Radix Journal

Radix Journal

A radical journal

Category: Uncategorized

Beyond the Unprincipled Exception

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.

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. 

No Comments on Beyond the Unprincipled Exception

The One Sided Battle

Needless to say, the city has become a racial battleground–where only side is showing up.

Two months after the shooting of Michael Brown by a White police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, the entire St. Louis area is still embroiled in racial tension

Last week saw a wave of new developments that shook up the area. A performance by the St. Louis Symphony was disrupted by racial activists and a verbal “confrontation” occurred at a Cardinals baseball game between fans and protesters. To top it off, another allegedly “unarmed” Black man was gunned down by police–sparking a new wave of protests.

Needless to say, the city has become a racial battleground–where only side is showing up.

To the Whites in the area, the whole scenario doesn’t make sense. They claim they don’t see race and they had no idea that Blacks in the area saw race and it formed the core of their worldview. This mentality is captured by a Washington Post story penned by the paper’s “social issues” reporter (we can’t make up these titles or journalistic focuses).

In the report, Whites in Ferguson express their shock that Blacks would show racial solidarity and express their grievances as one. They had no idea there were racial issues at all…despite the majority of Whites fleeing the area since 1990 as the number of Blacks rose. I suppose that was just due to rising crime and schools going bad–not anything racial.

The article showcases how the battle in Ferguson pits one aggressive, unified side against an opponent that is totally unable to articulate a defense for itself, or even see itself as a side at all:

“I keep a lot of African American friends — some of my dearest friends — but when we hang out at the brew house, we don’t talk about these issues, ” said Mayor James Knowles III. “A lot of residents are going, ‘Damn, I never realized my friends felt that way or had these experiences.’ ”

Knowles has been criticized locally and nationally for asserting that his city does not have a race problem. The tension in Ferguson, he said, is the result of an economic imbalance between renters and homeowners. Most renters, he said, just happen to be black…

And there’s Faraci’s, where Singen buys her pizza. A few weeks ago the owner, Jim Marshall, confronted a group of mostly black protesters about hurting small businesses. Curse words flew, both sides acknowledged. But then, protesters said, he flashed a gun at them. They called for a boycott, saying the owners were racist and supporters of Wilson.

Marshall’s wife, Dawne, tries not to talk about the incident; it makes her too angry. One day last week, she stopped kneading dough and addressed her patrons.

“We are not the type of people who they say we are!” she said. She pointed to two black residents sitting in her restaurant. “When I see you, I see you,” she said as she began to cry. “I don’t see color!”

“I don’t see color” is the key line expressing the mentality of many Middle American Whites. They prefer to call themselves unhyphenated Americans and have little understanding of racial identity–despite being White through and through. Even though it was clearly Black protesters with a Black agenda who were threatening their business, the owners still fail to realize that this is all about race. You might not see color, but color sees you.

The article gets more tragic when it interviews a friend of the owners about the situation and how he wonders why people don’t believe in the American System like he does:

“My biggest gripe is that no one is giving the justice system a chance to work out,” Hart said. “We don’t know all the facts, but there is an investigation and a process. This is America.”

He could not fathom looters being from Ferguson. He tried to understand the perspective of his black neighbors but kept finding exceptions. Yes, twice as many black people are arrested during traffic stops in Ferguson — but then again, he gets tickets, too. Yes, he knows city leadership is predominantly white — but he figured maybe black people were not running for office.

Hart believes that this is just the Justice system doing its job and there’s nothing broken in America. That’s why he’s on the side of law and order–but from a “colorblind” position that fails to explicitly account for the interests of Whites in general.

And this is why the Whites of St. Louis are losing.

Here’s another resident’s response to the aggressive rhetoric of the pro-Brown side:

Together, the crowd chanted, “Mike Brown means we’ve got to fight back!”

Vicki Salsman and her husband, Tim, attended a town hall meeting a few days later addressing relations with the police. They appreciated the setting — intimate and closed to the media — because “it felt safe.” They walked to the parking lot and heard the protesters using the same chant.

“Do you hear that?” asked Tim, “‘Fight back.’ That’s scary to me.”

Of course, it’s scary. Blacks are willing to fight for their interests, while these Whites only want to flee and watch the Cardinals play ball.

The incident at the baseball game played out just like Salsman’s reaction to fight back. A group of protesters/dancers chanted and made a commotion in front of a much larger crowd of White Cardinals fans. One older gentleman could only muster “These people need to work” and that’s what’s wrong with them. Clearly the kosher way of saying that what’s wrong with Blacks is cultural rather than racial. But that didn’t stop the smarmy cameraman from saying that it was ugly racism. When the demonstrators started chanting “Justice for Mike Brown!” the crowd disgustingly responded with “Let’s Go Cardinals!”–implying that we shouldn’t focus on important issues and just watch the ball game. Ain’t that White America? A few intrepid fellows responded with “Let’s Go Darren!” (the name of the police officer who shot Brown) but they were the minority. One blonde woman confronted the protesters with some great lines like “We’re the ones who fucking gave all y’all all the freedoms that you have!” and responded to their chants of “U.S.A!” with “Africa!” We admire her courage to speak the truth but she, like the pro-Darren dudes, was a minority among the “Let’s Go Cards” crowd.

The upper class responded with similar befuddlement when activists disrupted a performance of Brahms’ German Requiem with “Requiem for Michael Brown.” The confused and dejected looks seem ripped straight out of a Civil Rights porn film when the snobby Whites are confronted with their prejuidice–while the anti-racists look like noble heroes. Another loss for Whites.

Right now, protests continue to express outrage that police would kill a man who fired three shots at an officer. Even though the narrative depicts the gunned down man as just carrying a sandwich, we know what the track record is for the authenticity of these “innocent Black victim” tales.

But the truth doesn’t matter. Blacks are rallying together for their own interests while Whites just want to root for the Cardinals and have this go away as soon as possible. Unfortunately for Whites in St. Louis, this isn’t going away and they’re in a war, whether they like it or not. Though it is a battle that only side is showing up to and is willing to fight in. That’s why that side is winning in the culture and their version of events will be remembered by history. Michael Brown will go down as a gentle giant who was shot in cold blood by a hateful cop. The latest victim will have that sandwich in his hand when his story is told ten years later. And it’s all because one side fights for its racial interests. Already, Ferguson has conceded to Blacks by forgiving several outstanding warrants and promising further reforms. The protesters are likely to get more as they show no sign of backing down. Meanwhile, Whites will have to move further outside of the city to protect themselves and depend more on militarized status quo for their safety. Whites lose, non-Whites win.

And that’s what should happen in a country that values equality as the highest good. Whites can never win in a society dedicated to egalitarianism. The pro-Brown crowd have equality on their side, Whites have nothing except the facts. Equality always trumps facts. The protesters have vision and ideals, Whites have status quo. Ideals (no matter how insidious) always trumps status quo. Get the picture?

This vicious cycle has to stop. Whites have to dig their heads out of the sand and start seeing race. The only side that’s colorblind is the losing side–and there’s certainly a correlation there. The System that Whites put so much faith in is about to turn against them as the country’s demographics shift and racial activists demand more for their respective peoples. Whites are not going to get a fair shake from the justice system in the future.

The only solution is to start seeing ourselves as a distinct people—just like every race does. If we don’t, we will become the willing slaves of a decadent System that despises us and exploits us for the benefit of other peoples. The System may hate Whites, but it needs Whites to survive. More Whites waking up could turn things around and even lead to the Ethnostate. But there can be no change without racial consciousness. We do have our own interests–and it doesn’t involve the Cardinals winning the World Series.

In the one-sided battle, Whites are the unarmed innocents getting shot by racially-minded minorities. That has to stop.

No Comments on The One Sided Battle

The Enemy of My Enemy

There is an odd syllogism that is, sadly, not altogether uncommon among alternative and New Right circles.

There is an odd syllogism that is, sadly, not altogether uncommon among alternative and New Right circles. It works something like this:

-Major Premise: Globalism is bad.

-Minor Premise: Islam fights against globalism.

-Conclusion: Therefore Islam is praiseworthy and an ally against globalism.

I was reminded of this syllogism after recently encountering the transcript of a speech given by the Russian Eurasianist theorist Alexander Dugin, in which he declared, “In today’s world, Islam is the world religion most actively resisting globalism’s force. It makes the Islamic factor extremely important for the front of traditionalism.” That is to say that Islam is an ally against globalism. Dugin speaks of Shi’ites (a minority Islamic sect mostly found in Iran and Iraq) and the Salafists (centered in Saudi Arabia, but now spread across much of the Arab world and increasingly in Western countries), indicating he prefers the former.

In another recent piece relating to the relationship between Western traditionalists and Islam, activist Matthew Heimbach of the Traditionalist Youth Network wrote that Christians should form a common resistance front (presumably armed) against Zionism with militant Muslim groups. He specifically singles the Lebanese Shi’ite militia Hezbollah out for praise.

“We are not separate peoples fighting alone,” Heimbach wrote. “We are all comrades in the struggle against International Jewry and the Zionist State. All comrades united fighting the same enemy, on the same barricades.”

(Oddly enough, while calling for an alliance with militant Muslim groups against Israel, Heimbach also wants a crusade against Muslim militants in Syria.)

A final example comes from Gabor Vona of the Hungarian nationalist party Jobbik, “I declare that today [that] mankind’s last remaining bastion of traditional culture is the Islamic world…if Islam fails the lights will completely go out. There will be no [enemy] against the darkness of globalism.”

With all due respect to Mr. Vona, if Islam is our only hope against globalism, then we should throw in the towel because Islam can’t and won’t save us.

Now I will mostly avoid the usual tropes that would seek to demonstrate that Islam is an inherently violent and intolerant religion, ala Robert Spencer of “Jihad Watch”. Rather, I think it more prudent to ask where is this Islam that is supposedly standing athwart globalism yelling “stop!”

Indeed a survey of the happenings among Muslims is quite revealing as to their alleged “struggle against globalism”. Rotherham revealed that numerous Pakistani Muslims had been involved in kidnapping white British girls in their early teens and, after raping them, forcing them into prostitution. (It should be noted, all of this was done with the utter indifference of the globalists.)

In Iraq and Syria the world has witnessed the rise of the self-proclaimed Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which has asserted its recently obtained power (made possible with Western backing of the Syrian rebellion) by mass executions, beheadings of journalists, and the violent purging of ancient Christian and Yazidi communities.

One could easily pull up countless more examples of a similar nature from Nigeria to Pakistan of violent Muslim resistance to “globalism” which consists of massacres, rapes, kidnappings, and bombing of Christian churches. In the West we routinely see Muslim clerics inciting violent hostility against their host countries, with Muslims bombing a marathon and beheading an off-duty soldier in the street. Indeed, contra Vona, one gets the distinct impression that if Islam were to succeed, rather than fail, the lights in the West and many other places would go out.

Now I’m sure Dugin, Heimbach, Vona, and David Duke would strongly deny these are the sort of Muslims they support or wish to ally with, but if not them, then who? Who are these Muslim defenders of traditionalism against globalism? Where are they to be found?

Iran, perhaps? Except that Iran has been quite willing to aid “globalism” (America) against its regional opponents Iraq and Afghanistan. Shariah states like Saudi Arabia and Qatar are closely allied with America and, other than not wanting to allow women to drive, have little problem with the globalist project. Most Muslim countries are willing to borrow money from globalist banking institutions and participate in globalist political institutions like the United Nations. And some like Kazakhstan seem to manufacture a seamless blending of a Muslim identity and bizarre Illuminati-inspired architecture.

The notion of plucky Islam standing up to globalism, after everyone else fell by the wayside, is most certainly a fairytale—and a dangerous one at that. Islam since its inception has been hostile and aggressive towards the West, long before globalism ever existed. The Muslim colonization, as Guillaume Faye correctly identifies it, of Europe and North America continues apace and is being done not with the aim of undermining globalism, but strengthening it, and we must not be tempted into succumbing to a short sighted “alliance” with groups that have a historical animosity toward the West, nor valorizing them as some sort of models that make of them something they’re not. 

No Comments on The Enemy of My Enemy

Taking a Stand

Never in my life have I faced such adversity . . . never have I been so inspired.    

By now, you’ve probably heard the stories coming out Budapest: our conference being [banned] by the Hungarian Prime Minister . . . our [perseverance and willingness to take a stand] for our ideals . . . our speakers being [threatened] with deportation . . . my arrest and imprisonment by the Hungarian state for [thought-crimes] . . . and our event taking place, against all odds.   

Never in my life have I faced such adversity . . . never have I been so inspired.

By now, you’ve probably heard the stories coming out Budapest: our conference being banned by the Hungarian Prime Minister . . . our perseverance and willingness to take a stand for our ideals . . . our speakers being threatened with deportation . . . my arrest and imprisonment by the Hungarian state for thought-crimes . . . and our event taking place, against all odds.

Crises reveal character. And I am tremendously proud of our how our institution and broader movement responded. Despite the government’s ban, attendees came from around the world to meet fellow Europeans and have a conversation about our future. After I was arrested and detained, Jared Taylor, aided by comrades, stepped into my place and hosted what was, from what I hear, a joyous and stimulating gathering.

The night of my arrest encapsulated the dual nature of this past weekend—adversity and inspiration. I was apprehended by police in a Budapest pub, where dozens of attendees and I had gathered to build fellowship before the next day’s conference. The room was filled with our European family: Britons, Canadians, Scandinavians, Flemish, Croatians, and more. We instantly became old friends, though most of us were meeting each other for the first time.

I was reminded of the need for groups like The European Congress, a forum and meeting point for European identitarians and traditionalists.

And I was reminded of the necessity of The National Policy Institute.

At NPI, we produce original writings on RadixJournal.com, featuring the work of Gregory Hood, Michael McGregor, and all the regulars. We publish new books, with a lineup that ranges from Richard Lynn to Piero San Giorgio to Tito Perdue to Alexander Dugin. We host conferences and public events, which have featured, among many others, Alain de Benoist, Tomislav Sunic, and Jack Donovan.

We are doing things that are powerful, things that are getting noticed, and things that rock the boat.

We are willing to take risks. And we are willing to take hits.

There are certainly more pleasant ways of spending a weekend than in a Hungarian jail; however, if I were to do it over again, I wouldn’t change a thing. We must never lose our nerve as our adversaries react . . . and overreact . . . and try to shut down our projects. (And if we’re not upsetting the establishment a litte bit, then we’re probably doing it wrong.)

We’re more powerful than we might believe. Our power stems from our resolve, from our pride, and from our audacity.

And you make it possible. Your tax-deductible donations to NPI are the lifeblood of everything we do. Giving to us is a direct way of aiding your comrades who have taken risks and made sacrifices. It’s a way to “do something.”

Over the past week, our movement and our ideas have received a tremendous amount of coverage, and generated sympathy and good will from surprising sources. Our challenge is to ensure that this doesn’t become just another passing moment, but instead becomes a watershed in the rediscovery of European consciousness.

Fill out my online form.

No Comments on Taking a Stand

The Occidental Identity

Being born and raised in a Middle-Eastern nation and culture, in the following writing I will summarize my observations on the Western world and discuss the question of Western identity in the contemporary age.



In the dawn of the twentieth century, there was almost no controversy about the quiddity of Western nations. In the age following that time–sometimes called the postcolonial age–the world saw a radical change in the texture of Western nations and societies. The nations and peoples once defined without difficulty were challenged with a question of identity caused by new notions about the Western societies, which under influence of modernist creeds were inclined to establish egalitarian and heterogeneous reconstructions of society. In Europe and anywhere else inhabited by Western people different historical paths led to the modern multiethnic societies arising out of their historical nations.

Being born and raised in a Middle-Eastern nation and culture, in the following writing I will summarize my observations on the Western world and discuss the question of Western identity in the contemporary age. In this specific viewpoint, the historical construct of the West according to an Oriental person’s view will be compared with the compositions that have shaped present Western nations. Bias and modern cultural taboos may be used to obscure the logic that bases the opinions that propose the definition of Western identity as in the following writing. Hence, I invite the reader to pursue the truth as the ultimate virtue and to avoid any censorship of facts, imposed by any social or political agenda anywhere.

To distinguish the Western identity from what it’s not, basic definitions and explanations in the domain of a people’s collective identity will be discussed. The individual within the groups which he finds life are correlated by the natural relations. The very basis of these ties is biology and facts of birth and human origin. The reason that the identity of a person is an absolute and unchangeable truth is this: that the hereditary facts with which a person has come into being make a human individual what he or she is.


Nation, tribe, country, folk, et cetera, are all universals. The first natural relation that defines the identity of a person is the parental relationship which gives birth to a family. Human instincts that are determined facts of our nature bond male and female parents as natural sexual partners and consequently with the birth of children, the instincts define the parental relationship raised on the impulse to keep and rear a child. Next generations through common ancestry make a wider familial kinship that ultimately makes larger units of human society like tribe and folk.

The word nation in English comes from Latin and the root of nasci which means “to be born”. The members of a nation by literal interpretation are people of common birth, which means people of common genealogical origin. Moreover, people who are born in one environment also undergo a common birth. Accordingly the common birth denotes the dualism of the common biology of birth and the common place of birth. A nation is made up of a group of people who are bonded by blood and soil.


An entity that defines the identity of an individual next to family, tribe, and nation to a wider extent is race. Despite many attempts in the contemporary age that have been undertaken to present race as a false or obsolete science, the very facts of anthropology are perceptible by any man of education, and common sense assures us about the reality of race. Altogether it is a scientific reality because it has no origin other than the observable biology. Race is a basic and primordial finding of biology.

All men can recognize the similarities and specialties that members of certain groups of humankind have with one another. The biological characteristics that reflect the common genetic qualities of larger groups define races. The physical traits of people native to Europe, Africa, Oceania, East Asia, the Near East, the Americas and others common within their group make them scientific racial entities. Based on the number of shared physical traits that are taken to define a racial group, we may have several sub-groups within a larger race, and hence, we will distinguish smaller ethnic groups. Ethnicity and race have been always proposed as real entities in the history of progress of thought and culture in the Western world—up until the modern era.

To imagine a multi-racial nation is intrinsically impossible because it is self-contradictory that a body of people of common birth have two or more different races. Race is a larger division of humankind, and people of one race are often divided into several nations and ethnicities.


To observe the origin of Western people and their civilization leads us to an indisputable definition of Western identity. The peoples of Europe who make up the West have always existed in ethnic or national entities. To scrutinize the origin of European people, both the tribal compositions of early Europeans and the linguistic traits can be evidential. We can determine with certainty the ethnic composition of native Europeans. Classification of different ethnicities of early Europeans such as Germans, Slavs, Romans, and Celts has been done through historical development of those tribes and nations. Certain nations can be classified as members of a larger ethnic group based on their common linguistic lineage. Henceforth, we can have ethnic entities such as the Slavic people made up of Russians, Poles, and others. Germanic peoples that had populated most of central and northern Europe with cognate linguistic structures comprise a large portion of the Western identity.

The physical characteristics of all native European nations and also their linguistic kinship that is called Indo-European language family, indicate the genetic kinship of most of them that are often named Caucasian race. Their racial kinship with Indic and Iranic ethnicities gives European nations the name of Aryan, which in ancient Indic languages meant “noble” and was the name given to ancient Iranians as a nation. The Aryan–otherwise called Indo-European–race is the great race of several European nations and Middle East and Indian subcontinent. There have been, as early as the late Roman Empire age, some foreign ethnic groups living in Europe among Aryans, such as Jews and Gypsies. They have been a part of the demography of the West, but they do not share the Western identity because they moved to Europe through displacement and migration. They are aliens settled among the Aryans of the West.

The Western identity is entirely Indo-European.


In the contemporary age following the decline of earlier social systems, egalitarian and international social policies overwhelmed Western nations. Aliens who live among Western people have come to these nations by historical courses like slave importation and processes like alien immigration continue today. Together with the loss of historical national identities, alien racial and ethnic groups destabilize the society and civilization of Western countries. Observable rates of crimes committed by non-White minorities is an indication of the ultimate failure of these modern systems. The first policy employed to impose the modern multiracial culture is to keep silent and sensor the facts about the real differences races have according to the facts of nature. Study of biology, psychology, sociology and history of racial groups finds a sound view about the facts of races and their innate differences. Ignorance or denial of these facts has been the first step towards the present chaos.

Prior to the contemporary age people of every culture were generally race aware. All could immediately distinguish the identity of their own from aliens. It is not only nature that imparts this information of human racial populations. Mythology and religion in many cultures usually gave metaphysical explanations of the concept of races and tribes. By tradition and by reason, race is a reality. The modern apostasy that has brought about chaos and confusion denies and rejects race. Scientific racialism most often is misused as racism and is developed into a social taboo. Lower rate of procreation among Whites gradually changes the texture of their societies and their nations will finally fall and consequently alien nations will form in their countries. Human life will be destined to death by the mergence of races.


If we consider an act of love something done for benefit and welfare of human beings, any attempt to survive and sustain the life of the whole or any smaller division of humankind is by nature an act of love, while any attempt to undermine, weaken, repress or mortify them is the opposite, is an act of hate. To estimate a social or political doctrine or ideology, the benevolence that it expresses to humankind should be measured.

To evaluate the opposite sides of rational racialism and illogical egalitarianism we must observe what happens in each camp. We can see the dichotomy of love and hate in the opposite positions of each side in the matters of controversy: Ongoing invasion through violating virtual borders of nations by mixture of racial and ethnic populations vs. mutual respect and coexistence of nations and races within their territories; perseverance of subgroups of humankind vs. malice toward one certain subgroup of humankind and attempt to exterminate it by miscegenation and dissolution of its collective cultural identity; to inspire the sense of human worth and righteousness vs. to infect them with the sense of guilt and self-reproach for the alleged crimes of the White race; to aid and maintain achievements and glories of people by creating pride and self-esteem vs. denial or minimization of advantages and potentials of some peoples by degrading a race in order to bring about equality with other races; equity in judgments and critique of the faults and mischiefs of different cultures vs. partiality manifested in attempting to magnify the shortages and imperfections of more civilized cultures simultaneous with attempting to justify and conceal the definite vices of barbarian cultures; to teach new generations their cultural heritage and make them familiar with foreign cultures and teach them to coexist peacefully with other nations vs. to poison their mind with self-alienation and continuous suppression of their own identity.

The real hate is “anti-racism”!


To survive, human beings living in the chaos that the modern world has developed, to discern the problem and discuss it with other members of the folk is the crucial groundwork. An enlightened and aware folk can determine a future that will have passed the fatal problems of our age. Whereas the problem is the loss of identity by multiethnicity and multiculturalism, separation of races preferably in distinct countries and states shaped by single racial populations is absolutely essential, and the foundation of racial countries must be the goal of Western people ahead. They must avoid any moderation that may allow other races to continue to live among them. This will lead to the birth of all-White countries in the Western world. It must be the objective of White people also in countries founded by White people, such as United States of America, those countries in which Whites have lost the majority, Brazil for instance, and also countries in which Whites form a racial minority such as South Africa and Rhodesia.

The process that Western nations must take to form racial nations with Aryan identity can be determined through scientific and rational speculation. In all possible paths to this goal the awareness and unity of the folk is the indispensable cornerstone. The masterpiece of God and nature is the evolution of humankind and Indo-Europeans mark the uttermost manifestation of the evolution of the contemporary human. The contribution of Western people to the history of humanity has been magnificent. All humanitarian endeavors should be bestowed to survive and enhance Western civilization. Life is the purpose and the end of all biological actions and stimuli, and the collective life of a community of human beings is the most significant value and incentive of people working for a sane world.


No Comments on The Occidental Identity

Whither Whitemanistan?

Indeed, the European Imperium idea, as outlined thus far, is essentially a strategy, not an ideal. And an overemphasis on strategy at this point is to put the horse before the cart.

White Nationalists should be ethnonationalists, and ethnonationalists should be for ethnonationalism. I don’t say this to be glib and uncompromising, but because I believe it to be a truth that we ignore at our own peril. Many among us, particularly at Radix, seem to be drifting toward the idea of a European Imperium as a more realistic and more effectual vehicle for White preservation than ethnonationalism. This is a philosophical and tactical mistake.

Perhaps the greatest tactical mistake with this idea is that it is a philosophical mistake. The best strategy for ideological success is to have an attractive ideology, and ethnonationalism is far more idealistic, and more logically sound, than the idea of a European Imperium. Indeed, the European Imperium idea, as outlined thus far, is essentially a strategy, not an ideal. And an overemphasis on strategy at this point is to put the horse before the cart. It is little use building castles in the sky, if you haven’t yet convinced enough people of the necessity of building real castles. At this time, we should be building and refining our ideology, arguing why our vision is superior to the current Western consensus.

There is, of course, virtual total consensus in the West, at least among its political nations. In every Western country, and many others besides, the reigning ideology is a combination of Liberalism/Libertarianism/Libertinism; they vary only in their relative emphasis on these points. If the natural desire of man is, and ought to be, the desire to perpetuate himself, the modern West has decided that the best means to this is freedom. Allow the individual the freedom to pursue his unique vision of the Good; the state exists merely to safeguard this natural right of all people; the politics of the state is no more than the means of deciding how much government is needed to protect and promote freedom. What could be a happier arrangement? The problem though, is that perpetuation of the self is dependent on others; with every man as an island, no one is able to perpetuate himself. The paradox is that if freedom is the ends, it empties all meaning from freedom as a means, and vice versa.

The most obvious, and to me, most persuasive, counter to this is Particularism, one form of which, is ethnonationalism. Particularism, in my formulation, is the idea that the state ought to be the citizen writ large. The state’s role is to protect the life and property of the citizen, yes, but it ought to do more than allow the citizen to perpetuate himself, it ought to part of that perpetuation. If individuality is to be prized in people, why not apply this principle to the state? The state, more than any other institution, is capable of perpetuating an idea and a community.

To the ethnonationalist, the state should be a means of genetic perpetuation, the state as a large family. He may also believe—this one does—that, all else being equal, the more genetically similar the citizens of a state are to one another, the more likely their notions of the Good are to be similar to one another’s, and so the more likely they are to be pulling-in-the-same-direction. Other Particularists may wish for a state organized around religious or ideological principles, or some combination of these.

A European Imperium is a degradation of the Particularist and the ethnonationalist principle. Race would not have to be the only principle underlaying it, granted, but a gathering-in of Whites in one super-state, by definition limits Whites’ societal potentialities—one European Imperium must be either democratic or not; it cannot be both a confessional state and an officially atheist state; it cannot be both Socialist and Libertarian. A genetic Particularist principle is honorable, but it is not reason enough to deny all other Particularism. Europe has been well-served by its division; the genius realized in the city-states of ancient Greece and of Renaissance Italy puts to shame all other eras of Mediterranean history, and it sure is not for a lack of competition.

European Imperium advocates claim that the current and future nations of Europe could continue their separate existences within the new Euro-Empire, while simultaneously arguing that the ethnonationalist ideal is dangerous because it has the potential for infinite regress. I answer that, in general, if a people feel strongly enough about their nationhood to demand a state, they should have a state; if the existing state opposes it, let it make its case. Ultimately, the preservation of a state always depends on the people, or at least the right people, accepting its legitimacy. Of course, realpolitik will interfere, it always does. And if imperial Europe is to remain a Europe of nations, what is the purpose of Empire?

Security of course. Stated, but never argued, is the belief that the preservation of the White race as a whole is so much more important than “petty nationalism,” that all White nations should relinquish their sovereignty to a central authority, The White Power, I suppose we could call it. The actual argument for the European Imperium—betraying an unappealing taint of paranoia—is that if this central government had enough power vis-à-vis the nations, it could prevent destructive “civil wars,” and in general, keep everyone inline, and on message. And so we are that much less likely to destroy ourselves. It’s clearly true, but is it worth it?

No. For one thing, small states have never been more physically secure than they are now. If tomorrow, Denmark decides to pursue a blatant and aggressive “Whitening” social program, no foreign tanks will come to try to stop her. As long as the policy does not involve expulsion (or worse) under armed force, the Danes will have little more to fear but light economic sanctions, and increased NGO meddling. The same goes for Iceland, or Liechtenstein.

Still worse, European Imperium would simply exchange one Western consensus for another. In my opinion, it would be a better one, but I also think that fact of a consensus itself, at least so comprehensive a consensus, is part of the problem.

The European Imperium is a powerful ideal that can inspire both the most simple, and the most sophisticated White Nationalist. Distilling the focal point of national identity down (and at the same time, up) to the level of race has a certain scientific, while at the same time, romantic, and commonsense truth. It is one of those rare simplifications that impart a fuller, deeper understanding.

To go all the way though, would be to lose too much in the bargain. The state is potentially the most effective means of perpetuating the community, and the community is the only means of perpetuating values. The role of the state, again, aside from protecting its people, should be the cultivation of particular aspects of the human spirit. The fundamental premise of my Particularist Nationalism is my belief that there are many aspects of that spirit that are worth cultivating, many even, that may all exist under the banner of White Nationalism. And the demands of a European Imperium would put unacceptable limits on this. I would support the creation of a state with a purely “Whitemanistan” ideology, but it should not be the only option for Whites, or even for White nationalists. I mentioned the ancient Greeks earlier; they believed deeply in the ideal of the city-state, but they felt just as deeply about their civilizational identity. As for so many other things (for example, their combination of a sophisticated awareness with a primal sense of identity), their example should be the model.

Ryan Andrews is the author of The Birth of Prudence.

No Comments on Whither Whitemanistan?

Commending VDARE

During the trials and tribulations of the Budapest Conference, one site managed to publish up-to-date and accurate reports from the ground in Hungary.

During the trials and tribulations of the Budapest Conference, one site managed to publish up-to-date and accurate reports from the ground in Hungary. That was VDARE.

In case you didn’t know, there’s some differences between us and Peter Brimelow’s project. We’ll leave it at how Brimelow put it in his response to why they covered the NPI conference(one correction though: we don’t take an editorial stance in relation to the Ukrainian conflict):

Nevertheless, the plain fact is that all of us on the Dissident Right are now NPI’s Richard B. Spencer, jailed, brutalized, deported and reportedly barred for three years from most of the European Union for…the peaceful expression of political opinion.

At VDARE.com, we are regularly urged by readers who think they live in a free society to hold conferences. (We have managed a private webinar). Well, this is the reason we have not—we have no faith that modern governments will defend our rights and enforce the equal protection of the law. We live under what the late Sam Francis called “anarcho-tyranny.”

While we may disagree on many things, we are all in the same boat and rebelling against the reigning orthodoxy. When it comes to important issues and crises–like the situation in Budapest–we are able to put aside our differences and come together for a unified cause. NPI and Radix is glad we could count on their support during this time.

VDARE and Radix will likely have professional disagreements on issues and matters going into the future–but that doesn’t mean we aren’t allies. We thank all of our friends and allies who gave us support during this time (especially Jared Taylor) and ensured the conference persevered in the face of incredible adversity.

No Comments on Commending VDARE

A Report from Budapest

It was a bold idea from the beginning.

Originally published at American Renaissance

It was a bold idea from the beginning. The National Policy Institute (NPI), an American organization, was to hold a conference in Budapest on “The Future of Europe.” In addition to well-known identitarians such as Philippe Vardon of France, Markus Willinger of Germany, and myself, the controversial Russian academic Alexander Dugin, was to take part. Hungary’s Jobbik party would provide essential support on the ground, and one of its elected representatives was to address the meeting.

However, about two weeks before the conference, Prime Minister Victor Orban came under pressure from the Hungarian Socialist Party and condemned the conference. His statement mentioned Prof. Dugin by name, and characterized NPI as a “xenophobic and exclusionary” organization. Those of us scheduled to take part began to worry that pressure would build on the Larus Event Center to cancel its contract to host the conference.

Things got worse. A little more than a week before the conference, the Interior Ministry issued a statement forbidding the meeting, and warning that all speakers would be stopped at the border or deported if found within Hungary. Again, Prof. Dugin was cited as a particularly offensive speaker, but others were cited as “racists” who might violate the Hungarian fundamental law that forbids “violating the human dignity of others.”

I arrived on September 29, the Monday before the weekend of the conference, and had no trouble with border control. Others were not so lucky. William Regnery, the NPI board chairman, was scheduled to fly in for a Tuesday meeting with the general manager of the Novotel City Center hotel, where a number of conference events were planned. Mr. Regnery had asked me to attend the meeting with him, but when I got to the hotel, I was dismayed to learn that Mr. Regnery had not arrived. The hotel manager confirmed that the Larus Center had canceled its contract. He also said that many people attending the conference were booked at the hotel and that since the meeting was now forbidden, he had to make a decision about whether to hold the rooms.

Later that day I later learned that Mr. Regnery had been stopped at the Hungarian border by the police, put in a detention cell overnight, and deported to London. That same day, the hotel manager unilaterally canceled all the room reservations and planned events.

Likewise on Tuesday, I was shocked to learn that Jobbik support had completely melted away, and that no one was looking for an alternate venue. I knew that Jobbik representative Marton Gyongyosi, who had been scheduled to speak, had withdrawn, accusing the organizers of “racism,” but I assumed we still had some local Hungarian support. I was wrong. We had no one. Mr. Regnery telephoned from London and asked me to find a suitable venue. We were also in contact with Richard Spencer, the director of NPI, who asked me to find a private room in a restaurant for a dinner–for an estimated 70 people.

The forbidden conference was now big news. The press was full of stories about Russian extremists and American “racists” about to converge in Budapest. I was afraid it would arouse suspicions if an American phoned up restaurants trying to book a last-minute dinner for 70. I decided to wait until the next day, when I knew a Hungarian-American would be arriving, who could make calls in Hungarian.

We finally got to work on Wednesday, and found a charming, traditional restaurant that was willing to serve as many as 100 people in a private room. We took a taxi to the restaurant, worked up a menu, and made a down payment. We had a venue!–so long as we could keep it secret. We scouted the neighborhood and established a redirection point nearby so that we could tell people to meet there and be taken to the restaurant rather than reveal its name and address in advance. Mr. Spencer was thus able to send e-mail messages to everyone registered for the conference, telling them that the event was still on, and that they were to meet Saturday evening at the redirection point.

Mr. Spencer was to arrive the next day, and we were all worried he would get the same treatment as Mr. Regnery, but he slipped across the Austrian-Hungarian border by train without attracting attention. He gave a number of interviews to the press, and he and I met Thursday evening to toast to the success of the conference.

Disaster struck the next day. Mr. Spencer had sent a message to a number of supporters inviting them to meet him informally at the Clock Café in Budapest that evening. Late that night, an estimated 40 police officers descended on the café and locked it down for two hours, while they asked for identification papers and grilled people.

Some 20 people who did not have papers were taken outside for interrogation. Mr. Spencer, who did not have his passport with him, was arrested and asked police to let everyone else go. He was detained along with French-American journalist James Willy, whom the authorities appear to have thought had some role in organizing the conference. We have since heard from Mr. Spencer that he is safe and unhurt, but is likely to be in detention until Monday, when he will be deported. Fortunately, I was not at that gathering; otherwise, I suspect I would be sharing a cell with Mr. Spencer.

The arrest was a terrible blow. We don’t know how the police knew to go to the Clock Café, so we didn’t know how much our security was breached. I felt sure the police did not know about the restaurant, but did they know about the redirection point? This was a forbidden meeting. Would they arrest everyone who showed up?

Mr. Regnery had planned to come back to Hungary at the last minute for the dinner but after Mr. Spencer’s arrest, he decided that would be foolish. On Saturday morning we consulted by phone and had to make some hard decisions. Cancel for fear the police would break up the meeting? Tell only trusted people the name of the restaurant and tell everyone else the dinner was off?

I met with a trusted associate of Richard Spencer. We looked over the list of 65 or so people who said they planned to come to the redirection point and recognized only about 20 names. It didn’t make sense to have a small dinner for people we already knew. We sent them a message with the name and address of the restaurant, but told everyone else to go to the redirection point. I went directly to the restaurant, and another man went to the redirection point early, to keep an eye out for the police. If there were no police, he was to bring people to the restaurant. How much did the police know? I packed a change of clothes and a toothbrush in my briefcase in case I had to spend a night in a cell.

As it happened, there were no police at the redirection point, and people were skillfully in groups to the restaurant. Before long, we had 76 people in all–more than half the original number of registrants–including guests from Sweden, Germany, Austria, Holland, Belgium, Denmark, Switzerland, Australia, Slovakia, Britain, Ireland, Croatia, the United States, Spain, Canada, Russia, and even Mexico and Japan. To my disappointment there was only one Hungarian. He explained that the conference had been virtually unknown in Hungary until the scandal broke, and that a few others who had registered dropped out when the police prohibited the meeting.

We admitted three journalists who had been cleared in advance by Mr. Spencer, but kept out half a dozen more who showed up but had not been cleared. I stepped outside and answered their questions for 20 minutes, but decided not to let them cover the event.

Back at the restaurant, I welcomed everyone in the name of NPI. After an excellent dinner, I apologized for the thin program–only two scheduled speakers–but pointed out that speakers had been expressly forbidden to enter the country.

I explained that at least two other
speakers had been directly intimidated. The Hungarian government had prevailed on the French to send the police to tell Philippe Vardon that since he was a “notorious racial activist” he was unwelcome in Hungary and would arrested if he tried to come. The Russian police told Alexander Dugin the same thing: He would be expelled immediately if he tried to come to Hungary.

I then introduced the only other scheduled speaker who was able to attend: the author and academic, Tom Sunic. Mr. Sunic lives in neighboring Croatia, and took real risks to come to Budapest. Croatia is not in the free-travel Schengen area of the European Union, and there was a good chance he would be turned back or even detained at passport control. It would be a considerable professional liability to have been officially rejected as an undesirable by a neighboring country.

Mr. Sunic spoke on the failure of the European Union. He pointed out that it was originally established as an economic community, and criticized the role of capitalism in dissolving ethnic and racial bonds: “Merchants have no country.” He spoke of the guilt that seems to be part of Catholicism and that causes Europeans to welcome Third-World immigration. Mr. Sunic urged all Europeans to rise above old antagonisms left over from past conflicts and to embrace a larger destiny. He stressed the dangers of petty nationalism that resulted in the terrible bloodshed in his own country, the former Yugoslavia, and concluded with a rousing call for all Europeans to work together to preserve their common culture and heritage.

My talk was called “Towards a World Brotherhood of Europeans.” I argued out that it is not only on the continent of Europe that we find Europe but in all those places overseas where Europeans have built new societies. I said that I speak for many Canadians, New Zealanders, Australians, and Afrikaners when I call myself a European and refer to Europe as my spiritual and cultural homeland. I said that only Europeans–white people–could defend Europe and carry its heritage forward in a meaningful way, and that our people and civilization are under threat everywhere. I argued that the genetic and cultural effect of alien immigration is no different from armed invasion, and concluded that although the crisis is not sharp, nor the lines so clearly drawn, the struggle of our generation to defend Europe is no different from Marathon, Poitiers, the Siege of Vienna, and the Battle of Blood River.

We had booked the restaurant from 6:00 to 11:00 p.m., and the crowd was thick and exuberant until 11:30 when the management politely sent us out the door to catch the last subway trains home. Late that night I sent out a message to all conference registrants, announcing a 2:00 p.m. gathering on Sunday at the Heroes’ Square, where our European brethren planned to gather and continue informal fellowship.

We did our best despite the outrageous behavior of the Hungarian authorities. We suspect that after the press reports on the meeting are published, the government will have even more reason to be ashamed of their heavy-handed behavior.

We look forward to future meetings under friendlier circumstances.

No Comments on A Report from Budapest

The Limits of Wikipedia

However, a case of censorship we seem to have missed is likely more relevant than all of the above: Wikipedia.

Keeping up with the rising tide of censorship in the name of equality is a never ending, and often ardorous task; but c’est la vie – moderne, anyway. There are the classic cases: National Review, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Canadian Human Rights Commision, etc. Then there are the breaking-news cases, such as the current Hungarian brouhaha over NPI.

However, a case of censorship we seem to have missed is likely more relevant than all of the above: Wikipedia. As the sixth most visited website both on the planet and in the United States, it needs no summary, nor is it necessary to explain why the sources of their citations matters. Which brings us to the image below:

I earned this message by trying to edit the page of a pop science book so as to include a review by someone apparently deemed persona non grata. When this policy of censorship regarding psychometrics came about, I cannot say, but the link to “The Committee’s decision” sends you to the history of quite a lengthy debate.

For the whole debate, see the page itself here. How deep this censorship runs I obviously do not know, and I do not care to cite examples of Wikipedia pages that are surprisingly dissident, lest an employee of Jimmy Wales sees this and “fixes” it. Rest assured, the site has its moments, but as we all know, when the Cultural Marxists are given an inch today, they expect to be given a nation tomorrow, so I have my doubts as to how much longer it will serve as a fact-checking site for those of us who read Radix.

So, what to do about it? Two things come to mind. One, we could start flocking to Metapedia, which is a predominantly European, alternative right version of Wikipedia. It is certainly in Beta at present, but that’s nothing we couldn’t fix, and even now it occasionally impresses. Interestingly, given this week’s news, there are more pages in Hungarian than in any other language. After all, it does follow that if we get our news from our own sites, our critical theory from our own sites, and our religion from our own sites, that we should have our own “wiki” as well.

Otherwise, we could make like good keyboard warriors and see if we can’t make a dent in the web. Some of you may remember in 2006 when Stephen Colbert mocked Wikipedia by urging his viewers to edit the “Elephant” page so that it would says the global population of elephants had tripled in the last six months. The website was not amused and ended up “locking” twenty different elephant-related pages, plus they banned Stephen Colbert from ever being able to edit anything on the site.

Obviously, Mr. Colbert’s prank was put down fairly quickly. But, and at the risk of sounding naive, our edits would have truth on our side, and as such may prove successful – if done en masse. Should the readers of this fine publication be interested, I suggest we start with:

This page

No Comments on The Limits of Wikipedia

Perseverance in Budapest

The conference is not cancelled. We will meet in Budapest on October 3-5. We will share ideas. We will make new friends and have a good time.

As you might have heard, the forces of tolerance and diversity have declared that we must not be allowed to speak. Our organization and our upcoming event have been attacked on social media and blogs for months. From what I understand, these originated from the Hungarian Socialist Party (MSZP), which is the successor to the Hungarian Communist Party. Now these attacks are coming from the highest levels of government. This morning, the “conservative” Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán, declared that he will use “all legal means at his disposal” to ban our conference. (I guess we should be happy that illegal means are off the table.)

It’s important to remember that neither Orbán nor anyone else has accused us of actually breaking any laws, because we haven’t. To the contrary, it is the Hungarian government that might potentially break a law—in this case, one of its own. Our conference will be a forum for ideas—it is an opportunity for Hungarians, and people from around the world, to freely gather and freely speak their minds. These rights are explicitly guaranteed to all Hungarian citizens in their recently enacted Constitution. The very notion that Hungary’s Prime Minister—who claims to embrace European, pluralist values—would even talk about censoring the speech of citizens and international guests is depressing, indeed.

Sometimes you can find profound statements in pop culture. The lines are from Game of Thrones:

When you rip out a man’s tongue, you’re not proving him a liar. You’re only telling the world you fear what he might say.

Words have power. And I can only conclude that Viktor Orbán and everyone attacking our conference fear what we have to say.

The conference is not cancelled. We will meet in Budapest on October 3-5. We will share ideas. We will make new friends and have a good time. (That’s what these events are really about.)

It’s true that the government’s actions are going to make our meeting a little more inconvenient than it otherwise would be. But life is full of such challenges.

I’ve been inspired by the response to our gathering—in terms of registrants and general interest—and I’m confident that The European Congress has a bright future.

To all those who have registered to attend, either as a guest or journalist covering the event—check your email. I will keep you abreast of our ongoing plans.

We shall overcome.

No Comments on Perseverance in Budapest

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