugue for a Darkening Island

Originally published in 1971, Fugue for a Darkening Island was Christopher Priest’s second novel. The scenario is similar to that explored by Jean Raspail in The Camp of the Saints,…

Originally published in 1971, Fugue for a Darkening Island was Christopher Priest’s second novel. The scenario is similar to that explored by Jean Raspail in The Camp of the Saints, and the outcome nearly identical, but the arguments and point of view are markedly different.

Africa has been ravaged by all manner of natural and man-made disasters. With the emergence of a number of nuclear states, and the inevitable nuclear exchange, the Dark Continent has become uninhabitable. There are survivors, however, and great multitudes of starving, poor, desperate Africans set sail for the north. Over a period, dilapidated boats loaded with thousands run aground on British shores, some going as far as the River Thames, in London. The government at first seems baffled, unable to stop them, or take decisive action to prevent the boats from coming ashore. The Africans land and quickly disappear into the cities. This, incidentally, is exactly what has been happening lately in Spain’s southern border, where African migrants have changed tactics and, instead of attempting to slip into Europe in small numbers, now organise nocturnal raiding parties, climbing fences several thousand at a time, thus making it impossible for the border authorities to stop them. In the Priest’s novel, the landings carry on until eventually the island ends up with two million invaders, which in the novel are referred to as ‘refugees’. A ‘Right-wing’ government—by which we must understand not fascism, but something along the lines of Enoch Powell’s brand of conservatism—takes strong measures to protect British subjects, aiming to contain and eventually expel the invaders. The invaders, however, organise into ‘Afrim’ militias, which soon begin raiding English towns and forcing people out of their homes. The country descends into a civil war: on the one hand, there are the Nationalists, who are with the government; on the other are the Secessionists, who want to restore order and give full citizenship and rights to the ‘refugees’.

Against this background we follow the story of one Alan Whitman, a university lecturer. Whitman’s marriage is a shambles: his wife, Isobel, seems sexually frigid (though it later transpires that she feels neglected), and his response is to philander serially and indiscriminately, driven purely by his sexual urge. The Whitmans have a daughter, Sally, who is the ostensible reason the marriage still holds—ostensible, because both adult parties are a state of avoidance and denial. In due course, the Whitmans lose their home and are forced into the countryside, where Alan has his wife and their daughter living like animals, without a decisive plan of action, and without the wherewithal to do what is necessary to get them to a safe destination. This unchains a series of events. First, Isobel leaves him, and, though they are later on reunited, he then loses her again when Afrim militiamen take her and their daughter away from him at gunpoint, to be shuttled away who knows where. By this time Alan has ended up with a group of British refugees, led by one Rafiq, of indeterminate origin. Initially, the group avoids committing to any faction. When the gang finds a cargo of firearms amid the ruins of a Nationalist convoy, however, Rafiq decides to organise the group into a militia, but Alan, a pacifist, walks away, averse to committing himself politically or to violence. Whitman is, indeed, thoroughly unheroic: weak, spineless, indecisive, and liberal. Predictably, he is detached when the crisis first develops—a gape-mouthed witness, predominantly preoccupied with his numerous love affairs, when a boatful of invaders wedges itself against the London Bridge, right under his nose; he then sides with the invaders, presumably speaking up for their human rights (though about the specifics we are not told); he subsequently loses his job when the university is closed down, forcing into manual labour; and even then he is in denial, acting only as and when circumstances leave him without options. His actions, on such occasions, are invariably prissy and limp-wristed. He steadfastly refuses to support the Nationalist cause, thinking it racist. It is a miracle he survives as long as he does.

From the narrative, the author’s sympathies seem to lean in one direction: the Nationalists are spoken of or portrayed as extremists, their measures as repressive and counter-productive, and their supporters as creepy Neanderthals in suits; the Secessionists, by contrast, tend to give Whitman fairer treatment, and he, of course, deems their vision for a resolution the superior one. Nevertheless, Priest does not make any effort to humanise the Africans: they are like shadows in the landscape, emotionless, and utterly ruthless throughout; from the most part they are a distant menace. Priest also seems to view avoiders and deniers with amazement and contempt, for avoidance and denial afflicts not only Whitman; they are, indeed, a theme throughout the novel.

In the end, and as always, events force Whitman to commit himself against his liberal judgment. Afrim militiamen had used the white women abducted by them to set up brothels and thereby establish a method for procuring supplies. Rumour has it that his wife and daughter were likely taken to one of the brothels along the Southern coast. He finds the brothel and the family is reunited, except that his wife and daughter are now two out of a score of female bodies rotting on the beach. That same evening, we are told, Whitman murders a young African, steals his gun, and goes back into the countryside. That’s where the story ends.

The 2011 edition of this novel offers a revised version of the original. In his preface, Priest explains that, at the time, he had simply set out to write a disaster story, against the background of events in post-colonial Britain such as Enoch Powell’s ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech, but that the language of race relations had changed in the intervening time, causing a novel that was initially praised for anti-racism to be condemned for racism. He deemed this too much of a distraction, so he updated the text to substitute nowadays troublesome words like ‘Negro’ and ‘coloured’ with politically correct terms, in an effort to leave the text ‘politically neutral’. I don’t think it is, and this impression is accentuated by the veering into speechification towards the end of the novel, when Whitman realises his own uselessness and his wasted life on the periphery. And yet, though I suppose the intention is for the reader to view Whitman’s conversion to militiadom as a tragedy, an unintended and yet equally possible reading is that the effete Whitman finally discovers his manhood and goes out to earn his right to be called a citizen, reality’s repeated bites having finally instigated the growth of a spine.

No Comments on Christopher Priest’s Fugue for a Darkening Island

New Vistas for American Renaissance

For more than 20 years, American Renaissance and Jared Taylor have set the standard for a White consciousness movement. Others have undertaken this mission: William Pierce, Revilo Oliver, Willis Carto, among them. But Jared has been most successful in adhering to the norms of modern political organization. AmRen has, for two decades, focused on a few key issues that are (or should be) harmonious with “American values”: free association, the legitimacy of group interests, and the scientific study of genetic differences.

For more than 20 years, American Renaissance and Jared Taylor have set the standard for a White consciousness movement. Others have undertaken this mission: William Pierce, Revilo Oliver, Willis Carto, among them. But Jared has been most successful in adhering to the norms of modern political organization. AmRen has, for two decades, focused on a few key issues that are (or should be) harmonious with “American values”: free association, the legitimacy of group interests, and the scientific study of genetic differences.

Jared has also avoided the obsessions and crankiness that have, unfortunately, characterized much of American racialism.  (I have long been under the impression that many in alternative or dissident movements like to indulge in their own marginalization, perhaps out of a desire to shock for shock’s sake, or as a preemptive excuse for failures in life.)  With Jared and AmRen, there is a certain radicalness in mainstreaming, in presenting ideas that have world-changing consequences in packages that seem mellow and respectable.

American Renaissance’s 2014 conference took place just outside Nashville, Tennessee, in comfortable Montgomery Bell State Park.  It marked the 20th anniversary of AmRen events, a fact that was mentioned only briefly by Jared, perhaps not wanting to dwell on the past. Fittingly, the conference marked a certain milestone.

This had something to do with the contingent of scruffy leftists that protested for an hour or so on Saturday afternoon. It was hard not to chuckle at their signs, which sported crudely drawn swastikas, and their chants, which were a mixture of vague physical threats, vague Marxism, and vague demands for liberal tolerance. Nevertheless, their presence made the conference feel relevant and “real,” not merely academic.  (The Forces of Diversity were significantly fewer than last year, probably due to the fact that their previous protest failed to persuade state authorities to shut down the 2013 event.)  

For me, the real milestone was the speeches themselves. Indeed, as I listened, I sensed that an evolution of sorts was taking place. The talks of Jack Donovan, RamZPaul, and John Morgan—as well as Alex Kurtagic’s speech in 2012 and my own in 2013—all presented racialism “in a different key.” Perhaps they even presented a reversal of some of the rhetoric that informed AmRen gatherings of the past two decades.

But I’m getting ahead of myself.

The Scientists

Saturday morning began with the always entertaining John Derbyshire, the kind of man we all wish had been our professor in anthropology or the history of science in college.  But I’m afraid I wasn’t able to detect much of a through-line in this year’s presentation. It struck me as wandering romp through Chinese history. Interesting at times, but never necessary.

The next speaker, Douglas Whitman, who presented on the biological reality of race, was a revelation.  Whitman’s talk was stimulating, sensible, and generous (though he did twice refer to “those slimy Marxists!”). The revelation was Whitman himself. He struck me as the kind of man, Henry Harpending is another, who could be of tremendous value to our movement. He possesses academic authority (he’s a professor at Illinois State University); he clearly cares about his race and civilization; and he is a “happy warrior.”  He also gave us a great slogan for a T-shirt: “Society is a racial construct.”

The Way of Men

It was with Jack Donovan’s talk that the “evolution” was in full effect.  It’s worth noting that Jack Donovan has never identified himself as a “racialist,” “White nationalist,” or “White advocate”; and he is more often attacked as a “self-hating homosexual” or a “misogynist.” Certainly, much about his personal history has rubbed fundamentalists the wrong way…  But even the most truculent paleoconservative would struggle to deny that Jack’s talk was insightful and masterfully composed.

One dominant mode of thought in American racialism, and AmRen in particular, is that Blacks and Third World immigrants are “unassimilable” and, if they are present in large numbers, would destroy American society as we know it.  This is certainly true. But such a view fails to help us understand why our current demographic disaster is happening and why Whites are so incapable of resisting it.  Jack suggests that the problem is not simply “foreigners” but the very structure of American life—and how this has been psychically internalized by White people. The modern American White man is a “free agent”: a man who has little loyalty to his place, friends, co-workers, and likely has never met his neighbors. (We can all see a little bit of ourselves in Jack’s description.)

Loyalty limits your options. Loyalty to no one opens your options.  You become a mercenary… . “Discrimination” becomes a dirty word… not because it is evil, but primarily because it is unprofitable.

Jack argues that White dispossession is predicated on Whites’ own embrace of the mentality of the consumer, the careerist, and the money-accumulator. His indictment is thus not simply of “socialism” (the perennial bogeyman of the American Right) but “capitalism,” or more precisely “capitalist man.”  And it is capitalism—debt, shopping, buying and selling—that has become the American elite’s favored form of social organization. As Jack states, “Hopeless people without dreams”—without identity, without a history, and without a future—“are easy to control.”

In a moving coda, Jack observed that the ultimate outcome of American meaninglessness is not just the obsessed shopper and salesman but the hipster and SWiPL.  These are people whose identity is irony, whose dress, language, and tastes are in sarcastic quotation marks. (Imagine a smirking hipster sporting a lumberjack beard, drinking a Pabst Blue Ribbon beer, wearing ‘80s Rayban knockoffs, and a T-shirt featuring an Atari game from his childhood.)

Contemporary racialism certainly has its share of ironists, those whose activism amounts to gawking at the latest Black-on-White criminal outrage or debating the best way to pick up unstable women at bars. Jack proffers radical “sincerity” as the alternative. Leftists of the last century discriminated between the armchair Marxist and the writer who was “committed” (“engagé”) to revolution. We should do the same.

Life as a White Minority

Jack was followed by three speakers who reported on White racialism in other lands. The first was Philip Craik, who discussed the community of Orania on South Africa’s northern Cape. Orania is an enclave that is exclusively for the Boer people, the “White Tribe” of Dutch Protestants who trekked through Africa and settled in its southern region in the 17th century. Orania represents a distinctively post-Apartheid survival strategy for Boers: it is a secure community that is semi-sovereign and could be compared to a state or municipal government in America: its restrictions are something like citizenship, and it governs and regulates construction and economic activity.

Orania “just works”: the entrepreneurs who created it turned an abandoned settlement into a thriving farming town. But at the end of the day, Orania remains under the dominion of the South African government, and thus the African National Congress. I was surely not the only one who imagined that little Orania might be too tempting a prize for the ANC to seize and plunder if the opportunity arose. I was also surely not the only one who wished that Craik had spent less time recounting the history of the Boers and showing us an Orania promotional video, both of which we could have found online, and instead talked about various survival strategies for Whites as racial minorities.

Nationalism and Beyond

Next came John Morgan, a “citizen of the world” in the best sense of the term: John is an American who created a Euro-centric publishing firm, Arktos Media, which was based in India and now operates out of Hungary. Last winter, John had the opportunity to speak to protestors—and ultimately revolutionaries—from Ukraine’s Euromaidan movement to remove Victor Yanukovych from power.

Whatever one might think about Maidan, the Right Sector, and Svoboda—I must admit that I am not sympathetic—John had a chance to become, in a small way, a part of history; and the Traditionalism (with a capital T) that Arktos advocates became a part of history, too. As John relates, “The political struggle is an outward form of a cultural struggle.” As America is dominated by a religious culture that is “thoroughly corrupted by liberalism, thoroughly moronic, or both,” Morgan suggested that we look towards Eastern Europe as a source, or at least as a model, of authentic nationalism.

There were two things that were conspicuously absent in John’s talk. (Yes, I know it is unfair to criticize a speaker for what he did not say. ) The first was Russia, and in particular the development of the country over the past 25 years—from leading a “Communist” empire that was, to a large degree, an expression of traditional Russian imperialism to the humiliation of the 1990s and, most recently, to Russia’s reentering the geopolitical stage as the preeminent counterweight to U.S. hegemony. Surely this is more lasting and consequential than Ukrainian ethno-nationalism?

The second conspicuous absence was a discussion of the problems of nationalism in itself, especially as it has been expressed by groups like Right Sector. No doubt, most in the audience would concur that nationalism is a natural and healthy form of politics for all peoples. That said, modern racialism comes, as Sam Dickson noted in his talk, in the wake of extremely destructive and fratricidal forms of nationalism that arose throughout the 20th century (and, of course, much earlier). However deeply Right Sector might be influenced by Tradition, it is primarily motivated by passionate (and, to a degree, understandable) historical grudges against Russia (as an embodiment of the Soviet Union), Jews, and Germans. Could even the most hard-core fellow traveller really look forward to yet another violent conflagration between White people? Thus, one of our most important tasks—and one for which Traditionalism could be a great aid—is to form a cosmopolitan, that is, pan-European nationalism, an identity that stretches beyond ethnicity, tribe, religious sectarianism, and the disputes that have, from time to time, turned the continent into a slaughter bench. My sense is that in this all-important project, Ukrainian nationalists won’t be of much use.

After John, the English barrister and long-time nationalist advocate Adrian Davies chimed in about developments in Western Europe. Adrian is a talented orator, who can be concise and humorous while speaking extemporaneously. He was rather bullish on the prospects for European nationalist parties in the coming years. France’s Front National, for one, has not only survived the retirement of its long-time leader, Jean-Marie Le Pen, but has actually increased its popularity under his daughter, Marine. Adrian noted that the FN has been successful in finding a new constituency: the working class, which has certainly been affected by the flood of unskilled, Third World immigrants.

It’s worth noting that Radix’s Roman Bernard has been much more bearish on recent trends within the FN. In a podcast following FN’s recent electoral gains, Roman argued that the party hasn’t so much brought its ideals to the working class as it has begun to be defined by the outlook and tastes of this new constituency: this includes dropping the FN’s traditionalist character and even promoting non-White politicians.

Across the channel, British Nationalism is in turmoil. Much of this has to do the rise and fall of the British Nationalist Party: throughout the first decade of the 21st century, the BNP scored a series of electoral coups that seemed to many of us like breakthroughs. But as this decade began, major figures and factions within the BNP lost confidence in its leader, Nick Griffin. In 2013 a new competing party was formed, the British Democratic Party.1

One of the biggest beneficiaries of this disorder has been the United Kingdom Independence Party. UKIP’s platform is “Euro-skeptic” and libertarian, and the party’s identity has become intrinsically linked with its charismatic frontman, Nigel Farage. Beneath the façade, however, UKIP has succeeded by being the Party of general right-wing protest and unspoken racialism (as UKIP’s detractors correctly observe). In other words, much as in America, nationalist energies are being articulated through inherently liberal rhetoric. As Adrian argued,

UKIP is made up of people whose instincts are fundamentally sound… but they are still too obsessed with Anglo-Saxon concepts we need to put behind us: unlimited individualism, the great benefit of unfettered capitalism, etc.

Could UKIP be “co-opted” by the system? Adrian asked a higher-level question, “Can the establishment co-op UKIP and remain the establishment?” Unfortunately, my answer must be “yes.” In 2009, major establishment figures were genuinely disturbed by the Tea Party, which seemed to advocate something like anarcho-nationalism. Conventional Republicans were being reframed as radicals, or were being “dared” into making radical statements by populist forces. The governor of Texas, Rick Perry, went as far as voicing the potential of secession (!). In a short period of time, however, the Tea Party beoame a barely distinguishable wing of the GOP. (Perry now mostly talks about prison reform.)

Predictably, insurgent populist parties—UKIP, the Tea Party, the BNP, the Euroskeptics, und so weiter—ride a wave of negative social mood, but fail to articulate an end goal or real alternative to the current order. UKIP’s guiding fantasy appears to be the good ol’ days of Margaret Thatcher, that is, an earlier stage of liberalism and racial decline. The ability of the established order to absorb such energies should not be underestimated.

Counter Revolution

After our group enjoyed a steak dinner, we were treated to a lecture on the so-called “Dark Enlightenment” by noted YouTuber “RamZPaul.” “Comedic stylings” is probably a better term than lecture, or perhaps “serious comedy.” RamZPaul has the rare gift of timing, and the ability to deliver a joke in a deceptively bumbling manner, à la Bill Murray.

The Dark Enlightenment (which RamZ’s talk equated with “neo-reaction”) is a decisively “alt Right” phenomenon that doesn’t merely differ with policies of the mainstream Right—it opposes the root assumptions on which they are based. According to the DE, all flavors of the American political spectrum—from the Tea Party to Republicans to Democrats to leftists; from Richard Dawkins to Andrew Sullivan to Cliven Bundy—are all fundamentally liberal in nature. They may have passionate disagreements over style, the scope of government and the military, or the role of religion, but these are disagreements over means, not ends. They each hope to inaugurate a society organized by individual rights, the market, and a benign government, in which every person will pursue his or her chosen form of “happiness.” The entire American experiment—from the Declaration to legalized gay marriage—was a liberal disruption of the traditional order of God-Church/State-People. (Martin Luther, it could be said, was the first, though unintentional, “progressive.”)

I often find argumentation like this to shift between profound truth-telling to “all is lost!” fatalism to “I’m more right-wing than you!” geekiness. Perhaps any successful movement needs a little bit of each? Whatever one thinks about DE, the “take-away” is that race is not “everything”; it might not even be the most important thing; it could be that the racial crisis is a symptom of a deeper crisis at the heart of Occidental civilization that has persisted for centuries.

In the subsequent Q&A, I caused a bit of a stir by asking whether liberal universalism was predicated, not simply on Luther, but on Christian monotheism itself. Moreover, as Christianity loses sovereignty in the hearts and minds of European peoples, might this offer an opportunity to rethink our relationship with the “Other”: to view other cultures and races not as more souls/individuals to be converted to Christianity/integrated into democratic capitalism, but to see them as different peoples with their own pasts, destinies, and, indeed, gods. It became obvious that RamZ and many in the audience are not quite ready to follow me down this path … which is fine.

Can We Handle the Truth?

Sunday featured two speakers who have addressed each and every AmRen conference since 1994: Sam Dickson and, of course, Jared Taylor. The centerpiece of Jared’s talk was his claim that White people are not simply motivated by their material interests or greed or ethnocentrism; they possess a moral imagination. That is, they genuinely care about the suffering of others—other people in their race, other people of other races, and even animals and the natural world. This can be, in Jared’s estimation, a wonderful thing; it is a quintessentially White trait that is the basis of a civilization that values recognition and dignity. Jared’s urged us not to simply to view “liberals” as our enemies, but to speak to them honestly and in good faith.2

Sam Dickson closed the conference with a talk on the converse to cliché “truth will set you free”: lies will make you slave. Modern America—maybe the entire modern world—is in the grips of the lie of human equality. For any “conservative” who remains an equality-slave, he can ultimately conserve no great tradition, nor anything of value at all. The concept of race is ultimately that of an extended family, of a people that has interbred for millennia and that has a shared historical experience. If race is meaningless or fraudlent, then why not do away with nation and “family values” as well. If America is simply an accumulation of individuals from around the globe who believe in equality, then what right does one have to prevent any “potential American” from immigrating? Echoing his talk from NPI’s conference this fall, Sam suggests that America has, from its very beginnings, been slave to individualism and an anti-Europeanism that has obscured its racial identity.

As usual, I found myself resonating with Sam’s oration … but afterwards, I began to think that his central metaphor—“Lies will make you slave”—might have masked more than it revealed. Has the American racialist movement been empowered by the scientific study of racial differences? To a certain degree, yes. I have met individuals who have changed their minds as new evidence was presented to them. But such people are quite rare; they have the personality type of the free spirit, scientist, or revolutionary, who takes opinions regardless of their consequences. (I’m reminded of Martin Luther’s famous declaration, “Ich kann nicht anders!”)

But if the history of American racialism has taught us anything, it is that the truth has not set us free—and, furthermore, that truth is always molded, informed, and concealed by political power, social pressure, hopes, and wishful thinking. Martin Luther King Jr. was, from our perspective, never in possession of the “truth,” but he was set free by a “dream”—the idea that emancipating his people would be uplifting to all of humanity. This “dream” has remained powerful for decades, despite the mountains of IQ studies, crime statistics, and evolutionary theorizing put forth by our movement. I certainly don’t mean to say that these publications don’t have value—I’ve been involved in publishing a great many of them—but for us to build a movement and ultimately hold power, the ”truth” is insufficient. It’s fitting that in the second half of Sam’s talk, he discussed creating a master narrative of the White race, involving our connection to the ancients, the age of the cathedrals, and high culture of Europe. With stories like this, what we omit is as important as what we include.

Articulating Racialism

Monarchy … the problems of Americanism and capitalism … race isn’t everything after all … the former Soviet bloc is healthier spiritually than the so-called “free world” …

What’s happening here?

Perhaps the best way to describe this “new key” for American Renaissance is that activists are finding—indeed, forced by events to find–new ways of articulating some of the basic principles of our movement: that race is real, that race matters, and that race is an indispensable component of any form of nationalism or traditionalism. For decades during the Cold War, racialism was articulated as “anti-Communism,” with the Soviet Union cast as a violent, egalitarian superpower. For AmRen, which was founded in the wake of the Cold War, racialism could be imagined as a wing of conservatism or libertarianism: if liberals were dedicated to violating free association and equalizing society, “race realists” could best understand the limits of state power. Each of these perspectives is valid, in its way, but as this year’s AmRen conference made clear, an exploration of new vistas is being undertaken. This is, to a large degree, generational, but not merely so. If the “alt Right”—or Dark Enlightenment or Reactionary-sphere or Manosphere or whatever—is to be successful, it must not merely be dissident; it must be necessary.


  1. This year’s AmRen gathering could have been a BDP showcase of sorts, as its leader, Andrew Brons, was scheduled to appear. But he pulled out at the last minute due to visa issues; the advertised “mystery guest” (who was also not able to appear) was rumored to be connected to British Nationalism.  
  2. Jared’s talk reminded me of an excellent debate that took place between Jared and Sam Francis in the pages of American Renaissance in the mid-’90s, and which inspired, to my mind, one of Francis’s greatest essays.  
No Comments on New Vistas for American Renaissance

STIHIE: Cambridge Grad Stands By Jamaican Rapist Husband

An elite education certainly does not buy common sense as the tale of this one Cambridge University graduate shows.

An elite education certainly does not buy common sense as the tale of this one Cambridge University graduate shows:

A Cambridge University graduate has defended her sex predator husband who told his victim he was raping her because ‘he didn’t get sex from his wife’.

Adriana Ford-Thompson, a York University research and teaching fellow, described her 37-year-old husband Mark Thompson – branded a danger to women by the judge – as ‘gentle, kind and sensitive’.

The environmentalist said the jury had ‘taken my husband away from me’ by finding him guilty, before he was given life in jail for the kidnap and rape of a student and sex attacks on three other women…

Here’s the background on how the couple met and how he viciously attacked the student he was convicted of raping:

Thompson moved from Jamaica to London at the age of 16, where he took up boxing, before heading to Tanzania in 2005 to teach martial arts.

He met his wife while she was over there conducting research and in 2007 moved to York to be with her while she finished her PhD. They married in 2009.

The jury which convicted Thompson heard he put the student in a headlock and dragged her to his van which he had parked around the corner.

He told the terrified young woman: ‘You have two options – you can give me what I want and you tell nobody what has happened, or tonight is the night you die.’

Read more of this story at The Daily Mail if you are so brave.

Oh, and here’s a picture of the happy couple together on their wedding day.

As Gregory Hood wrote, “Marriage is Dead, Long live Marriage.” Once again, this is another example of the insidiousness of interracial marriage and how it has to require a mentally ill mind, like this woman has, to justify and rationalize it. Let’s hope she doesn’t remarry.

No Comments on STIHIE: Cambridge Grad Stands By Jamaican Rapist Husband

The Negro and The Instagram

Last week was quite the time for old, seemingly white men to make racial comments about blacks.

Last week was quite the time for old, seemingly White men to make racial comments about Blacks.

We first had Cliven Bundy discuss the problems of the Negro. The media unsurprisingly convulsed in anger in response. It wasn’t anything you wouldn’t have heard on an average day on Fox or Rush Limbaugh – it was just expressed in a way that made it easier fodder for The Daily Show to mock and made it harder for the conservative media to stand by him.

Then we had the leaked tape of the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers disparaging his girlfriend for associating with blacks (even though she is a mulatto herself). That led to many calling for Sterling to lose his ownership and prompted sponsors to flee from his team.

Both the controversy surrounding Cliven Bundy and that of Donald Sterling present an interesting study of prevalent attitudes towards race by different elements of American society. I would like to call these two views: “the colorblind negro” and “the high-status instagram.”

Bundy represents red state America—the tea party demographic to be more precise. As a cattle rancher living out in rural Nevada, he’s a natural voter for the Republican Party and makes the stereotypical consumer of conservative talking points. He became a cause célèbre of the Right because he withstood the federal government’s entrenchment on his private property and transformed it into the excesses of big government versus the constitutional rights of citizens.

It was somewhat of a farce to begin with and seemed like a situation that could’ve only been dreamed up by Rand Paul’s campaign staff—if it hadn’t actually happened. A rancher symbolizing the entirety of Middle America took on the government to protect the (technically illegal) grazing area of his cows and spit on the regulations aimed to protect an endangered turtle. While an inspiring act to stand up to the guns of the Bureau of Land Management, it’s ultimately an act over cows—nothing more.

But since it had nothing to do with race and was largely an economic issue, the right turned Bundy into a folk hero and made his fight righteous in the eyes of the GOP’s demographic.

Then he used the word “Negro” and compared welfare to slavery. That went over the conservative movement’s red line on acceptable race-baiting and they quickly moved to denounce him. What he said wasn’t even racist and if put in a different context, as Peter Brimelow has pointed out, would’ve been the basis of a Paul Ryan speech on inner city outreach:

“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.

“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

Gregory Hood has correctly pointed out that this is just the all-too familiar conservative line about the dreaded “liberal plantation,” meaning the welfare state that keeps blacks enslaved to dependency.

But we all know that blacks choose to be on welfare because it is better than working at dead-end jobs and blacks instinctively know that as a group, they will never succeed or move up in America’s economy.

Government subsidies sound a whole lot more enticing than a shitty job as a janitor. Speaking of janitors… Bundy kinda likes these Hispanics who are replacing blacks at the low-skilled jobs they used to hold:

“Now let me talk about the Spanish people. Now I understand that they come over here against our Constitution and cross our borders. But they’re here, and they’re people. And I’ve worked beside a lot of them. Don’t tell me they don’t work, and don’t tell me they don’t pay taxes. And don’t tell me they don’t have better family structures than most of us white people. When you see those Mexican families, they’re together, they picnic together, they’re spending their time together. And I’ll tell you, in my way of thinking, they’re awful nice people. And we need to have those people going to be with us – not not coming to our party.”

Once again, Cliven Bundy sounds more like Paul Ryan than Jared Taylor.

And his vision is the same: a colorblind America where every person who works hard, respects the Constitution and goes to a megachurch on Sunday is welcome here.

That vision is a fantasy that is unfortunately shared by far too many whites in this country, but believed by hardly any non-whites. As our country continues to balkanize along racial lines, many conservative whites will keep dreaming that one day non-whites will accept their colorblind vision and finally assimilate into the America of their youth.

That won’t happen – but the idea continues to lie at the heart of the conservative multiracialism that Bundy embraces.

That won’t save him though, and no matter how much he says that Martin Luther King would be on his side or how many irrelevant black conservatives they find to defend him, Bundy is a lost cause.

Even though he could stand up to the assault rifles of federal agents, he couldn’t stand up to the charges of racism.

The case of Donald Sterling, on the other hand, presents a more interesting and less covered view of race.

Sterling is a multi-millionaire who lives in Los Angeles and owns a professional basketball team in arguably America’s most multicultural city. He also happens to be Jewish (he was born Donald Tokowitz), has a mulatto girlfriend, earned a lifetime achievement award from the NAACP for the millions of dollars he’s given them, and the only political candidates he has donated to have been Democrats.

Did I also mention that his sport of choice is the blackest sport, both culturally and proportionally, in America? Even President Obama admitted the fact when he ritually condemned Sterling for his racist comments

In the end, Sterling doesn’t cut the model for who the media would normally deem a bigot – but that doesn’t mean they haven’t noticed his racial views in the past.

Sterling made his millions as a real-estate mogul in Los Angeles. He owes a significant amount of his success to discriminatory practices that barred blacks and Hispanics from renting apartments from his business. He preferred Koreans and whites who he felt were better tenants. His opinions on blacks is that they “smell and attract vermin” and that Hispanics “smoke, drink and just hang around the building.”

He ran his business with common sense racial views that blacks and Hispanics would drive away potential renters and lower the value of the properties he was leasing.

Even how he runs his basketball team reflects that he has a certain understanding of racial differences. In a lawsuit filed by a former player, it was alleged that Sterling wanted a team stocked full of poor blacks from the South with a stern, white head coach managing them. You could say it was like a plantation system, and the left has even appropriated the conservative movement’s terminology to attack Sterling’s management style.

What ultimately did him in was his criticism of his mulatto girlfriend for associating with blacks. It focused solely on how it looks low-class and trashy – he doesn’t mind his paramour fucking them of course, he just doesn’t want pictures of her with them on “the instagram.” The idea is that attractive females (in his opinion, she’s not attractive at all in mine) shouldn’t be seen with black men, no matter how successful they are, because it lowers their status.

Sterling’s take on race is further outside of what mainstream society would tolerate than Bundy’s. As a more cynical and crass version of John Derbyshire’s “The Talk,” Sterling has admitted that blacks generate poor living environments, require the leadership of whites to do anything and should not be associated with publicly if you desire respectability. While Derbyshire’s talk was centered on protecting yourself and your kin from potential threats, Sterling’s views are solely about accumulating wealth and status.

In other words, he’s still a vile human being. Not because he’s an alleged racist, but because he cynically utilizes these views to eke out a luxurious existence and entertain himself through the blackest sport in America. He cares nothing about improving society or living by higher ideals, he only cares about himself.

While his views on race are far more realistic than Bundy’s naiveté, Bundy is the far more respectable character when compared with the odious personality of Sterling.

But both of their views on race are completely wrong. Bundy thinks that if we just stop seeing race and judge people on their “content of their character,” that “the negro” will finally assimilate into American society. Sterling, on the other hand, knows that this is a false notion and non-whites will never assimilate to the status of whites, Jews and Asians – and that’s why he doesn’t want pictures with them on “the instagram.”

Bundy represents an antiquated notion of America that no longer exists (and that’s proven by his ignorance at knowing the term Negro is now considered offensive), while Sterling represents a view that is becoming more prevalent as the upper class attempts to safely navigate a multiracial America and still preserve established notions of prestige (and that’s why he cares so much about his mistress preserving a high-status instagram).

Identitarians should reject both notions. Neither will preserve white identity and both are mental aberrations. Blacks will never embrace the delusion of economic freedom and treating blacks like plantation chattel is utterly vile. The view of Bundy will die soon, but it is possible that the views of Sterling will become more prevalent as more of the meritocracy drop their racial illusions to ensure their own personal security.

But it won’t save them when the non-white hordes they’ve manipulated for years decide to whip out the machetes.

Both views are a result of America’s twilight and reflect the decline in our society. We have to embrace racial views that always place our people’s interest first and never seeks to make our existence as atomized individuals the priority. We have to view ourselves as a collective and attempting to just make our individual lives more comfortable will no longer work. That is the Donald Sterling view of race.

Ethnocentrism is what we should strive for and is an viewpoint that will ensure our people’s survival – not the “colorblind negro” or the “high-status instagram.”

No Comments on The Negro and The Instagram

STIHIE: Boss Wedding

If you needed any proof to confirm Gregory Hood’s assertion that marriage is a dying institution, look no further than the wedding promo video “Boss Wedding.”

We’re bringing back Alternative Right’s famoous “So This Is How It Ends” feature, which highlights particularly insane current events and developments that remind us that we are truly “Revolting Against The Modern World”

If you needed any proof to confirm Gregory Hood’s assertion that marriage is a dying institution, look no further than the wedding promo video “Boss Wedding.”

Made to imitate a rap video, “Boss Wedding” features an interracial couple (pretty blonde/black dude pair) doing ghetto fabulous things before descending into a nightclub packed full of Indian dancers and other signs of the Kali Yuga — all with Jay Z and Kanye West’s “Niggas in Paris” providing the soundtrack. It’s obvious that it cost a small fortune to produce this 2-minute clip.

Note: the groom, Bambo Obaro, is a lawyer who works for one of America’s top law firms, Weil Gotshal (they must’ve been founded by Germans or something). We sure do wonder how Obaro landed a gig there with a degree from a lesser law school…

Bambo + Janice Epic Wedding Trailer from Major Diamond Productions on Vimeo.

No Comments on STIHIE: Boss Wedding

Another “Defective Western Altruism” Data Point…

Now there is further proof that the West’s pathological altruism is not being universally interpreted as a desire for global equalism…or whatever. But as was always suspected… As weakness.

All white nations are subject to the same threats: Nominally, inexorable demographic shifts as a function of invading battalions of high TFR Third World Uruk-Hai, reinforced with medieval era religious extremists from the Middle East for good measure, for one.

Geographical location, however does provide variation with how these threats are encountered.

Australia is protected by large expanses of ocean, against what are euphemistically called “irregular maritime arrivals” – which only provides a marginal deterrent at any rate, as tens of thousands are mobilized, despite the fact that circa 1400 have drowned since 2001 in the attempt, lured no doubt by the siren song of the welfare on-tap largesse of the Australian Taxpayer, in the land of, er, rape and honey.

Under the mandate of what the leftist press calls xenophobia, but what the superior minds at Radix would no doubt, consider to be merely popular opinion and rational reasoning, the newly tenured government has introduced measures to reduce the number of these arrivals.

The policy now being that the Australian Navy intercepts these boats and returns the passengers back from whence they came – such as Muslim Indonesia to the north, which is used as a staging ground by the ‘fugees. Of course, there was always going to be altercations between the Navy personnel and the invaders, and inevitably, with modern electronic devices being so ubiquitous, even amongst supposedly starving refugees(?), it was only a matter of time before a smart phone recording was made of alleged mistreatment of these international itinerants at the hands of the Navy, during the reversing procedure.

Only in this instance, it is difficult for the diversity apologists in the MSM to reconcile the actions of the refugees, with the image of hard working, benevolent victims they try oh-so hard to perpetuate. Not only are threats to kill navy personnel made, as well as a cheerful round of bird flipping “F$%k Australia”. But alarmingly,references to the 9/11 terror attacksare mentioned. Now, I’ll concede that it is conceivable that these comments were made in the heat of the moment. Due to a resultant epinephrine release, preparing the body for great physical exertion, at the expense of higher order reasoning.

Nevertheless, what makes this event of particular of note for those with Nationalist leanings, is that this footage was submitted to a news agency by the refugees themselves, some weeks after the footage was filmed, presumably in order to gain public support. As columnist Andrew Bolt pointed out, surely, this is an example of the “cultural disconnect” and social mis-calibration of these individuals that they thought this was a sound strategy to curry favour with the public. However, no-one likes being threatened (at least that is somewhat universal) thus the only way to balance this equation,in that there was some semblance of rationality to their actions, is to assume that public support wasn’t the anticipated goal of the video, and the intent was actually to frighten the Australian public into accepting them and their ilk. The salient point being, because now there is further proof that the West’s pathological altruism is not being universally interpreted as a desire for global equalism…or whatever. But as was always suspected… As weakness.

Ultimately, this is a faux victory for Nationalists, as whilst the back door has been squeezed shut, the front door has been left wide open, as a “virtue” of being a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention, with the aggregate intake remaining the same.The only dubious improvement being that the illusion of choice has been given, over whom the government can select for the humanitarian program.

References / Acknowledgements:

No Comments on Another “Defective Western Altruism” Data Point…

What Is Identitarian Religion?

A long-standing “Trad Catholic” I know told recently me that he had left the Church.  He, in essence, said that his “conservative” priest had become obsessed with promoting mass Third World immigration, peddling interracial adoption, speaking incessantly about various forms of “social justice” such as opposition to non-white abortions, and of course denouncing evolution because it’s “racist.”  Contemporary Western Christianity, even in its so-called “conservative” guises, has become indistinguishable from the central values of Cultural Marxism. 

A long-standing “Trad Catholic” I know told recently me that he had left the Church. He, in essence, said that his “conservative” priest had become obsessed with promoting mass Third World immigration, peddling interracial adoption, speaking incessantly about various forms of “social justice” such as opposition to non-White abortions, and, of course, denouncing evolution because it’s “racist”. Contemporary Western Christianity, even in its so-called “conservative” guises, has become indistinguishable from the central values of Cultural Marxism.

As other commentators have already noted, two things are happening to Christianity today:

First, outside the West, Christianity is rapidly becoming a non-Western religion (e.g. African Christianity in Africa, Mestizo Christianity in Latin America, etc.). As noted by many scholars, a new, non-Western form of Christianity is being born, unlike anything preceding it. It has been estimated that within 50 years, Christianity will overwhelmingly be a non-Western religion, both demographically and theologically.

Second, inside the West, Christianity is becoming more universalized than ever—often substantially no different from the major tenets of Cultural Marxism. You currently have mainstream Christian leaders (both Catholic and Protestant) supporting the Third World immigration invasion of the West and cajoling White couples into adopting unwanted African or Haitian babies instead of birthing White babies. Pathological altruism and ethnomasochism rule the roost; in short, Western Christian leaders today are a bunch of girly men. Such maladaptive trends cannot last indefinitely.

Evolutionary biologist E.O. Wilson and science journalist Nicholas Wade have both argued that religion, by and large, is adaptive, in that religion increases one’s inclusive fitness. In short, religion provides group cohesion and, when overlapped with ethnicity or race, religion maintains strong group identity, which assists in group survival. A textbook example of the success of ethno-religion would be Ashkenazi Jews.

What is happening with Christianity in the West today, however, is arguably maladaptive. This extremely universalized girly-man form of Christianity (unlike the more manly earlier Germanic form) seems to be an unholy suicide pact. Not only does it lack any grounding in biological reality but it seems to be hostile toward it.

And what is grounding in biological reality? When religion overlaps with and reinforces racial identity, it is at its strongest. In fact, ethno-religion might be the strongest group identity known to man. Religious identity and racial identity can be strong by themselves, but combine the two and you are in a different league. It’s little wonder that throughout human history ethno-religion has been the norm. The more extreme, deracinated and universalized religion of the past century is the historical aberration.

And that is the gist of identitarian religion, as I understand it: it’s ethno-religion, a rejection of universalism, a return to human normalcy. So, identitarian religion is something “new” in that it’s juxtaposed to our current universalized suicide pact, but it’s also “old” as it’s a return to older norms.

What forms can identitarian religion take? Is it exclusive to a particular religion? Short answer: No.

While Christianity has become nearly synonymous with Cultural Marxism in the West, it must not necessarily be so. Identitarian Christianity is a possibility, and one certainly sees instances of it, ranging from Pro-Western Christianity to the Anglo paleoconservatives, to Kinist Protestantism, to forms of ethnonationalist Slavic Orthodox Christianity. But since Christianity has recently taken on an extremely universalist trajectory, any battle for Identitarian Christianity will be an uphill battle, but nonetheless perhaps a battle worth waging.

Another option one sees is a return to Paganism, ranging from Asatru in North America to other forms of Germanic Paganism, Celtic Paganism, Roman Paganism, Greek Paganism, and Slavic Paganism throughout Europe. Paganism properly understood, i.e. historically and accurately understood, is a blood-and-soil religion, an ancestral religion, an ethno-religion, the very antithesis to deracinated universalist religion.

And, of course, there are other forms of Non-Western identitarian religion that would be appropriate for Non-Westerners. But the question here is whether competing forms of Western identitarian religion can get along. Within the larger framework of Western identitarian religion, can, for example, Identitarian Christians and Pagans coexist?

I don’t see why not.

And what of identitarian atheists and agnostics? Can they co-exist with identitarian religion? Since identitarian religion is not at odds with nature, and thus not at odds with evolutionary science, it does not threaten secular knowledge but offers itself as an additional societal glue. And perhaps a necessary glue at that, as it is unclear that society can survive, long-term, without religion. While some individuals can function without religion, can society as a whole? Has it ever?

As Western Universalist Christianity wanes tepid, and as identitarian ideas continue to spread, now is a good time to outline a larger framework for identitarian religion as a guide for various Western religions. Hopefully this brief outline will help with this endeavor.

Schema of identitarian belief Schema of identitarian belief

Poll:  Is Identitarian Religion the way forward for the West?

Is Identitarian Religion the way forward for the West?
  
pollcode.com free polls 

Alfred W. Clark blogs at Occam’s Razor.

No Comments on What Is Identitarian Religion?

The Folly of the ‘White Man March’

The St. Patrick’s Day weekend event was intended to show that “the old stereotypes about pro-white activists are false.” There turned out to be perhaps a few dozen participants and they mostly confirmed negative stereotypes.

Is misguided a codeword for white activism?

Last week, anyone who glanced at a left-wing news site probably saw an article about the “White Man March.” According to its organizer, Kyle Hunt, the March was supposed to feature “thousands” of demonstrators all over the world out to “make a statement that white people are united in their love for their race and in their opposition to its destruction.” The St. Patrick’s Day weekend event was intended to show that “the old stereotypes about pro-white activists are false.” There turned out to be perhaps a few dozen participants and they mostly confirmed negative stereotypes.

Left-wing media loved the story. Their headlines could have been written months ago when the event was first announced:

• Gawker: White Man March Happens, Nobody Cares

• Jezebel: Brave White Men Are Marching Tomorrow for White Male Freedom

• Salon: Here Are Some of the Best Tweets Mocking the White Man March

• Raw Story: Worldwide ‘White Man March’ Draws 10 People and ‘Diversity = White Genocide’ Signs

• Talking Points Memo: Some White People Tried to Rally for Their Race Today

• PolicyMic: There Was a Worldwide ‘White Man March’ This Weekend–No One Showed Up

• Wonkette: 10 Guys in Kentucky Turn Out for Worldwide ‘White Man March,’ Narrowly Avert White Genocide

The two local news reports were more objective, but, as a result, no less embarrassing:

• Cincinnati Enquirer: ‘Pro-White’ Group Hosts Rally in Florence

• AL (Birmingham): Birmingham Police Remove Banners Stating ‘Diversity = White Genocide’ Along Interstate

In Florence, Kentucky, two Klansmen made an appearance.

Klansman photo

In Portland, Oregon, 200 activists turned out . . . to protest the White Man March.

Portland photo

The Overton window has shifted beyond the point where pro-white ideas are subject to debate. Such ideas have instead been cast as “unthinkable.” Those who hold them are considered freaks—eccentrics at best, but more likely backward and low-class reprobates. This status quo is maintained by ignoring sensible proponents of our ideas—hence the scant coverage of the AmRen and NPI conferences—and instead focusing on the likes of Craig Cobb, who the New York Times was happy to feature on its front page.

There is a place for activism, but execution is everything. A proper “march” event is effective only if it demonstrates broad public support. Hundreds of thousands of blacks turned out for the 1995 Million Man March. A simple rally for our side should at least be the size of a typical Tea Party rally. Roadside demonstrations could be smaller. Several dozen members of the League of the South recently held one in Tallahassee that was a success. There is no reason groups of two should be holding demonstrations of any sort.

Of course, sufficient group size is a bare requisite for out-front activism. Simple and effective messaging is crucial. The White Man March’s “Diversity = White Genocide” slogan was so over-the-top and inflammatory that it only confirmed the consensus view of white advocates as delusional oddballs. By contrast, the League was protesting Marco Rubio’s support for non-white immigration because “it’s wrong to replace us.”

Part of effective messaging is choosing proper spokespeople and allowing only them to speak to the media. The decentralized White Man March could not accomplish this. Further, Kyle Hunt, the event’s organizer, gave a lousy interview to Vice. When he finally deviated from his canned “Bugser” answers, he suggested “I very well may be president of the United States in 2020, but for right now I am supporting some pro-White candidates from the American Freedom Party.” When asked a reasonable question about a statistic he cited, Mr. Hunt replied: “Sorry, but I am very busy.”

If a small group is set on doing activism, they should start by reading Rules for Radicals and think in terms of guerrilla strategies that yield outsized results. James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas is a good model.

I sympathize with people who fathom the depth of our race’s plight and feel compelled to “do something.” I, too, want to “sound my barbaric yawp over the roofs of the world,” but our approach must be more subtle. Our society is impossibly complex and the sort of direct action that would have overthrown a hostile clan leader or a feudal lord is not within our reach. Instead, we have to focus on building an infrastructure equal to the gravity of our cause.

Of the 314 million people living in the US, I can count the number working full time for the advancement of our race on one hand. Working an extra shift or canceling the cable may not be as glorious as pitched battle, but that is precisely the sort of sacrifice we need.

With enough support, we could hire a full-time development team to raise funds for our movement. From there, we could create a site that generates news from our perspective, similar to what Glenn Beck has done with The Blaze and Glenn Beck TV (now called The Blaze TV). We could also begin considering involvement in the political process when we gain a mass following, but that is a topic for another time.

Activism can be done, and with some good effect, but we need to think bigger.

No Comments on The Folly of the ‘White Man March’

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