Radix Journal

Radix Journal

A radical journal

Category: Uncategorized

The Attacks on My Mother

I discuss the recent controversy in Whitefish involving an apartment building owned and operated by my mother. Sherry Spencer’s statement. Emails.

I discuss the recent controversy in Whitefish involving an apartment building owned and operated by my mother.

Sherry Spencer’s statement.

Emails.

No Comments on The Attacks on My Mother

Play the Man

Sacrifice. Everyone in the Alt Right will be familiar with it to some degree. Many of us, particularly those most publicly engaged, carry personal, professional, and financial scars that bear witness to a tour of duty in the war of ideas. Even success can be punishing. Our leaders know only too well that every push deeper into the public consciousness will be met with a more bitter and more personal response from our panicked and ruthless opponents.

“Play the man, Master Ridley; we shall this day light such a candle, by God’s grace, in England, as I trust shall never be put out.”

Hugh Latimer, 1554.

Sacrifice. Everyone in the Alt Right will be familiar with it to some degree. Many of us, particularly those most publicly engaged, carry personal, professional, and financial scars that bear witness to a tour of duty in the war of ideas. Even success can be punishing. Our leaders know only too well that every push deeper into the public consciousness will be met with a more bitter and more personal response from our panicked and ruthless opponents.

The recent targeting of Richard Spencer’s family in Whitefish, Montana, is a testament to both the moral bankruptcy of the corrupt interests we position ourselves against, and the myriad threats posed not only to ourselves, but to our loved ones also. Simply by adopting a position of ideological dissent from the status quo, our comrades near and far invite variants of social, financial, and physical violence including imprisonment, unemployment, social ostracism, the targeting of material assets, media smearing, and threats and incidences of assault. It is because of these often devastating aftershocks that “doxing” is for us so much more than a stripping away of anonymity. Doxing is instead, by virtue of its accompaniments, the post-modern equivalent of being placed in the docks, or in its worst expressions, being burned at the stake.

Dealing with sacrifice, or the threat of it, is perhaps so commonplace that it rarely provokes conscious thought. This is probably for the good, since it is never healthy to brood on sacrifice for too long when one is trying to push on toward goals and aspirations. But I believe that some reflection on sacrifice can be healthy, both in terms of inspiring a more aggressive pursuit of one’s goals, and also for the reinforcement it can bring to one’s ideological, indeed spiritual, connection with the cause.

Before proceeding any further, I should lay some cards on the table. Although writing under a pen name, I’ve been relatively open about my political beliefs in the past, and I’ve endured sacrifices for even my most tangential ties to our movement. During spells in Europe I’ve been arrested and had my home raided by police. I’ve lost jobs. I’ve been ostracized by former friends and colleagues, and even my marriage has been placed under strain at various times. In the eye of these storms, the world can seem like a very lonely place, and on some occasions one crisis seems to dissipate just as the clouds of a new storm gather on the horizon. One lives under the shadow of these clouds, and I am certain that more sacrifices and tribulations await me. But I am not troubled.

I can thank an 85-year-old man for my ability to handle most of the things life has thrown at me during the last ten years or so. Or at least the man now buried in a beautiful farmstead in rural North Carolina was about that age when he imparted to me the advice that would help me become the man I am today. My wife’s grandfather was still hale and hearty in his 80s, standing in excess of six feet with only the slightest hint of a stoop. His blue eyes still shone brightly from beneath thick, white eyebrows. In his prime he had been a champion amateur wrestler, a master horseman, and had, during World War Two, flown “over the hump” in Burma as part of a Special Forces unit. In the immediate post-war period he carried out work for the Office of Strategic Services, an early incarnation of what would become the CIA, before finally venturing into business. He was successful, retiring in his 50s with millions in the bank. In short, he was a man who had witnessed much and, by any estimation, had truly lived. He was also a racially aware man with a deep feeling for his Anglo-Celtic ancestry and the Anglo-Celtic heritage of the Deep South. He was no friend of the Jew. He shed no crocodile tears for the African. His home was draped in the flags of the Confederacy, and the Coats of Arms of his sires.

I was a young lad of twenty when I met him for the first time. Like most young men that age the only thing I had going for me was potential and, well, not much else. His legend was such in the family that I approached the event of our first meeting with some trepidation, and I heard that he had the unsettling habit of pretending not to hear very well – just so that you would be all the more awkward in trying to communicate with him. In the event, he was polite and courteous, and expressed a deep interest in my own ancestry and heritage. It quickly emerged that we shared an interest in literature and poetry. This delighted the old man, who would relish the opportunity to impress his young guest by reciting entire poems by Kipling from memory.

In the year that followed we developed a warm friendship, and despite our ages he expressed his sincere blessing for the marriage between myself (then 20) and his granddaughter (then 19). It was shortly after the marriage that I started struggling with the pace of life. College was going well for both my wife and I, but there were financial concerns and some early plans for a new home went the way that they are wont to do when conceived by mice and men. Just as our bank balance was taking a nosedive, we discovered that my wife was pregnant with what would be our first son.

While the stresses mounted in my mind, I did a good job of concealing it. I retained a garrulous and easy-going demeanour. Almost everyone I encountered failed to pick up on the fact that, at the age of 21, I was weighed down with some very complex worries and challenges, and that not even I knew how much longer I could cope without breaking in some manner. I say almost everyone because, during one Sunday family gathering, I caught the old man looking at me with deep concern. A little while later, while attempting to engage him in small talk, he motioned for me to stop talking. He started telling me a story.

He told me that during the religious tumult that accompanied the reign of Tudors from Henry VIII to Mary I, one clergyman seemed to bear witness to every ebb and flow of English religious passion. Hugh Latimer (c. 1487 – 16 October 1555) began his career in the Church as an ardent Catholic. Indeed, his Bachelor of Divinity disputation was a refutation of the ideas central to the Reformation sweeping Europe. However, after an encounter with the recently converted Thomas Bilney, Latimer underwent a dramatic shift in perspective. He later became part of an influential group of Reformers in London, gaining further influence when Henry VIII broke with Rome.

Although his fortunes would waver under Henry once more, and again under Henry’s son Edward VI, Latimer’s fate would take its final turn during the reign of Edward VI’s Catholic sister, Mary I. Under examination by a panel of Catholic commissioners, Latimer was unable to be dissuaded from his beliefs. He was quickly sentenced to death, and it was here that the old man reached the point of his tale. Confronted with the prospect of being burned alive at an execution site in Oxford, Latimer was resolute, unmovable.

He was tied to the stake along with Nicholas Ridley, Bishop of London. The base was set alight, and the flames began to rise. As the fire began to consume the pair, Ridley’s death agonies reverberated throughout Oxford. His screams became ever louder until Latimer was heard loudly but calmly uttering the immortal words: “Play the man, Master Ridley; we shall this day light such a candle, by God’s grace, in England, as I trust shall never be put out.”

Finishing his tale, the old man looked me in the eye and repeated the words, “Play the man.” He told me of times in his life when he too, in his own way, had had to play the man. Faced with death in Burma, with financial ruin on numerous occasions, or when trying to ascend the greasy pole of his career ladder, there had been times when, even if disaster loomed, it was crucial to play the man or, in more modern formulations, to ‘hold frame’; to ride the tiger.

I’ve never forgotten the example and final words of Hugh Latimer, and they have accompanied me on several of my own trials and tribulations. They have offered strength and inspiration, and have helped me cultivate a mentality of iron determination. In more recent years, however, I have come to dwell equally on the latter half of his immortal plea. In alluding to his own sacrifice and burning as the lighting of a candle, Latimer beautifully and bravely hit upon the deeper glory of sacrifice – the glory that it may inspire in others.

As our opponents bitterly strike at the family of Richard Spencer, as some of us try to find cheer in a time of unemployment, and as many of our comrades languish in prison this Christmas, I would like us to not only admire those who hold their resolve and ‘play the man,’ but also to take heart and inspiration from their example and their trials.

While our enemies believe they are scoring victories by destroying our businesses, smearing our loved ones, or jailing us, they are in fact lighting the candles that will guide us to victory. To paraphrase the poet William Henley, we will ultimately succeed in preserving a future for our people because our heads may be sometimes bloodied but will remain forever unbowed. We are the masters of our fate. And we thank whatever gods may be for our unconquerable souls.

No Comments on Play the Man

“Cultural Enrichment” and Sexual Competition

Thank you all. And thank you to Richard for inviting me to speak to you today. I have a lot of matters I would like to address, so this talk may get a little disjointed. But I think we can live with that. Many of you have probably seen my byline but not know me by sight. I write a lot about men and women and their mutual relations. Sometimes the men in our movement fail to appreciate sufficiently the relevance of this subject to our political struggle as a people. Women don’t usually have that problem. They know that they control the perpetuation of our race, and in the final analysis, that’s almost all that matters. Feminists are the ones who like to say that the personal is political, and on this point at least, they are correct. 

Editor’s Note: Adapted from an address to NPI’s 2016 Conference by F. Roger Devlin

Thank you all. And thank you to Richard for inviting me to speak to you today. I have a lot of matters I would like to address, so this talk may get a little disjointed. But I think we can live with that. Many of you have probably seen my byline but not know me by sight. I write a lot about men and women and their mutual relations. Sometimes the men in our movement fail to appreciate sufficiently the relevance of this subject to our political struggle as a people. Women don’t usually have that problem. They know that they control the perpetuation of our race, and in the final analysis, that’s almost all that matters. Feminists are the ones who like to say that the personal is political, and on this point at least, they are correct.

Today, I would like to begin by drawing your attention to an article published in a Norwegian newspaper three and a half years ago. [A translation of the original article can be found here.] Those of you who have been in our movement that long may remember the flurry of discussion it occasioned at the time. The article appeared in one of the few Norwegian publications not dependent on government subsidies, and therefore free to tell the truth about the situation in that country. It was based on interviews with two young men from Grorudalen, a suburban area outside Oslo that has enjoyed more cultural enrichment than any other place in that country, mostly Pakastani and Somali Muslims. The two young men reflect on the challenges of coming to manhood in such an environment.

They report that there is a clear hierarchy among the local boys, and native Norwegians are at the bottom of it. They are often physically attacked by the immigrant boys in the local schools. Authority figures such as teachers tell the Norwegian boys never to retaliate, even when punched. The immigrant boys are to be pitied, they are told, because they come from countries which have suffered from war—even though some are third generation by now.

The young Muslims are quick to perceive their inviolability, of course, and take advantage of it. As one of the interviewees put it, “they talk about respect, but they don’t show any.” They have various contemptuous slang terms for their Norwegian peers, such as “whitey” and “potato.” They stare aggressively at them on the streets, and the Norwegian boys must lower their gaze first if they do not want to face an unequal fight there and then.

And the fights are always unequal. The European concept of a “fair fight” does not exist in the Muslim mind. “If you meet them alone,” said one interviewee, “they are cowards.” They travel and hunt in packs like dogs, and only attack where they enjoy a clear superiority of force. Seven or eight against one is not uncommon. Furthermore, practically all of these boys dispose of a large family network: brothers, uncles, cousins who are glad to help them avenge any slights. Most of the Norwegian boys’ parents are divorced and they are living with their mothers. Because of the low native birth rate, most of them have no male siblings at all.

Some Norwegian boys have actually begun to mimic the grammatical mistakes and limited vocabulary of the immigrant boys in an effort to raise their status. A handful have actually convert to Islam.

But the most interesting part of this article to me is one interviewee’s description of the sexual consequences of this social experiment. The Muslim boys, he says, can:

chase Norwegian girls, but we cannot go after theirs. It’s something you learn early on. You just don’t go after a Pakistani girl, but Norwegian girls are available to immigrant boys. Norwegian girls prefer them. I don’t know why. That they are tough, that they have money despite not having jobs. The girls don’t see that they fight in packs, that they are cowards. I asked my best female friend if we could get romantically involved, and she told me that I have the right personality, but the problem was that I’m Norwegian. She wants to become involved with a foreigner.

Well, that young man may not understand why Norwegian girls prefer immigrant boys, but I do, and I am going to tell you. Sexual behavior is controlled not by the prefrontal cortex which is responsible for rational thought, but by the limbic system, sometimes popularly known as the “reptilian brain.” The female’s instinct is to mate with socially dominant men—and it does not matter how such dominance is achieved. Reptiles are even farther from grasping the concept of a fair fight than Muslims. The limbic system of Norwegian girls is unconcerned that their male peers face overwhelming odds, that the entire political and social regime of their country has been set up as if with the specific intention of disadvantaging them at the expanse of low-IQ thugs from the slums of Karachi. All the girls see is that it is the Norwegian boys who are getting beaten up and the immigrant boys who are doing the beating. Their natural impulse is to mate with the beaters, not the beatees.

Speaking more generally, women are less loyal to the tribe into which they are born than are men, and there are evolutionary reasons for this. In our environment of evolutionary adaptation, our remote ancestors lived in bands of fifty or a hundred persons whose men were frequently fighting one another. To be successful in such fights, men had to practice loyalty to the other men of their own tribe. When they were successful, they took the women of the vanquished tribe for themselves. This did not generally create any problem for the women of the defeated tribe. Women are naturally equipped to form new bonds with such conquerors quickly and easily. Their instinct is to subordinate all other considerations to the successful rearing of children. Loyalty to their defeated menfolk interferes with the fulfillment of this natural imperative, so they have generally not cultivated such loyalty to any great degree. At least, such is a woman’s natural inclination.

Not all women are entirely reptilian, however, and so there have been historical exceptions to this pattern. For example, all the sources agree that the Yankee soldiers who took part in the military occupation of the American South during reconstruction got absolutely nowhere with the local women. The wives and sisters of men who had been overwhelmingly defeated—crippled and killed in many cases—remained loyal to these men, or to their memory, even at the expense of their own reproductive success. I’m not sure anything else I have read about the Civil War has struck me with greater admiration for the defeated South. Female loyalty to tribe is certainly possible, and I hope we will know how to honor it where it occurs. At the same time, we would be wise not to count too much upon it. As I said, our evolutionary history has given women a facility in adapting to circumstance and a natural preference for the victorious, even in the unfairest of fights.

I hope that when the time comes, Norwegian men will have the strength not to take back those of their women who have crashed and burned after a fling with foreign men. And crash and burn they will. The Muslim men despise these women, whom they call “Norwegian whores.” This is one reason the women are so attracted to them. But in these men’s eyes, non-Muslim women are for gratification, with or without their consent. That’s what Islamic law tells them. They stick to their own women when it is time to raise a family. So exogamous Western women generally end up alone once they hit their thirties.

Now, if you want to discourage undesirable behavior on the part of such women, nothing is more effective than total ruthlessness. It’s masculine, it’s dominant, it’s attractive, and it’s one reason they go for Muslim men in the first place. So in this respect, if no other, European men would be wise to imitate the foreign men among whom they are forced to live and learn to be ruthless.

Let me give you an historical analogy. It is recorded that there was once a wave of suicides by young women in ancient Athens. If this happened today, emergency hotlines would be set up and psychotherapists dispatched to counsel the girls and find out what was troubling them. But instead the city assembly simply decreed that the next girl to commit suicide would be displayed naked in the middle of the Agora. It wasn’t “nice,” but there were no further suicides.

Similarly, a policy of writing off women who take up with their swarthy oppressors would be one way for Western man to regain a part of his dignity. It would also be Eugenic, as tending to flush disloyalty from our gene pool. If you didn’t take pity on those bimbos weeping over Hillary Clinton’s defeat last week, you certainly shouldn’t need to take pity on women who have come crawling to you as a last resort.

No Comments on “Cultural Enrichment” and Sexual Competition

Conducive to the Public Good

This past July, Richard Spencer chalked up an impressive feat for any heretic: getting perma-banned from an entire country, in this case the UK. In a letter from current Prime Minister Theresa May to Spencer, in which she explained her diktat, May declared Spencer in violation of an “Unacceptable Behavior” policy. More specifically, May cited Spencer’s call for a European homeland on the North American continent as the primary reason for the ban. Without further elaboration or explanation, it was claimed that this call may have somehow fostered intercommunity violence in the UK. Spencer’s very presence in the country was therefore deemed not to be “conducive to the public good.”

This past July, Richard Spencer chalked up an impressive feat for any heretic: getting perma-banned from an entire country, in this case the UK. In a letter from current Prime Minister Theresa May to Spencer, in which she explained her diktat, May declared Spencer in violation of an “Unacceptable Behavior” policy. More specifically, May cited Spencer’s call for a European homeland on the North American continent as the primary reason for the ban. Without further elaboration or explanation, it was claimed that this call may have somehow fostered intercommunity violence in the UK. Spencer’s very presence in the country was therefore deemed not to be “conducive to the public good.”

On the other hand, what increasingly appears to be acceptable behavior in the eyes of the British government is the endemic use of hard drugs. As reported by the Independent:

Nightclubs in Preston are to offer free drug testing to people who want to know if their Class A substances are pure.

The walk-in booths, run by a charity, will aim to reduce drug-related deaths by checking cocaine and MDMA are not “adulterated or highly potent”.

Lancashire police have reportedly said they are backing the scheme, which will operate in the city centre on Friday and Saturday nights from the beginning of next year.

The article goes on to say that a similar service had 300 users last summer. Moreover, about 2,250 people per year die in the UK from drug misuse, triple the levels since records of this type began in 1993. This begs the question: if one is to ban persons or events that are not conducive to the public good, should then-Home Secretary May not have focused instead on nightclubs and music festivals that spread this lethal degeneracy? Or is the following more dangerous?

We need an ethno-state so that our people can “come home again,” can live amongst family — to put it banally, so that they can feel safe and secure. But we also need an Ethno-state so that Whites can again reach the stars.

Safety. Security. Destiny. But what is most at odds with modernity is this idea of a “people,” something that societal poisons such as cocaine and MDMA break down on a grand scale. The UK, while not yet adopting this policy nationwide, is officially signaling their accommodation of hard drug use – and all the health risks, stunted personal development, social anomie, and actual intercommunity violence that comes with its use and trade.

What we ultimately learn from this is that the UK government can tolerate a self-poisoning mass of individuals, but what they cannot confront is a healthy, strong, and united people. Such a force would overturn their decadent and diseased oligarchy with ease, replacing them with a new elite whose vigor and vision would surpass even the heroes of Britain’s millennia-long history. In order for that to happen, a more meaningful Brexit is necessary; not one from an institution, but a spiritual rejection of the forces of modernity. And despite the ban, the counter-forces of tradition still call from over the sea beyond the Pillars of Hercules: Arthur, awake!

No Comments on Conducive to the Public Good

Against Generals

The election of Donald Trump to the presidency of the United States has been a flashpoint for identitarians the world over. But with the campaign over, the real battle for the administration has just begun. Of course, Donald Trump is no identitarian (in fact, he’s disavowed the Alt Right), but for those who see hope in his civic nationalist project to reduce immigration, Donald Trump’s cabinet choices are of paramount importance. Personnel is policy, as the old Washington saying goes.

What’s the only thing standing between the United States and a Military coup?

The Military…

The election of Donald Trump to the presidency of the United States has been a flashpoint for identitarians the world over. But with the campaign over, the real battle for the administration has just begun. Of course, Donald Trump is no identitarian (in fact, he’s disavowed the Alt Right), but for those who see hope in his civic nationalist project to reduce immigration, Donald Trump’s cabinet choices are of paramount importance. Personnel is policy, as the old Washington saying goes.

In this maelstrom of job seekers, no doubt President-elect Trump is being pulled in many different directions by advisors as varied as Reince Preibus, Steve Bannon, and his own children. This has resulted in a mix of appointments, from the establishment’s old guard, to businessmen, and many retired military officers.

It’s the latter that concerns me.

For starters, it is the wet dream of every cuckservative rag in the beltway to see as its savior some military-industrial complex man in an empty green suit. When one finds oneself on the same side as Bill Kristol, it’s best to check one’s priors.

This fascination goes deeper, down to the very roots of why many of us wanted to see Donald Trump elected. We saw an American Caesar, someone who stood outside of the swamp in Washington and would cross the Rubicon of ‘respectability’ that has strangled existential political discourse in our country for so long. The general, as a figure, is like a post-modern cowboy in the American psyche. Since most Americans no longer serve in its military, these men become mythic gods of war calculating from their Olympus at the Pentagon.

In reality, most generals are nothing more than career bureaucrats who have who have gotten where they are because they play by the latest in PC rules and hold out for a cushy retirement as a government contractor.

Let’s take our current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey who said “Diversity is our greatest strength because it reflects America”. Even the much beloved Gen. “Mad Dog” Mattis has fairly conventional views on Russia which put him line with the old conservative establishment, so much so they even tried spending billions of dollars to convince him to run, oh then there’s his ties to defense contracting. Not to beat a dead horse, but I’d also be skeptical of someone whose reading list consists of Bernard Lewis, Reza Aslan, Thomas Friedman, and Max Boot to make sense of the world around us.

Then there’s Gen. Kelly over at the Department of Homeland Security. Overall, we don’t know much about him. We know that he was commander of US forces throughout South and Central America. In that role he made combatting drug trafficking a major effort. This shows, he knows the threats that cartels and illegal activities pose to a nation’s border saying in a Military Times profile “I think you have to have — we have a right to protect our borders, whether they’re seaward, coastlines, or land borders” however he followed that up with “We have a right to do that. Every country has a right to do that. Obviously, some form of control whether it’s a wall or a fence. But if the countries where these migrants come from have reasonable levels of violence and reasonable levels of economic opportunity, then the people won’t leave to come here.”

This shows a certain level of existential thinking, however it’s one more in-line with a sort of neoconservative technocratic thinking. The emphasis placed on economic development of other countries belies this. In fact, Kelly was a leading proponent of the “Alliance for Prosperity” which has resulted in billions of US dollars going to places like Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador for such hazy goals as “development” and education. It’s also worrying that Kelly made what some have called “extraordinary relationships” with Human Rights groups while administering Guantanamo Bay. I for one, reach for my gun anytime that vapid phrase is used.

Then we come to Gen. Michael Flynn as National Security Advisor. Gen. Flynn is undoubtedly the best of “Trump’s Generals” so far. He is for a radical re-thinking of America’s relations with Russia and other foreign policy shibboleths, and has even winked at the Alt Right on occasion. Most importantly, he is derided by the same types who usually adore general picks. That said, he has not exactly been innocent of the revolving lobbying door that afflicts generals just as much as congressman.

Many, especially those on the right, tend to view the military through rose colored lenses. But it’s been just as infected by cultural Marxism as any other major American institution. This is especially true of its top brass, who must learn to play the game better than most. As a hierarchal institution, change in the military come from the top down. After all, when the ban on transgender soldiers was just lifted then Secretary of Defense Ash Carter quoted Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley as saying “The United States Army is open to all Americans who meet the standard, regardless of who they are. Embedded within our Constitution is that very principle, that all Americans are free and equal.”

This is the crux, most generals are either apparatchiks of the system, or self-interested rent seekers looking to cash in once they retire. I wish it weren’t so, but those of us on the Right, shouldn’t look at our current top brass with anything but a jaundiced eye.

No Comments on Against Generals

Spencer Speaks! (the Transcript)

Good evening, everyone. Long live Texas! Thank you for having me. I appreciate it.

Editor’s Note: This is a transcript of Richard’s speech as compiled by Brett Stevens here at his “Amerika” website, which includes this transcript and more commentary on it.


Good evening, everyone. Long live Texas! Thank you for having me. I appreciate it.
I’m just curious; I want to do a bit of a demographic study. If you’re a member of the media, please raise your hand. Okay, okay, put your hand own, please. That’s a very offensive gesture. Shut it down. We knew you were the lying media, but for God’s sake, that’s out of hand.

I’d like to first off thank Preston for bringing me here. He is truly a brave man and he is bringing a level of discourse to the university that otherwise probably wouldn’t be there. The fact is that we know universities have become stifling, in terms of what you can talk about, and Preston’s fighting against that and I greatly appreciate it. So please give him a round of applause.

I’d also like to thank the Texas A&M University Police. They have been absolutely professional with me; they also care about free speech and they have really gone the extra mile in terms of allowing this event to occur. So please give them a round of applause. Thank you.

So, just out of curiosity, please raise your hands if you are a Texas A&M student. Awesome. I am very happy to be here and I hope you all ask questions. I actually did grow up in Texas, so I am proud to say, the Alamo did nothing wrong.

Well. What is the Alt Right? Who are you? Pepe. Yeah, absolutely. I’m sure some of you have first heard about the Alt Right after the “hail heard round the world” that occurred at the NPI conference. That was a lot of fun.

I would say that that moment, which went viral, is an expression of a lot of different things. It is certainly the expression of the desire of a mainstream media to slander and just silence us with one thirty second footage. “Aww, these people are terrible.” But I think it also says something about the life of the Alt Right. We don’t allow other people to tell us what we can joke about. We don’t play by their rules. We have fun, we can be outlandish, and that is never going to stop.

So, the Alt Right can’t be defined by something from the past. We can’t be trapped in the past. But we also need to go forward guilt-free. We need to be high energy, we need to have fun, we need to be a little outlandish, we need to trigger the world. So all I would say is: keep it up. I love you all.

So what is the Alt Right? When I first started using that term, it was about mid-2008, and at that point, I think the Alt Right was fairly, you could say, negative in its meaning. We didn’t quite know exactly what it was. I knew that something was profoundly wrong with mainstream conservatism. That was evident enough with the George W. Bush administration, with the neoconservatives disastrous wars in Iraq and so on, and with the rest of the mainstream Right offering no answers, the religious Right, all that kind of stuff. I knew that we had to have a new starting point. I also knew that we needed to — this wasn’t a matter just of tweaking the Right, as it is — this was really the matter of a new beginning. Of a new starting point for conservatism in America.

You can actually look at the starting point of the conservative movement, and they talk about global capitalism, and free markets, and the Constitution, and vague Christian values of some sort. But they never ask that question of “Who are we?” They never ask that question of identity. They probably assumed it. They probably assumed a white America, a European America, but they never really asked about it and they were never really conscious of it.

And so the conservative movement became, in its way, a mirror reflection, a photographic negative, of the Soviet Union. It became an ideological nation, it became a nation based on abstract values, like “muh freedom,” “muh democracy,” “muh bombin’ muh commies and Muslims.” It was never a place; it was never a people; it was a kind of ideology. That’s what conservatism was. And so I don’t think George W. Bush was some kind of aberration, some kind of wrong turn to the conservative movement; I think sadly he was an expression of that general trajectory. Not towards identity, not towards nationalism, not towards a sense of “us” or who we are, but towards this abstract universalism that ends up in ridiculous two trillion dollar wars in the middle east, that no one understands and no one can even remember what started them.

So, in a way, George W. Bush was the founder of the Alt Right. He was at least the founder of the term, because I knew that we had to get away from that. We had to get away from him. So I started using the term “Alt Right” in about mid-2008, and at that point, as I said, I don’t think it had an essence quite then. It was just a sense of not-that; let’s get away from W, let’s get away from all that, let’s start anew. From there, the Alt Right evolved, it took on new meanings, and in a way it was outside of my control, absolutely — the Alt Right has never been the Richard Spencer agenda or anything like that — the Alt Right has been organic, that’s why it has succeeded, precisely because other people have picked it up and they have added meanings to it, and so on.

But it kind of evolved with me, in a way. After I dropped out of graduate school, I worked in what you could call the anti-war conservative movement. I wanted to oppose George W. Bush’s agenda but I wanted to do it from a Right-wing perspective. That is, I evolved too. And by around 2010, I would say, I had an idea of where that new starting place was going to be. And that new starting point was going to be identity. And that was going to be the question that we asked first.

So what is identity? In a way, it’s the question “who are you?” We all have many different identities. You could say that you’re a student at Texas A&M. You’re into weight-lifting. You went to a Star Trek convention. You like to wear sweatpants. These are elective identities. They say something about us, but they’re elective.

But then you can delve a little bit deeper, and you could say, “I’m a citizen of the United States. I grew up somewhere. We all grew up somewhere. We’re all part of something. We all come from someplace.

You can go even deeper, and say, “These are my parents. This is my family.” The Left in the eighteenth century had this line “an accident of birth.” An accident of birth. No birth is an accident. There’s no historical or cosmic accident in birth. You come from somewhere. You have parents. They have parents, they have a history. So you’re part of a family. And you grew up somewhere. And you can go deeper, and you can say that you are part of an ethnicity and you are ultimately part of a race. You might not like this. You might really resonate to the idea that we’re all individuals, we’re all citizens. “We’re just Americans. I don’t see color. But color sees you. That’s a good line — I think Trevor Noah said that to a young conservative. She says, “Oh, I don’t see color. I’m a good young conservative.” He says, “What the hell do you do at a stoplight?” It’s a good question actually. We all see color. And race isn’t just color. Color is, in a way, a minor aspect of race. But you’re part of something. Whether you like it or not, you’re part of a bigger extended family. You’re part of this world; you’re part of this history. And that race has a story to tell.

As a European, I can tell a story about people, people I never will know. Our lives stretch back to prehistory. We first started to become ourselves in the Greek and Roman world. So there’s a story that involves people you’ve never met. As a European, I can tell this story about the Greeks and the Romans, about the foundation of our civilization, about empire, about the coming of Christianity.

Sure, Europe’s a place. It’s a place on the map, the people, the blood and its spirit. That’s much more important than some map. There are Europeans all over the world. If we went into space, we’d still be European.

So we can tell a story. We went through tumults, we went through reformations, we went through revolutions, and we are who we are, and I think we’ve learned something about ourselves. That’s the story I can tell as a European. I think if I were an African-American I could tell a very different story. If I were to say what that story would be, it would be about being rooted in an African continent, and enslaved and kidnapped, and going through trials that perhaps I cannot imagine, but then becoming a people. You’re still a people. That’s the story I would tell. But it’s a different story.

So that’s what it means to be part of a race. A race is genetically coherent, a race is something you can study, a race is about genes and DNA, but it’s not just about genes and DNA. The most important thing about it is the people and the spirit. That’s what a race is about.

A lot of white people do not want to have a race. They say, “Oh, I’m just an individual. I’m just an American.” You have a race whether you like it or not. You’re part of a race whether you like it or not. When a Syrian refugee — so called — whether they’re from Syria or Africa or somewhere else in the middle east, when they enter Europe, they don’t look at anyone as “Oh, look, lookee there, this man, he’s Bavarian. Oh, he’s a Bavarian Catholic. Oh look, this guy must be from Ireland. Hmm, interesting. He’s Italian.” No, they don’t see that at all. They see us as white; they see us as white men. They see us as a race, and our enemy can see who we are whether we want to define ourselves as such or not. We are white.

So that is the foundation of identity. You can go up, you can look at elective identities — I’m into weightlifting, I’m into Star Trek — and you can keep going down, and you go down, and down, and down, and you get to the root of identity. You get to that base, where you can’t go any further. And that is race.

In America, we have a very peculiar conception of race. This has been perhaps the most racialized continent. It was a place that was an open country. It was an open country for Europeans who confronted people who were radically different than they were. And that confrontation, I’ll be honest, was terrible, bloody and violent. It was terrible, bloody and violent, but we conquered this continent. Whether it’s nice to say that or not, we won. And we got to define what America means, we got to define what this continent means. America, at the end of the day, belongs to white men.

While I was coming here on the airplane, I re-watched perhaps my favorite movie, which is John Ford’s The Searchers. There’s a moment in that film that I love. It actually comes from a very minor character. It’s one of the Sorgesens, who are a Swedish family. This movie The Searchers takes place in Texas. It’s a brutal movie. It’s about Indians capturing this young white child, and Ethan — played by John Wayne — and his companions chasing after her for years, years, almost endlessly. There’s a moment when this woman Sorgesen, her husband Lars says, “Texas — This terrible country — killed my boy.” Their boy died on a revenge mission against these Indians and the Indians killed him. And Mrs. Sorgesen said, “No, the country didn’t kill your boy. We’re Texicans. And that means we’re a human man way out on a limb. We’re going to be out on that limb for years, for decades, maybe a hundred years. But we won’t be out on that limb forever. At some point, Texas is going to be a wonderful place to live. It’s going to be a great place to live. But perhaps our bones have to be in the ground before that will happen.”

Texas is a wonderful place to live. And there are a lot of the white man’s bones in the ground to make that happen. White people did it. And I’m not going to ever claim that there wasn’t a lot of brutality that went along with it. But we did it. Our bones are in the ground, we own it, and at the end of the day, America cannot exist without us. We defined it. This country does belong to white people, culturally, politically, socially, everything. We defined what America is. But things change. The architect is what matters. It’s the genius behind something, it’s not just whoever happened to do the labor. Other people could have done it. But no one could have imagined it, no one could have designed it, because no one else did. History is proof.

But things change. What is America now? Is it great? “Make America Great Again” was the slogan that captured the imagination really of the world. Embedded in that slogan “Make America Great Again” is its opposite, and that is an acknowledgement that America is not great. I think we know that. I think we know that in our bones and our guts, that things are getting worse. Previous generations couldn’t imagine that their children would have a worse world than they enjoyed, even a worse world than their parents enjoyed. Now 75% of white people think the country is on the wrong track; who could disagree with them, exactly? Does anyone think it’s getting better?
“Make America Great Again.” The opposite is embedded in that statement. That’s what makes it in a way so powerful. We assume that America is not great. And it isn’t. And why isn’t it great? America is not great because in my lifetime, America has lost an essence. It’s lost a people, it’s lost a meaning. You listen to presidential inaugurations, these are these times when presidents will go up and tell us “what this is really about” and get everyone fired up, they don’t talk about America as an historic nation and a people with a story, as the product of a race, of a worldview, they basically talk about America as a platform for all of humanity. They talk about America as an economic system, effectively.

Many have talked about the Roman Empire’s decline. It went from being a people to being a population, then to being a mob. I think that says a lot about the fall of Rome. America went from being a frontier, to being a people, then to being an economic platform for consumers from around the world. And let there be no doubt: Americanization, in this worst possible sense of the word, this is what Hillary Clinton was talking about when she said she wanted a “hemispheric open market.” This is what George Soros and Mark Zuckerberg want. They want an undifferentiated global population, raceless, genderless, identityless, meaningless population, consuming sugar, consuming drugs, while watching porn on VR goggles while they max out their credit cards. Don’t deny that that is the kind of passive nihilism that so many in the elite class actually want. They want a world without roots, they want a world without meaning, they want a flat grey-on-grey world, one economic market for them to manipulate. That’s what’s happening in the world.

It isn’t just a great erasure of white people. It isn’t just an invasion of Europe, an invasion of the United States by the third world, it is ultimately the destruction of all peoples and all cultures around the globe.

I’m not paranoid, they’re just out to get me.

That’s what America has become. We might not all be able to put it into those words, but we know that that is what America is becoming. It’s becoming an homogeneous consuming mass, and no one wants it. Whether you’re black or white or Asian or Hispanic or whatever, no one wants that. And that’s what America has become.

I agree with liberals who might say, “Oh Donald Trump, he’s vulgar, he’s ridiculous, listen to what he’s saying, this is crazy.” Look, I agree. But just the fact that Donald Trump said that word “great” — “Make America Great Again” — meant that he had higher hopes than the Clintons, and the Zuckbergs, and the Bill Gates, and the George Soroses combined. That he had a sense of height, of upward movement, of greatness, of that thing that makes the white race truly unique and truly wonderful, that striving towards infinity, that however vulgar he might be that he had a sense of it.

And that’s what inspired the Alt Right. That’s what made Donald Trump an Alt Right hero. So this is where we are. We’re in a battle between that other America, that America we don’t want to talk about, that America that has our bones in the earth, that America that white Americans died for, that white Americans defined, and we have this other America, that’s just coming into view. This America that is a nihilistic economic platform for the world, that’s taking over the world and destroying everything in its path. That’s where we are. We’re at a tipping point.

What we need right now are people who are willing to speak truth to power. I find that there’s this amazing thing about the Left. And I have a certain respect for the Left, believe it or not. I understand the Left in a way. What I find so amazing about the people who are protesting me out there, who are attempting to create the largest safe space in the world of 100,000 people at Kyle Field, is that they think they’re the underdog. Let me let you in on a secret: Richard Spencer is not the Establishment. Richard Spencer is not running the government. Richard Spencer is effectively a heretic in the modern age. Think about those places of power. The US military, public education (academia), major corporations whether they’re financial on the east coast, Silicon Valley, what have you. What do they all agree on? “Diversity is good.” “We’re all the same.” “We’re one world.” “C’mon man, we all bleed red.” You might think that that kind of limp liberalism is some kind of underdog perspective, that you’re speaking truth to power by saying that nonsense. You are not speaking truth to power. The military-industrial complex agrees with you, so does every major corporation, so does the US government. You are not speaking truth to power, you are power speaking.

These institutions do not want you to have a sense of yourselves. They do not want you to have identity and rootedness. They do not want you to have duties to your people. They do not want you to think of yourself as part of an extended family that is bigger than any single individual, because the moment you have those duties, the moment you have that identity, is the moment that you are no longer the perfect, passive consumer-citizen that they want to create.

Have an identity. I don’t need to tell black people in this room to have an identity because you all have got it. You know who you are. Have an identity. I don’t need to tell that African-Americans, I probably don’t need to tell that to Native Americans or Indians or Asians or anything. But I will tell that to white people: have a goddamn identity, have a sense of yourself. Be a part of this family. You are not an individual, you are not “just an Amurrican,” you are not just a citizen, you are part of this family; be a part of it. Find that within yourself. Find that shadow of self. Not the day-to-day self, find that shadow of self, that European, that hero within you. Be that person.

Having an identity is the greatest challenge to the power structure that there is. Speaking truth to it means speaking the truth about race, about people, about nations, about who we are. You are not a rebel when you mouth this tired, boring, annoying, Left-wing pablum of the so-called “anti-fascists.” Or of these sinecured academics, people with six or seven figure salaries who think they’re Marxist revolutionaries. You are not speaking truth to power when you mouth their tired bullshit.

Have an identity. Be something bigger than yourself. Become who you are, become a member of the people and speak truth to power my brothers and sisters. Thank you very much.

No Comments on Spencer Speaks! (the Transcript)

Beige New World

I guess they want White genocide after all. Take note of the hat. Growing up, I remember hearing about the magical date of “2050,” when Whites will be a minority….

I guess they want White genocide after all.

Take note of the hat.

Growing up, I remember hearing about the magical date of “2050,” when Whites will be a minority. Today, some are imagining “The Year 3,000,” when no coherent race or culture will exist on the planet.

Back in the days of AlternativeRight.com, I wrote about a similar state-sponsored video from Sweden, “Mix It Up!”

[I]t’s worth pointing out that race-mixing as a solution to racial strife has never worked — indeed, it usually exacerbates matters. In the Haitian Revolution, after the French colonizers were overthrown, it was only a short time before calls were heard to “kill the Mulattoes!”

"Mix it up!" Sick miscegenation propaganda. from Der Himmelstern on Vimeo.

Hat tip: MAGafeed

No Comments on Beige New World

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