Another day, another dumb liberal video has gone mega viral.

This time we have a horrifying episode of a young woman getting harassed on the street by a whole lot of dudes. Filmed during one 10-hour walk around New York City, the short video has driven predictable outrage at the oppression women face when they get cat called and complimented walking in the city.

Naturally, this clip makes a perfect battering ram to attack American men, particularly White men, for their rampant misogyny and rape-like behavior. Cue the comparisons to Gamergate and all the other episodes of men attacking women.

But there’s a massive elephant in the room that’s getting little notice—all the men catcalling are Black and Hispanic. Instead of a “man” problem, this looks more like a non-White problem…and that’s what it really is.

The “street harassment” problem has arisen recent years largely due to the rise of young, college-educated Whites gentrifying urban hellholes. While more Whites and Asians are moving in, not all of the non-Whites are moving out. Thus, we have more women who spent four years learning gender theory coming face-to-face with virile minorities who give zero fucks about urban elf etiquette. Now we have a street harassment problem.

Considering that these are urban elves we’re dealing with, the racial angle will never come up with this problem. Instead, the anger is directed against the monolithic “patriarchy.” If these catcallers are ever depicted, there’s a desperate attempt to show that they come from all “backgrounds”, or are fellow urban elves. The Daily Show’s segment on the phenomenon did just that and portrayed every male imaginable engaging in this behavior. (It even starred a Black female to show how “black bodies” are somehow objectified.) BuzzFeed’s video that “reversed” the roles of catcalling exclusively featured low T White and Asian males, implying that they are the ones committing this grave injustice.

The reason to place the blame on White males is easy: they’re the only ones who will listen to this drivel, and their subjugation is the intent of feminism. That’s why rape culture and Gamergate dominate the feminist discourse more than street harassment. It’s much easier to conjure up villains when you’re dealing with gamer nerds and frat boys. It’s a lot harder when the perps are the lovable victims of White oppression. The intentional campaign to paint this as an issue that extends to all races and classes (when it doesn’t at all) then makes perfect sense. Otherwise, you’re left with an issue that would make great propaganda for those creepy racists.

This is when feminism and racial truths collide. If feminism has continually promoted the notion White men are the ones to fear, one video demonstrating that’s not the case can cause some consternation, to say the least.

Hanna Rosin is ahead of the curve in noticing the subversive racial message in the catcall clip, while spending an entire article arguing that it isn’t true non-Whites are overwhelmingly the perpetrators. Her evidence? The Daily Show segment. Seriously, that’s it. The aspiring actress who starred in the clip also reiterated the “men of all backgrounds” line, even when her own video disproved it.

While it’s currently claimed that there were White guys who hollered during the filming, they were edited out because their responses either weren’t egregious enough or mysterious sirens blocked out their calls. What a shocker. But I won’t be surprised if this video is re-edited to include blond-haired Wall Street brokers hurling “Ride my dick, bitch!”

Additionally, there’s the question of how to stop this supposed menace. The group behind the campaign, Hollaback!, wants the state to ride to their rescue and arrest these men. This is rich because the same liberals who want to end stop-and-frisk now demand police to arrest Black men for shouting unwarranted compliments. That idea would quickly backfire and create another outrage movement—this time from Blacks rather than privileged women. It’s also unlikely to ever be enacted. But it does show, once again, that independent women always resort to the “men with guns” option when it comes to dire threats.

Needless to say, street harassment presents a major dilemma for feminism. While most of their subjects of choice are abstract (like rape culture) and affect few women, if any, street harassment has an impact on a large swath of women and is an immediate threat. I have little doubt that it’s terrifying to have swarms of Black men accost you on a daily basis and threaten you with rape. I understand that because it’s not a feminist issue. It’s a race issue. While society tells you to move to the big city straight out of college, all of America’s problems stem from Whites, and you have nothing to fear in regards to non-Whites, street harassment tells you otherwise. This is the effect of living in a multiracial society where you’re not allowed to express racial truth. So you go along with the feminist explanation—but you know deep down that it isn’t true.

And that’s why this will remain a problem for young White women. I predict that Rosin’s critique is only the start of the backlash against this viral hit and it will quickly be denounced for the unintended racial message. They will hastily assemble an all-White version or find a White scapegoat to keep the “all backgrounds” line alive. They’ll obscure the truth and keep blaming the patriarchy, rather than the real culprit of non-White aggression and different cultural norms.

You the reader might now be saying to yourself that we, as White men, have to do something to stop this. Not at all. These urban elves have made their bed, and now it’s time for them to sleep in it. Most of them have lived their entire lives in sheltered enclaves where they never once had to interact with a real non-White. Sure, they had that one token Black friend and got to know the really bright Mexicans that got into their prestigious school thanks to affirmative action. But while they may love diversity, they’ve never experienced diversity.

I’m a firm believer in the opposite of contact theory. Coming into contact with different groups, particularly catcalling Blacks, is more likely to make Whites racially aware than secluding themselves in lily-white suburbs. Maybe street harassment is opening up a few eyes to America’s very real race problem. Maybe it’s making more White women want to stick with their own people than go out of their groups. Maybe it’s making them ask questions you’re not supposed to ask.

Whatever is occurring, one thing is for sure: the prevalence of street harassment is due to urban diversity. If urban elves want to celebrate diversity, then let them experience it up close and personal.

Abstract: Nationalism is deliberately misunderstood and distorted by journalists and academics. The near universal rejection of the ethnic principle in post-modernity must have a source. That source is the global nature of capital. Therefore, in postmodernity, nationalist thought is the ethnic folk rejecting an economics that is global and therefore, completely out of control of peoples, states or any institution that is not a bank. Here, this view will be explored using the main political figure in Bulgaria today, Volen Siderov.

Nationalism is a crucial ingredient to understanding the politics of the 19th and 20th century. Contrary to the typical academic, however, it was also a significant actor far earlier than that. Nationalism is unpopular with the present American system of both government and education primarily because it does not suit the interests of capital. Capitalism was and is international and revolutionary. There was never a time when capital was “national,” since colonial exploitation for needed resources was needed to produce the surplus soon to be invested in what became the industrial revolution.

This essay will deal with a nation impoverished after the fall of the USSR: Bulgaria. She has been the target of economic vultures from within and without, leaving the country with little freedom and no sovereignty. Bulgaria, like the rest of Eastern Europe, is seen as a periphery supplying needed resources, energy, and labor to the West, or those who control the West. The point is that the rejection of nationalism by elites is a requirement to justify such rapacious behavior.

If nations do not exist, than neither can imperialism, since the problem with imperialism is that nations lose their sovereignty under a multinational organization. If nations do not exist, then there is no moral problem with taking the resources of another state. Therefore, the frenzied, dishonest, and well-financed scholarly and journalistic attack on nationalism is little more than loyal service to the empire.

Misrepresentations of Nationalism

Many scholarly definitions of nationalism are caricatures rather than sincere efforts to understand the phenomenon. Academics are so violently opposed to nationalism that their scholarship (Eric Hobsbawm springs to mind) is an excellent example of academic dishonesty. Almost always, official discussions of the matter, academic or otherwise, treat nationalism as an aberration destined to die with sufficient, enforced enlightenment. This is identical to the Leninist position in the early 1920s. The vehemence displayed in the mainline literature suggests that what is at stake is the very legitimacy and credibility of the entire Enlightenment project. (Probably the most dishonest and fraudulent treatment of the subject can be found in the almost unreadable Fantasies of Salvation: Democracy, Nationalism, and Myth in Post-Communist Europe by Vladimir Tismaneanu.)

Regardless of the constantly incorrect forecasts of its demise, nationalism is not only still present, but is growing in strength. The myths of Enlightenment ideology have led to the domination of capital, technocracy, liberal bureaucratism, and positivism. These have not only failed to make anyone happy or save a millisecond of labor, but have also developed in precise proportion to an explosion of mental illness, personal and family breakdown, overwork, and extreme levels of stress.

There is no hard and fast definition of nationalism as an “ideology,” but this can be said for any political view. Each word in political thought is contested and torn to pieces in the literature. This is at least in part due to the over-theorization and over-specialization of politics as well as the monstrous inflation of professors, journals, and universities.

In nationalism’s case, this lack of a clear positive program should not be a surprise. This is because nationalism will be characterized and utilized differently depending on the many variables each ethnic group must face. While nationalism has certain general concepts that express a unified view, these should be seen as principles rather than ideological postulates. The point is that how these principles are manifest depends on a multitude of variables requiring highly specialized study.

Most honest writers in the field tend to define nationalism as an ethnic group seeking an independent state. Those groups that already have one will seek to increase its unity, power and cultural level. However, the problem in the constant caricaturization of nationalism has been caused by the denial of a connection between ethnicity and statehood. This has led to a fictional, misty idea called “civic nationalism” that is never defined. This is largely because it has no meaning. It is vapid in its very expression.

The facts are that nationalism is necessary for even the most rudimentary civic life, since debate implies agreement on more fundamental questions. At a minimum, a nation must be united based on a common language (in the broader sense of “social communication”), a shared history, basic moral agreement, and a sense of historic mission. This is identical to the ethnos or the folk.

Without these minimal ingredients, no political community exists. Without general agreement, ethnic similarity and a single language, politics comes down to force, elite cohesion, and a bureaucracy playing off one group against their many enemies. It is a parody, a carnivalesque inversion of politics that presently typifies the “multicultural” US and EU. This implies the obvious: nations must be cultural, historical, and integral long before they can be political–since civic life presupposes these unities.

Enter Siderov

Ukraine and Bulgaria were both behind the Iron Curtain, though in a radically different capacity. Bulgaria was part of the Warsaw Pact, an ostensibly independent country that did the will of Moscow without question. Ukraine, on the other hand, was considered a part of Russia and hence, the USSR. While the Bulgarians were trusted allies of Russian policy, the Ukrainians were seen as untrustworthy nationalists that were in need of endless surveillance.

The tragi-comic reign of Boyko Borisov is worthy of its own sitcom. After the meltdown of 2008, the Borisov government was treated to an IMF-appointed finance minister, M. Djankov, even more hated than Borisov himself. Djankov was for some time a major bureaucrat in the World Bank. His faction came to power in 2007 with an electoral turnout of about 27%. In 2009, again, his faction came to power with a grand total of 38% of the popular vote in, yet again, a farce of an election where a handful of Bulgarians voted. Of course, the West sees the elections of its stooges under these conditions as perfectly reasonable.

The media is owned by westernized businesses and showed only the speeches of Borisov during the elections. Organized crime ensured his “electoral victory” with the full blessing of the US and EU. The westernized “ruling party” of Borisov, the “Citizens for the European Development of Bulgaria,” polls with an approval rating between 11 and 15%, though their president received nearly 50% of the vote. The West not only considers this travesty democratic, but Borisov received public support from David Cameron, Angela Merkel, and Barack Obama. Media control is essential to this party’s victories, since their public stance is nationalist, while their public policies are the opposite. Furthermore, while governments in the past have been created entirely by this party getting only 30% of the vote or so, this too, is called “democracy.”

In early 2013, Borisov was forced to resign amid riots over corruption, high energy prices, and the general sense that Borisov is merely a tool of organized crime. (The U.S. Congressional Quarterly produced evidence in 2011 that Borisov was, in fact, not only in bed with the mafia, but a major player in it as well.) Fleeing in his pajamas, Borisov was seen running to a plane, frightened for his life, as Bulgaria burned. This did not do well for Bulgarian national morale. The final act to this farce was that, as a reward for destroying Bulgaria for the sake of slightly lower European oil prices, the disgraced finance minister Djankov was immediately given a post at the Harvard University with tenure, though he has never taught before.(Chances are that this “tenure” exists so as to protect him from retribution due to his organized crime connections.)

Today, Boyko heads the party “Citizens for the European Development of Bulgaria” and plays for FC Vitosha Bistritsa. Significantly, he is reputed to be shacking up with Tsvetelina Borislavova, who at one time was the chief of the Bulgarian-American Credit Bank. Hence, he is literally in bed with the western financial establishment. In parliament, his faction gets to control the legislative process while rarely getting more than 35% of the low turnouts.

The Bulgarian currency, the lev, is pegged to the Euro, hence distorting the Bulgarian economy and attaching it to the indebted and financially unstable European Union. The monetary system is stable, as is the fiscal system. Low growth is the biggest problem, but high levels of education are the best advantage. As always, the products fashioned by former Soviet states have no market in the West, but interest remains in the East. Bulgaria’s economy is largely oriented to the Russian market, as are all former Soviet states or satellites. China seems very interested in Bulgaria, which is normally a good sign. What makes Bulgaria unique here is how rapidly she was brought into the EU. All rules governing admission to the Union were shoved aside to get Sophia in as quickly as possible.

Bulgarian oil and her long standing alliance with Moscow are the two reasons the EU rushed to bring Bulgaria into its thralldom. As energy prices rose, Bulgaria’s very fragile economy went into a sharp decline. Rapidly, she was admitted into the EU as a countermeasure to the prospect of a closer relationship with a resurgent and confident Russia. In essence, Bulgaria was guaranteed international respectability by EU membership in exchange for sovereignty, her oil, her natural gas, and her government’s domestic popularity. The EU has brought nothing positive to Bulgaria whatsoever, and, given her energy policy, membership costing the impoverished country a fortune. The real issue here is that the fraud can only last so long as nationalism is suppressed by elites in the West as well as Sophia.

Under the EU, Bulgaria has been forced to export her domestic resources. Bulgaria must, in the inverted carnival of international capitalism, import oil since the EU demands it be routed to them. To add to this comedy, the Bulgarian government then began investing in nuclear power to compensate for the oil forcibly taken from the country. That all of this was sold domestically as “democratization” brings misanthropic scorn to a new level.

What industry remains is dedicated to 1970s-level computer equipment and automotive parts from the same era. The worst aspect of Bulgaria’s economy is the fact that Russians do not want Bulgarian goods anymore. The shift to the Eest was worse than useless, since a) no one wants them there either, and b) she came to the West just in time for the West’s implosion. In this case, bad luck partners with incompetence for a comic display that is tempered only by the heroic Bulgarian people’s suffering. However, given that the alternative to westernization is integration into Eurasia, there is probably nothing the Bulgarian elites can do that will harm their present, albeit costly, EU standing.

For most Bulgarians, nationalism was the basis for the overthrow of dictator Todor Zhivkov 25 years ago. Today, none of that is left. The 20 year anniversary was met with a stony silence from the Bulgarian population, and no one showed up at the main square in Sophia to take part in the state-run celebrations of Bulgarian independence. They seek the guiding hand of Russia on the one hand, and a strong Bulgarian stateon the other. Today, the new “President”, Rosen Plevnielev, seeks stronger ties with China while sitting on the board of the American Chamber of Commerce and being the head of a major German consortium invested in Bulgaria. He won 50% of the vote with an opposition so divided that it fielded no fewer than 17 candidates.

It was noted in passing that the stuffing of ballot boxes by two parliament members of “Citizens for the European Development of Bulgaria” was caught on video, but the election was given the western, European, liberal seal of approval regardless. Even more, Boyko, somehow still a political player, merely denied what was on the video, saying the elections were perfectly legitimate. The US and EU agreed. Brunwasser cites a poll in Bulgaria that shows 76% of Bulgarians questioning the basic assumptions of liberal democracy. This is presented as if it is an inexplicable and indicative, no doubt, of Bulgarian lack of enlightenment.

While for both Ukraine and Bulgaria, independence was based on the moral issue of self-determination in the face of a disintegrating empire, today, independence has shown little actual economic or political progress. Both countries are stagnating economically, and the “democratic” movement that brought the current state system into power is held in contempt by a large majority of the population. Adding more to the farce, the mere injection of money into the Bulgarian economy is recorded as “growth” by the West and the Bulgarian media. Of course, today, the prime rate is about 11% and actual growth in production is zero. Services dominated the economy once actual industry was sold off for scrap to the EU.

As of this writing, the average Bulgarian wage is $400 monthly, and has the distinction of being both the poorest and most corrupt state in the EU. The former Bulgarian president, George Parvanov, had faced major impeachment vote both for his aid to Saddam Hussein as well as his failure to fight official corruption. Of course, the “punishment” for corruption is mere show, since this was known as a problem when Brussels accepted Bulgaria in a Russophobic panic. Parvanov, in good liberal fashion, called himself a “national socialist” in his campaign, but advocated–once in office–integration into NATO, liberal economics, and continued EU membership.

In 2007, the EU suspended all aid to Bulgaria on the grounds that corruption had gotten worse, not better, since Sophia was accepted into the Union. Weaver reports for the Guardian that the EU suspended aid to Bulgaria because of severe spending irregularities and the lack of any attempt to fight corruption and mismanagement. Hence, as of now, we are dealing with two countries known for their radical nationalism now facing economic failure and political meltdown.

Siderov and Attack!

That the main nationalist party in Bulgaria is called Attack! should now come as no surprise. Volen Siderov, the head of that party, led the charge for the government’s impeachment. Siderov is one of the few politically active Bulgarians with an actual program of reform that does not include the resurrection of the USSR. Needless to say, there is no insult, slander, or misrepresentation that has not been applied to Siderov in the western press.

Countries in the Slavic world are almost entirely unknown to the westerner. Therefore, any media label sticks, no matter how false, since there are few to answer the accusations or defend the slandered outcast. Journalists and academics can say what they please without fear that anyone will correct their caricatures and slander, since only a handful of specialists have any knowledge whatsoever. For them, with their economic life totally dependent on government or a university, they either join in the slander or pick another career.

His nationalist program is interesting reading, since Siderov, like his counterparts in Serbia (the Radical Party) and Ukraine (the Independent Socialist Party) has an agenda that synthesizes both nationalism, economic statism, and socialism. Siderov is not content to simply rely on nationalist slogans, but wants to place the idea of ethnic solidarity on an economic basis in his rejection of both neo-liberalism and the “virtual economy.”

Siderov holds that following the models of Korea and Japan is important for small countries who need the state to maintain their economic independence. For Siderov, the state is the central institution of national development for countries facing colonization. It should be noted that for what is clearly a third world country in Europe (as there are many, including Serbia, Moldavia, and Romania) the one thing that the former Soviet Bloc states have in common is a high rate of literacy and scientific understanding, which was stressed in the militarized Soviet economy. The same high level of literacy exists among East Asians as well, a fact not lost on Siderov and his (substantial) following.

His work The Basics of Bulgarianism is written for the common man. He mocks the pretensions and contradictions of American writers on the topic. Not having a solid view of nationalism and often using caricatures and distortions that are congenial to their ideology, Siderov first refutes the idea that nationalism is a product of the rationalist “French Revolution”:

There are some propagandistic contemporary “political scientists” in our country repeating the lie that the idea of “nationalism” began to be used only in the 19th century. They suggest that the term has been around for about 200 years, that is, after the French Revolution. In fact, in the early 16th century the Italian author and politician Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) used “nation” in today’s sense of the word. In that same century, Charles V (1519-1588) was called “Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation.”

To use the French Revolution to act as the foil for the creation of “nationalism” is a bit like calling the Orange Order the mainstay of Catholic power in Belfast. The French Revolution rejected all ties of language and culture, and posited a purely bourgeois order of individuals all seeking their self-interest. No concept of unity was ever put forth, nor was one wanted. Quickly dispatching the stupider myths of nationalism, he quotes several western writers on the topic, and finally, summarizes the concept:

The older view of the term, the one we use, “nation” (нация) includes a common language, culture, religion and territory. From this, a state can form that encompasses all of these commonalities. The word “nation” should not frighten us nor should we avoid using it. It is something quite natural and is related to the ideas of “heaven,” “earth,” and “mother” [in Slavonic]. The same goes for the term “nationalism” (национализъм).

For Siderov, his main economic concern is the tremendous inequality of wealth in Bulgaria, where a handful of billionaires control the country. He holds that there are many causes for this, but one of the more significant is the predatory nature of foreign investment. It is clear that foreign investment in Bulgaria only serves to remove wealth, not generate it. There is not much of a Bulgarian market, so any EU investment can only be for predatory purposes. EU membership has just exacerbated this. In addition, one of the main planks in his party platform is to increase retirement benefits and social welfare programs for those affected by the government’s neo-liberal policies.

Significantly, Siderov distinguishes nationalism from imperialism or state expansion:

When we describe nationalism, we must begin by realizing that there is no single program for nationalist ideas. In general terms, it is the defense of the interests of a specific ethnos. These are as varied as there are nations. “Nationalism” in England refers to an empire created by fraud and destruction over entire continents. . . Bulgarian nationalism comes from Rakovsky, Levsky and Botev, whose essential concept was maintaining the Bulgarian way of life in an order based on social justice. Conquering others was not on the agenda. [An empire] sends soldiers to kill for an oligarchic elite. . .There is nothing in common between the citizen and the ruling class. Globalist propaganda, however, teaches us that American expansionism in Iraq is something progressive, but defending the interests of a weak Bulgaria is a terrible thing.

That nationalism is regularly conflated with its opposite–-imperialism–cannot be anything but deliberate. Nationalism cannot be squared with the denial of all other nationalism just as it cannot be squared with the rationalist French Revolution. Nationalism came into existence as a resistance movement against imperialism. Imperialism is inherently a cosmopolitan idea, since empires do not have ethnic identities. Modern cosmopolitanism is the creation of multinational corporations, banks and the misused and abused American soldier. The grunt will never see any benefit from his sacrifices, but service to the ethnos, on the other hand, is personal, emotional, and moral.

Since contemporary empires have no identity other than being the vehicle for a small elite, it must use all forms of manipulation to maintain support. Taking Bulgarian oil and selling off Ukrainian enterprises is called “democratization” and “the free market.” Resistance to such exploitation is called “hate.” The creation of “terrorist threats,” “nationalist fanatics,” or the growing crop of “new Hitlers” are required to continue to justify extremely high levels of foreign expenditures into imperial wars.

Yet, even the American still can reach a breaking point. As of 2014, there is no money nor political will for any military action in Eastern Europe. Even more, there are not the men or military resources available. Unless the system can generate a “terrorist event” that can be credibly, but superficially, blamed on “the Russians,” the indebted US will just have to gnash its teeth in well earned frustration.

Siderov’s error lies in believing that cosmopolitan expansion and imperialism is the “national” policy of the US or Britain. Of course, the reality is that the British ethnos has no power. Britain is, like the US, controlled by a plutocratic elite who almost unanimously preach free-trade and globalization for economic reasons. They are no more “British” than Lenin or Trotsky were “Russian.” They had loyalties only to themselves and their ideological mystifications. The elites of all political parties in the US and EU deny the significance of ethnicity in general, though with some strategic exceptions which remain curious.

In terms of dealing with Bulgaria’s neighbors, Siderov holds that Macedonia is an artificial country, created by the Comintern in the 1950s. Furthermore, the Turkish minority in the country is really the group that has introduced institutionalized corruption into a nation that they hate. Siderov here does not and cannot separate economic well-being from the sense of family and solidarity that nationalism shows at its best. From this fact, Siderov holds that nationalism is the best approach to international cooperation, since nations, in order to be consistent, must recognize the legitimate demands of everyone else. States should see each other as equals, not as predatory agents that serve only to exploit smaller states for the rich in larger ones.

The common good is essential for Siderov, as it is for all nationalists. There is no reason to sacrifice for a nation unless there is a “common” to defend and a solid sense of the “good” that can be shared. Since cosmopolitanism has a conception neither of the “common” nor the “good,” the moral question is conveniently not present. Without this approach, nationalism is as contradictory as cosmopolitanism. Hence, like every nationalist writer worthy of the name, Siderov requires of all nationalists to respect the ethnic customs of others.

Bulgaria and Siderov are ideal to discuss the nationalism of oppressed peoples. This is because they have gone from one victimizer to another. Bulgaria’s own communists, Moscow and now Brussels, have reduced this country, at one time a major player in the region, to an impoverished, well-educated, and highly intelligent people. Her population is plummeting to a greater extent than Russia or Ukraine, partly because there is no reason to make commitments without certainty or incentive.

The exploitation of the EU in this regard is easily as unjustified as Stalin’s decades earlier. The cynical use of the EU to stop any Russian advance is identical to the events leading to World War I. Yet in this case, Bulgaria is receiving help from China, meaning that Sophia may well become another hub of the Eurasian world. Let us hope this is so.

America may have finally caught up to Nigeria and halted the spread of Ebola–for now. But the reign of Ebola is far from over, as the refusal of Liberians to believe in racist concepts like “germ theory” instead of anti-White conspiracies (helpfully spread by Africans teaching at American universities) means the disease will continue as a threat for some time.

The prospect of a Biblical plague in the United States was always unlikely, as much as our society may deserve it by Old Testament standards. And the insistence by many on what passes for the American Right that the apocalypse was just around the corner makes it easy for progressives to sneer. But what’s even more important than the disease itself is the reaction of “our” government and its media courtiers, who have constantly portrayed the fear of Ebola as racist and paranoid—the exact same thing they say about anyone who questions Obamacare, mass immigration, or even government spending. Fearing Ebola is now a social faux pas, something slightly less severe than not screaming at your Republican relatives about White privilege every Thanksgiving.

Of course, if Ebola was coming from, say, Iceland, the President would have already set up a travel ban as well as a blockade and Slate would be running articles about how the island’s lack of mass immigration and genetic diversity is the root cause of the disease. Instead, Ebola is a fashionable disease, a politically correct cause linked with helpless Africans, something pop-Christian cuckolds and SWPL race scolds can both get behind.

As we transition into a controlled culture where normative beliefs are prescribed for every aspect of human experience, even diseases fall into a kind of PC ranking system. HIV used to be at the top of the pyramid but is now rather passé. The academics are doing their best to reframe its legacy as a gay Holocaust that will be taught in schools, presumably with Ronald Reagan as Hitler. However, it doesn’t have the panache of the disease du jour. Breast cancer is a perennial favorite, as “fighting” it is less about treating a disease than providing a welcome opportunity to shriek at men to deconstruct their masculinity.

Ebola is interesting because it has actually transformed its image with this latest outbreak. With its symptoms out of Lovecraftian horror–blood pouring out of every orifice and organs transformed into puddles of fetid ooze—Ebola was the original Hollywood disease designed to strike fear into the heart of Middle America. It was the medical nightmare we were told to dread. A thinly veiled version of it (Motaba) was at the center of the 1995 film Outbreak and Tom Clancy had his United Islamic Republic unleash a weaponized version of it on Jack Ryan’s America in Executive Orders. The theme of an unstoppable disease that would wreak havoc on the American people was also a theme of Contagion, where anyone annoyed at Gwyneth Paltrow offering her goop to Barack Obama can watch her untimely demise as one of the first victims.

Even though these and other recent fictional treatments of outbreaks have a strong pro-government message, Americans have essentially been trained to expect and fear a disaster that will someday kill us all. Therefore, when the President decides to repeatedly allow Ebola infected patients into the country, refuses to implement the kind of travel ban that African countries credit with sparing their own lands, and sends American troops into Africa with cursory training on how to handle the disease, you can forgive people for being a little concerned. After all, Hollywood assured us our government would take this seriously.

Reporters have shown no tolerance towards such grumbling from the peasants. The Parasitic Class is busy crafting the Narrative that racism is the real disease (the boys at theGrio can feel free to help themselves to that little bon mot). Ebola is a “crazy, racist dog-whistle” according to Raw Story and a “racist moral panic” according to Jezebel. The best one yet comes from a social liability in human form that Ethiopian and Eritrean immigrants dumped on us, one “black feminist” named Hannah Giorgis. She offers some dogma heavy duckspeak about Ebola being a stand in for “African-ness” that will “ruin the perceived purity of western bodies and borders.” (Place your bets about how easy her college courses were.)

But Giorgis does have a point in that every time we hear something about Africa, it carries a political and racial meaning. Of course, thanks to people like her, hearing or saying anything about the Dark Continent imposes an obligation on Europeans.

If we see a picture of a modern African skyline (Durban, South Africa here, which regularly competes for murder capital of the world), it’s usually done with the purpose of shaming those who think of Africa as primitive. If you see a picture of Africans in traditional garb, it’s to show them as Magical Negroes who have sources of wisdom and morality evil Whites can’t understand. If an African country competently handles a crisis, that shows how evil Whites are for thinking of African countries as disease-ridden wastelands that can’t do anything right on their own. But if they screw it up, not immediately sending more aid and taking charge is also proof of racism.

Whites are familiar with this “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” problem.

If you move into a black neighborhood, you’re gentrifying, which is racist.

If you leave, you’re engaging in White flight, which is also racist.

If you treat your black friends like your White friends, you’re using the White privilege of acting colorblind, which is racist.

However, trying to be culturally understanding and fighting for social justice is condescending, because you’re trying to be the White liberal savior. So you’re racist there, too.

Not dating blacks is obviously racist.

However, marrying blacks is also racist, because you’re trying to impose White expectations on the oppressed.

Most Whites just deal with this insanity by trying to run away and watch the game, or adopt the more fashionable Urban Elf tactic of hipsterdom. Some Whites go full blue pill and simply become self-loathing, anti-White activists who actively, consciously, and proudly seek to destroy their own bloodline, even though they are still regarded as racists and occasionally attacked by their dusky brethren. But some become so frustrated and even nihilistic that they don’t care anymore. And it is this last group that has promise.

From Live Aid to “Bring Back ‘Our’ Girls,” there’s only so much insincere, pointless, and useless moralpreening empathy that the First World can channel. It’s like trying to care about Iraqi children after more than two decades of making things worse. And as our Third World President has declared that his “larger role” is making sure Africans are safe, the System is clearly doubling down on our already depleted stores of empathy for agency-free, melanin rich moral mascots.

More than that, even though Ebola may be contained for now, the next disaster is only one news cycle away. A four year old boy in New Jersey has already died from the enterovirus D-68, a disease which emerged seemingly out of nowhere. In what’s probably just a coincidence, the rise of the disease coincided with the placement of unscreened Central American “refugees” in schools around the country. Other vibrant diseases like TB are making a comeback. And this doesn’t include the various hospitals which are closing in the Southwest, which may include the Texas facility that treated “Ebola Guy” Thomas Duncan now that his family is suing the hospital for only spending half a million dollars to save his life. (Needless to say, they are alleging racism.)

Rush Limbaugh got into some trouble when he suggested (as have other conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly) that Obama is deliberately inviting in these diseases to punish the country. While it’s dangerous to ascribe to malice what can be explained by stupidity, the larger truth is that if Obama was deliberately trying to hurt the country and get Americans killed, he wouldn’t be doing anything different than what he is doing now.

The only time Obama even goes through the motions of governance is when politics forces him to pretend to act like the President of the United States. Once those PR imperatives are out of the way, he can do what he wants to do—like impose a mass amnesty after the mid-term elections. Given this combination of hypocritical moral grandstanding, political cynicism, and government malfeasance, it’s simply hard to care about sick Africans anymore unless you are deliberately trying to seek status among liberal Whites.

Enter Ebola-Chan, the loving and perky goddess of pestilence and death (complete with a Warhammer 40K Blood Angels logo). Ebola-Chan is a graphical representation of the disease which spawned a moral panic among the great and the good in the form of various elaborations on the theme of “Wow, just wow.” Bustle tries to get us all worked up about how “horrifying” it all is, but it has become too hard to care. The intent is to trick Africans into thinking Ebola-Chan is a White plot against them, which seems redundant, as many seem to believe that anyway. More than that, Ebola-Chan is a personalization of the spread of the plague, which well-wishers urge on with “GOOD LUCK EBOLA-CHAN!”

Ebola-Chan may be about trolling, or about racism, screwing with the media, or all of the above. But more than anything, Our Lady of the Boiling Organs is about simple exhaustion with racial egalitarianism and PC tokenism. No matter what happens in Africa or anywhere else, it’s always our fault—so screw it. Let it all fall apart. The people in charge don’t care that they are killing us anyway. And they don’t really care about the people in the Third World—they only care about being seen trying to help and proving how great they are.

Our government treats our own lives and country like a joke—why not treat a Third World plague the same way? And when all is said and done, why should we care about what happens in Africa when expressing concern about what happens in your own country or even your own children turns you into an Enemy of Polite Society?

Ebola-Chan may be fading for now. But she’ll be back. And other daughters of Nurgle will follow. But even the exciting new maladies we’ll enjoy as the newest part of the Third World are just a part of the ever increasing burden America is dumping on its European population.

As the government cuts off the retreat to White communities, imports tens of millions of dependents, and declares that the fate of the benighted from Biafra to Baghdad is of urgent concern to us, more Whites will see the futility of universal empathy.

We can only hope so, because the idealism we need must be preceded by cynicism, disillusionment, and contempt for what exists today. Ebola-Chan isn’t an avenging angel. She’s the prophet of what comes next.

As an outsider, I read an implied premise behind the First Identitarian Congress. The premise was that the “wind from the East” was real and that the resulting geopolitics made new things possible.

Hungary represented the first defection from the post-Western multicultural order of the European Union. Eurasianism could provide an opening to Russia. Putin’s state, while certainly flawed, could challenge the hegemony of American liberalism. Emerging Identitarian movements in nations such as France and Austria could be the vanguard of revolutionary change in the heart of the West.

European-Americans, by turning their back on the New World and embracing their European identity, could champion the idea of Europe as our nation, with our loyalty transferred to our existing communities of culture and blood in the United States and the Continent rather than the egalitarian abstractions of the Declaration of Independence. Identitarian movements in Western Europe were already promoting this pan-European idea. This new geopolitical reality could create an opening for ethno-nationalist and secessionist movements in the West within an overall framework of European Unity.

That was why the conference was to be held in Budapest, a city looking both East and West. And that was why the National Policy Institute, having brought the European New Right to make the case against the artificial and deracinated American identity, had to go to Europe.

Well… that’s not quite how it worked out.

Now that the dust has cleared, there are a few essential things that have to be established before we can interpret where we stand:

• First was the source of the pressure to ban the conference itself. This was mostly driven by the Hungarian Left and seized upon by the conservative government to prove their opposition to “extremism” to the West. However, a source in Hungary reports that the US State Department had also expressed its concern about the conference to the government. This is supported by the fact that the State Department, which applauds things like gay rights festivals in Budapest, stopped just short of endorsing Richard Spencer’s arrest and seemingly groused that the First Amendment would allow discussion of NPI’s ideas in the United States. It also openly approved the government’s actions, saying it was “pleased to see that the government of Hungary is speaking out to reaffirm that it does not support those who promote racial or ethnic intolerance.” Insofar as there was actual American imperialism in Hungary, it was Barack Obama’s American government seeking to prevent the conference from taking place and applauding the state action taken against it.
• Secondly, the Hungarian Left’s opposition to the conference was also grounded in its opposition to the conservative Hungarian government. Those Hungarians who protested the conference linked the NPI conference to the controversy over a new monument commemorating the German occupation. The monument portrays Hungary as a victim and conveys a kind of 19th century conservative patriotism. In contrast, the Hungarian opposition and the American press want Hungary to adopt the frankly ethnomasochist policies of a country like Germany and devote more money and resources to building Holocaust memorials. The opposition to NPI was at least partially driven by a desire to “link” Orban to scary American White nationalists; the Hungarian government’s willingness to use state power to ban the conference was at least partially driven by their fear of that charge gaining credence.  
• Third is explaining the reaction of Jobbik. Of course, the party knew exactly what it was getting into, having corresponded with the organizers for months. However, the government’s ban changed the equation. Jobbik didn’t run from the conference because they only learned at the last minute what it was about–they ran because it suddenly had become too politically costly to continue. It’s equivalent to Rand Paul “accepting the resignation” of Jack Hunter–the Senator knew from the very beginning everything Hunter had said and done, had hired him because of that, and changed because politics required it. (It should be noted that even as Jobbik issued a ham-handed denunciation of American “racism,” it still praised Dugin. Interpret that as you will.)
• And finally, there’s the action of the conference organizers themselves. According to some people I have spoken to, after Richard Spencer was detained, there was a kind of indecision about what to do next. People on the ground only knew that he had been unexpectedly arrested and presumably deported immediately, as with Bill Regnery. The decision to go through with the rump conference and email all remaining registrants at the last minute resulted because all those people were still there and needed to know how to get to the already secured backup venue. Indeed, some people who wanted to go to the conference unfortunately fell through the cracks. Thus, had communications been better, there would have been more than the seventy or so people who still attended.

Behind all of the sound and fury the conference has generated within the “movement” and the sneers from System’s press, there remains one simple truth. The government of Hungary banned this conference because they could. They have paid no price for it.  

That may change in the long run, but it has not yet. Indeed, Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz just cruised to another crushing electoral victory. Interestingly, Jobbik also did fairly well by striking a hard anti-Gypsy line in rural areas while trying to appear more moderate at a national level. And, thinking critically about all this, would we really want either of those parties to lose to the Socialists? The long term destination of Hungary is not yet certain, but there is still great promise. 

However, what we cannot count on is having a refuge in any other nation. Putin’s Russia enthusiastically arrests and persecutes White advocates just as energetically as the United Kingdom. The Hungarian government is not appreciably different from that of Germany when it comes to discussing ideas about the future of Europe—or indeed whether Europe gets to have a future.

At the same time, this should also strip any illusions from those championing a kind of isolationist 19th century nationalism. The current Hungarian government showed itself to be either a satrap of America or, at best, authoritarian conservatives with no ideology beyond preserving their own power and raging at the European Union they are economically dependent on. The experience of Fr
anco’s Spain should show us how empty Reaction works out long term. Identitarians should also heed the lessons of the last European elections, where even parties like the Front National found themselves with essentially no representation in the European Parliament because of the inability to work together and form a bloc.

As Jared Taylor’s passionate—and historic—speech made clear, we face a common struggle. No nation or people within the great European family will be able to survive unless the increasingly frantic tide of anti-White hatred is overcome. The Broken Empire of Europe must be restored, in spirit if not as a political entity. And this has to take place–not just as the fulfillment of a dream–but as a tactical necessity for mere survival.

From that point of view, this First Identitarian International should be regarded as a success for three critical reasons:

• It announced Identitarians as a movement in its own right that is beginning to build institutions in the real world. This isn’t simply “White nationalism” or ethno-nationalism or whatever political hobbyhorse. It’s the beginning of a vehicle whereby the key intellectual and political figures in each European nation can coordinate their efforts, meet in fellowship, and hammer out the ideas that will take us to victory. Moreover, the atmosphere of state persecution has made it abundantly clear that this movement of intellectuals and political soldiers is now seen as a real threat to the current System, a victory in its own way. The media, the System’s most fanatic defender, gave the conference a great deal of attention and couldn’t even get the smears together until the conference was long over, as if unsure how to react to this new force.
• It established the core doctrine of European unity as fundamental. From all over Europe, attendees came and they carried with them a simple message—we share one struggle. From Flemish nationalists to Swedish pagans, Eastern Europeans to native English speakers, there was a startling recognition that there is no contradiction between pursuing ethno-nationalism and localism on the one hand and pursuing the dream of Europa on the other. Indeed, one cannot be accomplished without the other, as Whites are targeted by our global enemies because of our identity as a race, not because of the passport we carry, the geography in which we reside, or the language we speak.
• Its impact is already being felt in the real world—not on the Internet. From corresponding with various people who were there, one of the most interesting reactions has been the relative competition between the different countries to host the next Identitarian Congress. Partnerships were formed, relationships were established, and projects are underway that will not be broadcast on the Internet or subject to the various infighting and bickering that unfortunately plagues anything based online. The shock of state persecution and the bracing realization that you faced legal consequences for listening to a speaker hardened both those who attended and those who followed it from afar. I predict that this one conference will spawn many more organizations and institutions beyond itself.

Still, there are three things to come to mind that are less cheerful. First is the necessity to hold another conference–preferably one that won’t be interrupted and that everyone who wants to attend can attend safely. Second is the loss of connection with figures in Hungary, which can hopefully be re-established or re-formulated on another level as soon as possible. And finally, and most importantly, the realization that American Identitarians need to start building real power on the ground in the real world and not count on the democratic parties.

The fact is Identitarians offer nothing to democratic political parties as they stand today. As a movement, we don’t even offer anything to our own members besides a vague feeling of solidarity or faith that we are doing the right thing. The costs of open involvement can be incredibly harsh. Perhaps the biggest takeaway is the urgent need to start building power on a local level in the here and now. Being a spectator is simply no longer an option.

This doesn’t mean quitting your job to become a full time organizer, waving signs along the highway, or even starting another website under your own name is what you have to do.

But it means you have to start building structures and figuring out ways to assist like-minded people.

It means you have to start tithing to groups you deem worthy of support.

And it means that you–yes you, sitting there right now—need to start working with like-minded friends in your communities to build an explicit White tribe. (If you don’t have any—well, these sites and others exist for a reason.) The purpose isn’t to create headlines or even advertise your existence, but to serve as a mutual aid society, a vehicle for the upward development of everyone involved, and an eventual base for building power. The Revolution will not be online.

The experience of the European Congress showed that we will not be able to rely on anyone else to come save us. The different tribes of our European family are all under occupation. However, what the Congress began is the kind of competition that we need among each other—working to outdo each other in our contributions towards the dream of Europa instead of engaging in pointless and petty internecine warfare. If that spirit can be taken to heart by those who were there and those who couldn’t make it, we might look back to the meeting in Budapest as the key moment when Europeans—those on the Continent and those in the New World—began to make real progress towards realizing their common destiny.

The Predominance of Pornography

The wise F. Roger Devlin once commented that since “Cosmopolitan is the top-selling magazine in American college bookstores. It is not too much to call it an important part of an American woman’s education.” The observation served as a critique of those who ignore that magazine when peering into the mind of the American woman. If Dr. Devlin’s view is correct (and it seems hard to argue that it is not), by the same token pornography should be considered an important part of an American male’s education. As such, it is worth taking a closer look.

Before casting an analytical eye on the topic, it is first necessary to restate one obvious fact, and dispel one undying myth.

The obvious, it is that it is popular. The most glaring proof of this lies in how multiple “tube” sites (you know, like YouTube, but for porn) are among the most popular hundred websites in America. More over, many of the top-hundred sites that are not explicitly pornographic serve as unofficial transmitters of it to varying degrees. For example, the micro-blogging platform, Tumblr (which is ranked the 23rd most popular site in the US), is notorious of its pervasive adult content. Consider how a little over a year ago Salon featured an article called “The best of Tumblr porn” and it sat on their most-read list for over eight weeks. And yes, this is the incredibly leftwing website Salon, which traffics in quite a bit of “sexual commentary” along with its loathsome political commentary. Although Tumblr is by far the most pornographic of social media/blogging sites, most of the others: Reddit (#16), WordPress (#25), etc. share plenty of guilt as well. All of this of course begs the question of how much of the Internet is dedicated to porn, which is difficult to answer, since big data regarding Internet use is notoriously difficult to gather, and by extension hard to verify. However, estimates for how much of the web is dedicated to porn range from sizeable (14% of searches and 4% of sites) to gargantuan (37% total). In short, porn is fucking popular.

The myth is that it’s a dying “industry.” There is tons of money in porn, yes, even with the Internet. Once again, precise numbers are hard to come by (most porn companies are privately held, which makes estimates of net worth tricky), but the number is big no matter what. Low estimates are around $8 billion annually, while high estimates claim $13 billion annually. If the truth is in the low number, that’s about equivalent to the total American foreign aid given in 2014 to Israel, Afghanistan, Egypt, and Pakistan–combined. If the truth is in the high number, it’s equivalent to the net worth of Rupert Murdoch and his family. Consider too, that both of those numbers are for inside the USA alone. Inside the industry, “pornstars” are still making plenty as well; one might even be the highest paid actor in the world. Rest assured, the Internet has caused a meaningful loss of annual profit, but it’s a dip the industry can easily absorb–no matter how much they like to complain about it.

Furthermore, the dip in profit is not going to grow; in another decade or so it will reverse and the money to be made will be even greater than it was pre-2006. For one, there appears to be an inherent floor in how much an industry can shrink because its product can be spread online for free; otherwise the music and movie industries would have completely collapsed by now. Second, there is “live streaming” in which one pays to see some permutation of porn live by way of personal computer. The technology is here and it’s starting to happen, and people pay for this. The profession of “cam girl”–a self-employed girl who masturbates live via the web, now seems to be a regular pit stop for college drop-outs, and the sites that host these girls are multiplying like mushrooms.

However, this last reason is far and away the most important for why the porn industry will start turning massive profits again. Currently, the only companies willing to advertise their products to viewers of pornography are companies who are in the same industry, or an offshoot, like vendors of sex toys or lubricants. But as porn becomes steadily more mainstream, this will change and the day it does is not far off. Once a single vendor of cologne, beer, firearms, cigarettes, denim, or whatever decides to flash their product on pornhub.com or one of its clones, the dominoes will fall. Since so many people watch it, the sales will skyrocket, and more companies will follow suit. Once that happens, tube sites will fall by the wayside as all major porn producers and distributors set up their own adult versions of hulu.com. Porn is here to stay.

So, we can continue with the understanding that there is a ton of money in porn, and that a ton of people are consuming it. As to who said “people” are, common wisdom is here correct, they are males, and males of all ages. If there really was sizeable female viewership, the aforementioned tube sites would have ads for women, but they don’t: all the garish pop-ups and sidebars are for pills to maintain erections and/or enlarge penises, quasi-prostitutes, and of course, more porn. When those sites start carrying regular ads for vibrators, dildos, and birth control, I will believe those who claim that “many” women like to watch. No doubt, when the mainstream advertisers come for porn in the scenario described above, it won’t be for Cosmopolitan magazine, but for a new videogame, or some of kind of golfing equipment. For some reason, I have always imagined the first “breakthrough” company will be Axe, probably because their ads are already so incredibly pornographic and stupid, and obviously targeted at impressionable and foolish young men who desperately want female attention, but I digress.

In sum: a ton of men watch a ton of porn, and there are some out there making tons of money because of it, so the situation is not about to change. The question now is: what’s the damage? Literature in the field of psychology examining the effects of regular porn consumption is copious, both in serious journals and in its supermarket equivalent. I should admit to knowing next to nothing about psychology, neuroscience, etc. However, throughout my teens and early twenties I worked at several different smut shops. From these experiences I am going to share some anecdotes and observations, the implications of which are worth considering. By way of excuse for my past employment, the best I can is point you to Jack Donovan’s essay, “A Church Full of Who
res.”

Porn is addictive

There were men at every store I worked at who would spend as much as forty dollars a day renting and/or buying porn. Some men would rent a video, return it a few hours later, and rent another. At one store I worked, we got new releases on Tuesdays, and we opened at 9AM, and every Tuesday morning there would be men milling about the parking lot waiting for someone to flick on the “Open” sign. That same store had a “4 movies for 4 days” deal, and every four days you would see the exact same faces grabbing another four to replace their last four. These men are also keenly aware that they are addicted. When one store I worked at closed, we had a fire sale, and one regular came in and bought about two dozen movies; the owner saw this and thanked him for the purchase and his many years of patronage. The regular merely shrugged and said, “It’s just an addiction.” Although obviously not as visible, something tells me that Internet porn use is no less habit forming. If anything, it would be more habit forming since there are zero barriers to obtaining it, like cost or just getting out of bed. A quick web search can bring up hundreds, if not thousands of confessional articles written by men who identify as porn addicts.

Porn morphs your sexuality

Those men who are addicted do not stick to one genre, they steadily move towards the more hardcore and bizarre. If someone is renting “normal” porn (i.e. vaginal penetration, oral, occasionally anal and threesomes) regularly, within a year you are going to see him start to branch out. Maybe first towards videos that feature baby-faced girls, or that put a great emphasis on anal sex. Not longer after that he is going to start wandering over to the “orgy and gang bang” shelves or maybe the “S&M” section. It gets weirder after that. I have seen men who after many years of habitual porn use started to rent gay porn, it wasn’t a common phenomenon, but it happened. At that point, I figure your sexuality is no longer discernably “straight” or “gay” but just “porn.” Almost like a perverse form of singularity, for some, “porn” and “sexuality” become one. How fast can this metamorphosis happen when porn of all sorts can be had at all hours? Well, fast, I assume. Much like addiction confessionals, women writing about the obvious affects of porn on the men they are seeing is easy to find, even in publications as mainstream as Gentleman’s Quarterly.

 Porn gets more extreme with time

In the case of hardcore pornography, things are getting more hardcore, I promise. Here I would like to warn readers, I am going to give some examples to prove my point, and before you read on, remember that you won’t be able to unread it. Feel free to skip to the paragraph below.

In the 1990s and early 2000s, from what I can tell, the complaint frequently leveled against “today’s more violent and hardcore porn” was its increasing focus on anal sex. British novelist Martin Amis wrote about this back in 2001 in an essay that’s surprisingly both funny and touching, called “A Rough Trade”. I have a hard time imagining someone, writing today, complaining about the rectal focus of porn. It would come off as so… quaint; I can’t think of a single major pornstar that hasn’t done anal. Meanwhile, a few months ago the “shock and awe” trend in porn that was being written about was the so-called “rosebuds.” That is the name given to anal prolapses when purposefully induced, after which they are generally fondled, kissed, sucked on, etc. The trend is real, and has been written about by the vanguards of hipster media: Jezebel and Vice, who of course track trends in porn, since their audience consumes it so regularly. Anyway, rosebuds had not yet bloomed when Martin Amis ventured into the San Fernando Valley over a decade ago. From the porn I’ve studied, there also seemed to be a few other acts that seemed to only exist in the newer pornos: “ass to mouth” where after you give anal you immediately receive oral, using feet to penetrate orifices, milk enemas (and yes, they drink it), and various other culinary-anal combinations, from chocolate pudding to peeled bananas.

Whenever we would watch a “classic” porno like Debbie Does Dallas, we always thought them kind of naff, that they weren’t “real” porno, just surprisingly dirty, quirky movies. Shaved pubic hair is the standard example, but that may just be a trend, I suppose we’ll find out. The question boils down to “did the kind of hardcore stuff that exists today exist in the ‘70s?” My answer is, “probably”–but the major companies weren’t the producers, it was on the fringes of the acceptable. Today, it has entered the “mainstream” of porn, the vile things I wrote about in the paragraph many of you skipped all can be found in Evil Angel releases, which is one of the largest porn companies there is. It is big enough that most every smut shop will have shelves dedicated to Evil Angel releases only, and it was Evil Angel that Mr. Amis shook his finger at for being too butt obsessed. While a particularly vile title might have inspired enough embarrassment to keep some people from renting it, the same cannot be said of the Internet, where it all hangs out.

All of the charges I have laid out above are attacked regularly by a very strange alliance: libertarians, “pro-sex” feminists, anti-Christians, and status-quo supporting liberals. Do not believe them, and do not kid yourself. Porn is getting more extreme, it distorts the way you see the world, it twists and damages your natural sexuality, and it is addictive. To boot, the people who make it get rich off of it. Perhaps it should come as no surprise that it has suddenly become available 24/7. I used to know a pothead who always joked, “Capitalism’s greatest trick was to start making things free.”

And that’s not all. Despite all the bad outlined above, the topic many readers had in mind when they clicked on this essay still hasn’t been broached: porn and race. I will start by saying that most of what you hear is true. The number of Jews involved (producing, directing, performing, etc.) in pornography is astounding. Andrew Hamilton and E. Michael Jones have both written about this at length, as well as Jews themselves. The reasons for this connection have been gone over enough times that rehashing them here seems superfluous. In addition to the three sources above, I would recommend digging through the archives of Heeb magazine, a Jewish website that gives quite a bit of attention to pornography. Their interviews with prominent contemporary Jewish pornographers like Joanna Angel (where she wonders why, as a Jew, she says “Jesus Christ” so much in her scenes) and Lee Roy Myers (who admits to taking his name from a Black artist) and of particular interest. Also of note is the website “Jewrotica” and the now defunct blog “Seductive Jewess” that can still be viewed through the WayBack Machine. In short, pornography is an easy way for Jews to undermine Christian morality, bourgeoisie taste, and the healthy sexual instincts of a given host population they are at odds with (e.g. us)–while also being quite lucrative. Anyone interested in lessening Jewish wealth and power should be interested in attacking pornography.

Miscegenation is, of course, another facet of pornography much discussed in our circles. Without a doubt, pornography portrays the act in a positive light, particularly between black men and white women. Walk into any smut shop and you will see a huge section devoted to “interracial”sex–almost entirely dedicated to the Black man/White woman pairings. The only two other pairings that have a sizeable number of titles to their name is White man/East Asian woman and White man/Black woman; there is a pittance of everything else. There does not yet exist a meaningful Mexican, Hispanic, or mestizo genre. Videos that fetishize that look certainly exist, but there are surprisingly few given how large Hispanic America has grown in the last two decades. Porn does fetishize Brazilians, however, by which they mean people who are a mix of European, Amerindian, and Black African.

For the record, while all of this is certainly demeaning to Whites, I would say that it is more or less equally demeaning to every other race as well. Black men are portrayed as little more than gorillas obsessed with defiling perfect and angelic like white women–probably not something either the Nation of Islam or the ghost of Marcus Garvey could get behind. Asian women are portrayed as stupid prostitutes, Asian men as anemic adolescents, etc. Porn seems to have a unique ability to demean everybody more or less equally–perhaps not surprising considering everyone is reduced to genitalia and orifices.

Given how “normal” watching porn has become, one has to conclude that porn is normalizing miscegenation. It was not uncommon for me to sell videos of Black men gang-banging White women to non-Black customers, and while working at a smut shop desensitizes you to a lot of things, that always struck me as strange. More than likely, it is merely an example of porn consumers needing to regularly “up the ante” as I described earlier–but that is not exactly comforting, is it?

One curiosity about the intersection of porn and race is the high number of Italians involved in all levels of the industry (like Jews), but overwhelmingly male (unlike Jews). Some of the most prominent names over the years have been Mike Adriano, Gerard Damiano, Bob Guccione, Rocco Siffredi, and John Stagliano. A list of less famous Italians would be obnoxiously long. What accounts for this, I do not know, but ignoring it does seem hypocritical. The Nordicist theories of Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard, of course, come to mind, but I’m not entirely convinced and will leave the matter for readers to ponder.

As with so many things the New Right covets, it is incredible how much ground has been lost in so little time. In 1972, Behind the Green Door (a “classic” porno) was released featuring Marilyn Chambers, who had previously been a model that appeared on the front of Ivory Snow soap boxes. When word of this spread, the owners of Ivory Snow, Proctor & Gamble, were scandalized and immediately went about pulling all product of theirs with her face on it from the shelves of America’s stores. Today, popular companies use pornstars in their advertisements to better lure young people into buying their products. In the past, when pornstars managed to “crossover” into non-porn movies, it was almost invariably into shoddy horror movies, which was the case with Chambers. Today, pornstars have cameos in popular television shows.

While pornographers used to be considered the lowest of the low, today they are portrayed in films like The People vs. Larry Flynt as being heroic fighters for the freedom of expression; an angle beltway libertarians seem to have picked up on, likely in no small part because plenty of pornographers donate heavily to libertarian groups. The Anti-Defamation League has even given its “Torch of Freedom” award to Playboy founder Hugh Hefner, and an indiscernibly different “Champion of Freedom” award to his daughter who helps with the family business. Porn is becoming steadily more hip, as hipster godfather Gavin McInnes has noted lamentfully. Mr. McInnes, however, also admits to watching porn regularly, and the blasé way porn often comes up in his columns is representative of the modern attitude about it: “Who cares? Everyone is doing it.”

Identitarians in Europe have noted that, “the escapism of video games and entertainment is an attempt to discover values like community, honor, and heroism that our society has no outlet for,” and something similar can be said of pornography. In a world where meaningful relationships between people are constantly assaulted by modernity, feminism, materialism, and legalism, and where sex itself has become a commodity, porn is a natural and logical sexual outlet. For those who carry a political worldview that is unacceptable, finding a mate can be particularly difficult, and porn is an obvious way to pretend that issue doesn’t matter. After all, who cares if you sit back and imagine it is you sleeping with beautiful woman after beautiful woman? While I have never been a big fan of the “manosphere,” I have to admit that at this point, the work they are doing explicitly encouraging males to go out and get laid instead of watching porn is a good thing, a very good thing. Working hard to go out into the real world to start and maintain real human relationships, sexual and otherwise, is the best tool there is in combating porn, and if it takes Return of Kings to get the ball rolling on that, so be it.

Surprisingly, casting votes for Republicans also helps a bit. George W. Bush and Alberto Gonzalez did actually work to imprison the most disgusting pornographers out there (and it worked) and the industry took note until Obama took office, who is not doing anything about the problem. Though, as we all know, the Republicans are not to be trusted, and the government is not about to be seized by anti-porn Republicans (when the time comes, we can ban it ourselves). In the end, the easiest way to defeat porn is to simply not watch it. Boycotting porn will not end it, don’t kid yourself, too many people will keep watching it, but boycotting porn will save you from it and will serve as a model to others to do the same.

Readers of this website are aware that there is more to our ideas than just biological “whiteness,”
and porn is an excellent example of this. Even if we seized power over night, sent the Jews to Israel, banned miscegenation, and did away with the elements of organized crime that still linger in pornography, it would not be enough. None of us should want an Ethnostate with a prosperous pornography industry–White or otherwise. Yet, being porn-free is one aspect of a home of our own that we can emulate on a personal level in the here and now. Despite our online posturing, I suspect plenty of us are familiar with redtube.com, and that should change. ASAP.  It really is that simple: stop watching porn.

The conservative movement’s answer to Woodward and Bernstein may have another scalp to his credit, as James O’Keefe has released footage showing that Arkansas Senator Mark Pryor privately supports gay marriage while publicly assuring voters he’s against it. Of course, the footage doesn’t actually show Senator Pryor himself saying that, but one Bailey Rae Bibb, chairman of the “Stonewall Caucus” of the Young Democrats.

Sadly, the “Stonewall Caucus” isn’t a reference to Stonewall Jackson or the traditional support Democrats had for the Confederacy, but a gay rights caucus. Bailey Rae Bibb, whom I doubt knows who Stonewall Jackson is, blusters in front of a hidden microphone, “If you tell anyone I told you that, I’m gonna find you and I’ll kill you.” Or, presumably, she’s going to post a mean note on Tumblr. One can almost imagine the Conservatism Inc. operatives giggling and imagining themselves as Bond-like secret agents escaping with enemy intelligence.

But so what? Certainly the video will have some political impact, as hypocrisy never plays well and Mark Pryor is already on the defensive against conservative challenger Tom Cotton, who has been effectively using the immigration issue against him and maintains a small lead. However, Cotton may be one of the last Republicans who maintains even nominal support for “traditional marriage” as gay rights is rapidly becoming as unquestionable as opposition to racial segregation among Republicans.

A far more important episode took place on Fox News this past Sunday. Tony Perkins, chairman of the Family Research Council appeared on Fox News Sunday to debate the Supreme Court’s decision that it would not overrule state courts who suddenly decided that state bans on gay marriage were unconstitutional. He found himself on the defensive against a series of clichés offered by Ted Olson and host Chris Wallace.

Olson’s sophisticated legal argument was that gays “deserve the right to equality and the same respect and decency that other people have.” Wallace demanded of Perkins “what’s the damage to you?” if gays are allowed to marry. Perkins essentially feel back on the argument that gay marriage would disrupt his rights as a parent, and, as in Roe v. Wade, that the courts were essentially co-opting the right to decide questions that should be determined by the voters. 

Ultimately, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council and Tom Cotton are falling back on the same argument–we oppose gay marriage because people have the right to oppose gay marriage. The courts should leave the right to determine the definition of marriage to the people–because, right now, most people agree with us in some states (although that is changing rapidly.)  And O’Keefe is largely playing within the limits set by this kind of discourse–if Pryor simply stated his actual egalitarian position, he’d have no story. 

The manufactured consent on social issues created by the media comes from the top down. Perkins and Cotton have already conceded the key points of the egalitarian narrative. Marriage has already been destroyed because it has been established as a private institution centered on love and desire rather than as a public concern designed to facilitate the protection of property, the continuance of families, and ultimately the survival of a people. Today, it’s simply a legal scam, and less people are falling for it.

To his credit, Perkins does advance the idea that marriage is about something more than “love.” However, his desperate appeal to social science because “we know” children do best with two parents is irrelevant to the debate, regardless of whether or not it is true. Ultimately, gay marriage–which is simply an indicator of societal collapse, not a cause–is about enforcing a moral vision and is not subject to data points or empiricism.  

Ted Olson made this simplistic moral preening explicit when he said:

“The same argument that Mr. Perkins is making was made with respect to interracial marriages in 1967. Thirty-something states at one point prohibited interracial marriages. And talk about the color of the skin, people were making the same arguments, ‘Marriage is wrong between people of different races, we have to stop that.’”

Of course, anyone who has taken an introductory philosophy course is in full revolt at the logical fallacies on display here. It’s also worth noting that elsewhere in the interview Chris Wallace is mocking Perkins for subscribing to the slippery slope argument that polygamy will follow in the wake of gay marriage. However, Olson’s argument in support of gay marriage essentially concedes the point, because after all, if everyone “deserves the right to equality,”  gay marriage is obviously only the beginning.

But let’s humor Olson. Though Tony Perkins has been a leading voice in trying to separate the religious right from racial considerations and pointlessly seeking a separate peace with the media, there is obviously a link in regards to how the issue developed. Most people, at least in the South, would have been opposed to desegregation at the time it was imposed by force. However, few White Southerners today would openly challenge the Civil Rights Act and those who do quickly reverse themselves after media pressure.

Political opinions and decisions cannot be judged in light of what history has judged to be morally right or wrong but in terms of how successful they were in achieving the objectives set at the time they were made. And from that point of view, the segregationists were right–not just right, but spectacularly so. Few still believe the implicit desegregationist premise that blacks were simply Whites with a different skin tone, and the faulty sociology that drove the Supreme Court decision is now a historical footnote rather than anything which is taken seriously.

From the perspective of 1955, segregationists would be quite justified in saying, “We told you so.” Cities like Birmingham are all but completely destroyed, as Whites fled to the suburbs to escape. Public schools are a disaster. A violent black underclass is essentially paid off with massive wealth transfers and welfare benefits, while the so-called “talented tenth” is given a different kind of handout through affirmative action jobs in government and preferences in hiring, education, and government contracts. Sending a White child to a majority black public school is all but equivalent to child abuse.

In the interview, Olson asks if Perkins wants “the sky to fall” if he lives next door to a gay couple. The same kind of apocalyptic language could be asked of segregationists today. However, the
y would have an answer. Yes, civilization continues and the United States was not totally destroyed. That said, the kind of things ordinary European-Americans could take for granted–such as accessible and safe public transportation, education, basic infrastructure, and competent local government–no longer exist.  To find these things, you have to make more money, live farther away, and withdraw from public institutions that no longer provide services but simply exist as a kind of parasite upon the White taxpayer.

Similarly, gay marriage is not going to make a difference to the average person. However, the larger deconstruction of the family that it heralds already has had a huge impact. The rising number of children born out of wedlock and the resulting social dysfunction is a catastrophe. The knowledge that courts will impose draconian divorce settlements on men or take away their children are one reason marriage rates for heterosexuals are plummeting, even as homosexual groups ostensibly demand access to the institution. And the falling birth rates of First World populations as increasing numbers of people think it is either too costly or too stressful to bring up children in degenerate societies will lead to the wholesale replacement of Western populations in the not too distant future.

For the average person, both the abolition of marriage and mass Third World immigration will just be annoyances at the margin as they live their day-to-day bourgeois life. There will be increasing taxes, more traffic congestion, crappier public schools, and more pressure on families. But because it won’t literally be in the form of overt violent repression, most people won’t notice it. And in the cases where there is overt repression–like city governments demanding the sermons of pastors or businesses being closed because they won’t get on board the Equality Train–there are enough media distractions that the news will quickly fade.

Ted Olson lost his wife Barbara in the September 11 attacks, and Ann Coulter’s famous “Bomb their cities, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity” column was mostly a tribute to her murdered friend. It was Coulter’s last, shall we say, “policy suggestion” that created the most anger as the first two became government policy in the days after 9/11. The charge of cultural specificity and the acknowledgement that “we” are different from “them” is far more offensive to most Americans, including conservatives, than killing or being killed. We can justify anything, even mass violence, as long as it is expressed in universalistic terms.

Conservatives oppose gay marriage because many of their voters oppose gay marriage. However, neither the voters nor the politicians seem to be able to give a good reason why besides an appeal to tradition. Such an appeal doesn’t work because conservatives have already conceded so much to the egalitarian narrative regarding sexual politics. Opposition to gay marriage is a textbook case of the “unprincipled exception” to liberalism critiqued by the late Lawrence Auster. Once you concede no-fault divorce, female liberation, the primacy of “love,” and the “pursuit of happiness,” the only arguments left to oppose gay marriage are the Word of God and the results of science, and both the men of the cloth and of the academy seem to be on the other side.

The solution for Traditionalists is not to go through the other side but beyond. Marriage needs to be re-formulated as what it originally was–a social institution that should receive state, church, and cultural backing as a public good designed to achieve public ends. To flip the Narrative, Perkins could have proposed just such a program, conceding that a “gay marriage” is already equal to the worthless farce that constitutes a heterosexual state “marriage” today and that returning the latter to a real meaning should be the priority for conservatives. Proposing legal consequences for adultery or requiring prenuptial agreements that impose consequences for breaking a marriage contract would be examples. 

Similarly, the solution to the collapse of White America is to begin building explicit White communities and withdrawing consent or concern for a system determined to make multiculturalism work. Trying to prop up a failing system simply isn’t worth the effort.

But we’re not going to get that from the American conservative movement. It will just be the same slow motion retreat along the predictable path that we’ve seen for the past half century. It’s already a foregone conclusion that the conservative movement will soon be defending gay marriage. The real question is when, as with desegregation, they will start demanding credit for having invented it.