Radix Journal

Radix Journal

A radical journal

Category: Uncategorized

Gamergate and the End of Culture

Ultimately, #Gamergate matters because it is one front in a war that encompasses our entire culture. Indeed, it is a war that determines whether something called “culture” can even continue to exist. 

While the mortars fall in Ukraine, Israel, and the Islamic State, a conflict more Byzantine and intricate rages in the forums and chatrooms of the Hollow Empire–and the result may prove just as important as any geopolitical shift. I speak of course of #Gamergate, a scandal revealing a system of cultural control so breathtakingly asinine that its very existence, like that of Lindy West, justifies immediate revolution against any and all existing authorities of whatever kind. 

The story revolves around one Zoe Quinn, an alleged “game developer” who has one text based game to her credit. When I was fifteen, I successfully programmed a simple game featuring a spaceship that attacked increasingly fast enemies which descended from above. In other words, it was a far crappier version of Centipede, an Atari game which would have been regarded as impossibly dated before I was even born. Nonetheless, I hold that this modest credential entitles me to call myself a more legitimate “game developer” than Miss Quinn.

Miss Quinn has one game to her credit, a So This Is How It Ends entry in its own right called Depression Quest. You are a “human being” (so as to include all the people who can’t figure out what sex they are, though this still presumably excludes the otherkin) living with depression. And that’s it. The game–by which I mean a series of web pages–has the purpose of “spreading awareness,” and it accomplished that in my case. After five minutes of “play,” I certainly understood depression as I found myself calculating whether the ceiling fan could support a rope and my body weight.  

Perhaps what’s worse is that the game is flawed by its own standards, as the narrative rewards choices such as constantly talking about your problems with your significant other and with friends, none of whom seem unhappy or annoyed by this. If anything, Depression Quest actually understates the difficulty of living with depression, as it gives us the usual advice that if you just talk about emotions enough, your romantic partner will (somehow) fall more in love with you and your friends will appreciate your openness. It’s akin to a relationship game that suggests the best way for a man to pick up a girl is to constantly give her compliments and then apologize (maybe Friendzone Quest?). But we will get to Zoe Quinn’s relationship approach momentarily.

What Depression Quest really constitutes is what I call the first “anti-game.” An “anti-joke” destroys the premise of humor and can therefore be surprisingly funny by confounding your expectations. (Hey, what’s something that is brown and sticky? A stick.) An anti-game subverts the premise of gaming by not being entertaining. While the purpose of a game is to provide an enjoyable departure from reality, Depression Quest actually attempts to put you in a mundane reality that is less fun and interesting than your normal existence. Instead of entertaining you, the anti-game works to give you more socially acceptable (which is to say, progressive) attitudes.

How the hell is this a critically acclaimed project rather than an obscure website? Well, that brings us to the heart of Gamergate. Like the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Gamergate isn’t really about sex–but it is. In 2013, Zoe Quinn managed to get herself a boyfriend who shared her interest in social justice. It emerges that she was cheating on him with as many as five different men (hence the alternate name for the scandal–Five Guys). Her boyfriend responded by posting the entire sordid history of their relationship online. (As we’ve started with the jokes already, what does Zoe Quinn do after she’s been to Five Guys?  Finally get something to eat.)

Why does this matter to anyone? Because these men included gaming journalists who were promoting and reporting on her projects. Like any self-respecting and strong independent woman, Quinn had essentially slept her way into a career. And just as if it would be considered a gross violation of ethics if a Politico reporter was having a House of Cards-style affair with a politician she is ostensibly covering, the inappropriate personal relationship between various industry figures and an “independent” game producer raised questions about the entire state of the industry.

What followed were a series of claims and counter-claims between Zoe Quinn and her detractors. These can be broadly separated into two camps. The anti-Zoe forces are mostly independent investigators and online commentators. They include commentators like Internet Aristocrat and the TheInvestigamer, posters on forums like Reddit and /pol, and some borderline Beltway Right figures like Christina Hoff Summers of the American Enterprise Institute. Even Breitbart has seized on the cause, notably revealing a “Journolist” style collective effort to shape the Narrative.

Their fire is directed not just on Quinn but on “Social Justice Warriors” (SJW’s) generally, who are seen as totalitarian, humorless, and engaged in a hostile takeover of the gaming subculture. More importantly, as the behavior of Quinn herself shows, “social justice” is more about money and control over resources than anything else. Quinn systematically took down an effort by a group called “Fine Young Capitalists” to promote female game developers, ostensibly for social justice reasons but also to secure her own market share. The result lead to the individuals at FYC being “doxed” and receiving death threats.

In contrast, Quinn’s defenders are precisely what you would expect and their case can be summarized easily. Shut up, they explained.

Mainstream media outlets, largely ignoring the actual scandal itself, have described the furor simply as an example of “sexism in the gaming industry.” For example, the self-described “explainer” site Vox says the first thing you have to focus on in the story is the “treatment of women in gaming.” The heart of their case is that we should be talking more about the online abuse people like Quinn receive.  More broadly, we should be talking about how we can change the video game industry so people like her can feel better about themselves.

Which brings us to the other figure deeply involved in the scandal, Anita Sarkeesian. Sarkeesian is the daughter of Armenian immigrants in Canada.  After moving to America, she achieved the new American Dream by becoming a member of the Parasitic Class—handsomely rewarded for attacking everything about her new society. For example, after acquiring the necessary academic credentials in deconstruction studies, she decided she wanted to start a video blog and started a fundraising effort on Kickstarter. After throwing in a couple whines that peopl
e were mean to her online, white knights rode to the rescue, and suddenly the effort to raise $6,000 brought home around $150,000–as well as the uncritical adulation of all mainstream media. Needless to say, she has also used to megaphone to sound off on Gamergate.

Of course, both Sarkeesian and Quinn have received a great deal of criticism online in recent weeks. And, let’s be honest, some of this criticism includes threats of violence or rape–though how many and if all of these “threats” are actually authentic is up for debate. More importantly, they are giving as good as they get, with even reasonable critics finding their YouTube channels or posts deleted by moderators pressured by SJW’s. This crackdown is even extending to /pol itself, as supposed SJW moderators are deleting posts because they are–you guessed it–linked to Quinn. Wikipedia of course, hardly a neutral source on politically charged topics, has been especially energetic in violating its own standards to present a SJW friendly take on Gamergate.

What is remarkable about the scandal is the fanaticism of both sides as the battle rages on. Many otherwise left leaning figures have simply had enough with SJW meddling and are making common cause with Right to fight against extreme feminism. Feminists and their media allies and enablers are moving the goalposts so rapidly that gaming itself is being redefined. And those who simply want to play and not think about any of this may be forced to take a position on one side or the other.

Racial realists and White advocates have a unique position in all this. There is not one overt activist or writer who has not experienced death threats, threats of rape (regardless of your sex), or outright physical attack. Unlike Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian, who have quite literally made their careers on the basis of receiving online criticism, White advocates lose jobs, have family members and neighbors pressured by media groups or thinly veiled gangs, or suffer destruction of property, with the utter indifference or even approval of law enforcement. Entire companies, families, and lives have been destroyed over the accusation (true or not) of racism. And mainstream reporters actually urge on the baying mobs rather than serving as guardians like they do for Quinn or Sarkeesian.

Therefore, it is of relative indifference to me whether Quinn and Sarkeesian are depressed because people said mean things to them online. They gave as good as they got, they enjoy a larger megaphone than all of their critics, their pronouncements are as uncritically repeated by the mainstream press as any Southern Poverty Law Center press release, and more importantly, their very livelihood is dependent on such “abuse.” If it did not exist, they would have to make it up–and in some cases, they may have done just that. You might even call it their business model. 

But what are we to do with the idea of a “gaming” subculture that is under attack? To paraphrase Marx, the point is not to retreat from the world, the point is to change it. And yet, we have to understand why so many young men, especially young White men, retreat into a world of fantasy. Markus Willinger, author of Generation Identity: A Declaration of War Against the ‘68ers, writes in “On Escapism,”

The world, as it presents itself to us, is empty and cold. Its communities have been dissolved; what remains are individuals rushing madly to and fro in the service of the global economy.

It may not be surprising, therefore, that many of us escape into another, much more pleasant world—that of computer and video games.

There one finds that which no longer exists in the real world—a community to belong to, solidarity, great heroic deeds, authentic chivalry, and true love. In fact, video games are, for many of us, the last possibility to somehow perform heroic deeds, experience epic battles, achieve victory in combat, and overcome defeat.

This is why many of us choose this path, and some even forget their real lives in favor of it. They don’t want to go back into the cold, senseless world that you’ve created, into which you’ve forced them. [78]

Now, the SJW’s are moving to take even that away. As Sun Tzu wrote in The Art of War, “One must leave a way of escape to a surrounded enemy.” By denying it, the SJW’s have inadvertently encountered a level of resistance and fury far beyond anything they could have expected.

Yet even this will eventually fade unless it is grounded in something deeper. As Lawrence Auster frequently noted, the “unprincipled exception” to liberalism is never sustainable. Gamers protesting they should be “left alone” will fail unless they can actually ground their beliefs in something deeper and systematic. In contrast, SJW’s and progressives have already begun constructing the infrastructure necessary for an outright takeover of gaming. After all, schools like American University now offer courses combining social justice theory and game design. If we’re not careful, every game will look like “American Story: A Pitfall Adventure,” a game designed to teach you about the need for Obamacare.

Though both groups lean heavily to the Left, there is a real battle in gaming and the tech industry between those who owe their status to mastery of computer technology and those who wield the weapon of ideology. Anita Sarkeesian, Zoe Quinn, and their ilk represent the efforts of aspiring members of the managerial class to seize control of something they never could have created themselves. Even events like “The Fappeningand other scandals are really the low level skirmishes around a central battle for control over the commanding heights of the new economy as the managerial class struggles to assimilate the tech industry and its various subcultures. And unfortunately, our cultural commissars have been very successful so far.

Ultimately, #Gamergate matters because it is one front in a war that encompasses our entire culture. Indeed, it is a war that determines whether something called “culture” can even continue to exist. What ultimate victory for the “Social Justice Warriors” would mean is the end of culture.

This is not simply the traditional right wing claim (preferably expressed in all capital letters) that a world of Zoe Quinns will drive out Truth, Beauty, and genuine artistic achievement (although it’s that too.) A SJW World is a literal anti-culture, where creation itself is secondary to deconstructive social critique based on constantly shifting standards. Producing anything–be it a game, a painting, or a piece of music–is secondary to protecting an egalitarian narrative enforced by a Parasitic Class of professional scolds. East Germany was a cultural wonderland compared to what the liberal arts graduates of a typical American university can cough up. The end game of the managerial elite is the total control of human interaction, and through that, the control of economic resources.

For that reason, we see an increasing efforts to bring formerly uncontrolled spaces such as black metal under supervision, with bands policed for inappropriate beliefs or statements, and the music is made secondary to promoting an ideological agenda. As gaming has arrived as an art form, it has become a cultural battlefield almost as important as movies or music.  And this matters because the dreams and fantasies of a people color how they view the real world. Far better, all snark aside, to aspire to Skryim, than a real world that resembles a never ending Depression Quest.  

#Gamergate affects you even if you have never played video games, or think no one should play them. The struggle is about freedom of association in culture, something just as important as freedom of association in property. And the solution in both the flight from communities and the flight from reality represented by video games is the same—get serious about why you have the right to revolt against egalitarianism, and fight back. After all, they aren’t going to let you run anymore.

No Comments on Gamergate and the End of Culture

Viewing the Climate March as a Right-wing Anarchist

What I found there turned out to be less a hardened range of defiant faces rising above the mists, becoming one against an ocean of obstacles, and more a safe, beige sea of trendy soccer moms pushing strollers, dads carrying signs bearing pleasant slogans, and blown-up macros of polar bears.

For a month, I had been looking forward to attending the climate march scheduled to take place in NYC with the hopeful expectation that it would be the ideal meeting place for dashing, like-minded young men and women unafraid of threats, hearts aflame, transforming their frustration with the planet’s dissolving future into action. What I found there turned out to be less a hardened range of defiant faces rising above the mists, becoming one against an ocean of obstacles, and more a safe, beige sea of trendy soccer moms pushing strollers, dads carrying signs bearing pleasant slogans, and blown-up macros of polar bears.

The contrast between expectation and reality was almost presaged by the hi-fi vaults of Times Square, containing the insignia of passive consumer comfort. There were pockets scattered throughout the crowded streets made up of the few committed to decisive action, but they found themselves cut off, alone, without van or guide amid the teeming swells of children’s balloons and shopping bags.

This experience illustrated a phenomenon that I had only observed at a distance through computer and television screens: that of the inherent obstruction to political action posed by those strata of a society who benefit most from its arrangements. This is only slightly true, but becomes uniquely problematic when considered alongside the attitudes of our liberal-progressive middle class. There appears to be a disjunction between its historical, economic, and cultural predominance and its contemporary affinity for radical posturing, liberal social attitudes, and apparent commitment to social justice (however construed). This is interesting to our present analysis not for its marked discontinuity with historical trajectories or even the ideological forces which presuppose the formation of such attitudes, but rather the disintegrative effect it has upon those forces organized for radical opposition to cultural-legal norms they deem incommodious and seek to either change or eliminate.

The presence, for instance, of children at events intended for or naturally inclined toward civic opposition, accompanied by parents for whom these venues are simply more opportunities for amusement, and semi-political sloganeering, place a low ceiling on a crowd’s revolutionary potential, its general maneuverability, and its capacity to adapt to new conditions arising from its central purpose: confrontation with structural authorities (police, gendarmerie, military, etc.). This is owed to a combination of empathic regard for the safety of such obvious non-combatants and the sheer space they occupy—their extraneousness nothing else but a tactical predicament.

For those who profess passionate aliberal tendencies, this is a particularly frustrating obstacle to overcome. It’s worth considering here the alternatives to public demonstration that may be engaged for the purpose of strategy and organization in order to affect the widest margin of change:

  1. The formation and support of a dedicated core-group of professional oppositionaries trained to operate outside of the conventional strike/protest paradigm.

  2. Tactics designed for such groups which encompass cultural, artistic, and so-called ‘metapolitical’ activities designed to affect the value-structure of society, as well as more combative/deconstructive/reconstructive engagements.

  3. Strategy which focuses on confrontation with authorities or parauthorities directly, without announcement or legal approval, but with focus, spontaneity, and deft use of their surroundings to evoke spectacle and thus broaden the impact of such activities.

Reorganization along these lines might yield a more fruitful disinvolvement with the present social, political, cultural, and legal systems encased within the territorial limits of the state and the overall civilization of which the state represents. As a right-wing anarchist, I must stress that such a re-concentration of efforts is not inconsistent with the overall aims of either anarchism, or the affirmation of hierarchy as a social good, and, for that matter, the larger Traditionalist project. The apparent differences here are resolved as merely two vectors of approach—the anarchic rejection of the society into which the Traditionalist finds himself cast, and the hierarchic vision of a new social reality that he wishes to impose over the dilapidated structures of the old.

No Comments on Viewing the Climate March as a Right-wing Anarchist

STIHIE Country

Not even the White, working-class based music of country can escape the curse of multiculturalism. Listen to college-circuit favorite Corey Smith croon about how much he loves everyone–except his own…

Not even the White, working-class based music of country can escape the curse of multiculturalism. Listen to college-circuit favorite Corey Smith croon about how much he loves everyone–except his own people–in a song that tops John Lennon’s progressive nightmare “Imagine” in the disgust category.

I love black people. I love brown people.
I love Muslims and Jews, Hindus and atheists too.
Yes, I love everyone.
I love gay people. No, I’m not afraid people.
I may sing with a drawl, keep a little slack in my jaw,
but I love everyone.

No Comments on STIHIE Country

We Need a Bismarck

After the Protestant Reformation broke the religious unity of Europe, the links between royalty and the particular confession they supported served as a new focus for identity–for example, Protestant Prussia was distinct from Catholic Austria. The conservatism of post-Enlightenment Europe became the support of the transnational royal principle against the liberal ideal of nationalism. And perhaps the most important example of how these two differing ideologies can be reconciled in a way we can learn from today is the unification of Germany under Otto von Bismarck.

But is it good for Whites?

When Scotland voted on secession from the United Kingdom, the Scots said “No, thanks.” The largely left wing, pro-Third World immigration “Yes” campaign was hardly a model for most Identitarians. Despite these failures, the disruptive potential of an independent Scotland was sufficient reason to support the campaign because of the opportunities it would’ve created all over Europe.

However, separatism and secession raise more questions than they answer for the New Right. The usual suspects are analyzing the vote from the viewpoint of their own Tribal interests, but Europeans concerned about the future of their own people face a more complicated situation.

There’s much to be said for the position of nationalism for all nations. Yet this runs into practical objections almost immediately. What, after all, constitutes a legitimate ethnic nationalist community? If Scotland is a nation, why not Wales or Cornwall–or for that matter, Mercia or Wessex? And if Welsh and Cornish independence is legitimate, then why is the territorial integrity of Ukraine so important and Novorussia somehow fake? And does this ultimately extend into a reductio ad absurdum where we go back to the dozens of petty German states as some kind of ideal?

Ultimately, even the most benevolent ethnonationalist runs into practical problems. The nature of tribal communities is to expand and conquer–and as supporters of hierarchy, we can’t deny this reality. Conflict is natural and inevitable–and the progressive effort to deny this reality has led directly to the contemporary Western Eloi who would rather die than face the responsibility of struggle.

Thus, even if we could establish an order that would render such competition non-violent, tribal conflict would still continue. In tiny Belgium for example, the Flemish, Walloons, and German speakers fiercely contend over money, language rights, and control over public institutions even as the country fills with Muslims from the Third World. If the Flemish succeed in achieving independence, even in the context of an entirely White Europe, new battles would ensue that can only be solved with political or physical struggle. An Identitarian utopia in some future Europa would get us no closer to an objectively “correct” answer about who gets to control the historically Flemish but now largely Francophone city of Brussels.

Every nation is to some extent an “imagined community,” conceived necessarily as both limited and sovereign. This is not to say that they are not based on cultural or biological realities, but every nation depends on an almost artistic conception. To belong to a nation is to feel attachment or even love for multitudes of people you will never meet. Nietzsche writes in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, “It was creators who created peoples, and hung a faith and a love over them: thus they served life.”

But what does this mean in practical terms? We can posit that a German people, for example, exists more or less objectively regardless of polities or ideologies. Yet is it somehow “better” if Austria is independent, or is that unjust or improper? What about Bavaria? After all, Adolf Hitler’s political career began when he denounced a speaker arguing that right-leaning Bavaria should secede from the Weimar Republic and form an independent state.

If we were to adopt this situation to the present, many on the New Right would actually welcome the idea that a more Traditionalist polity should break away from a larger leftist regime. And yet it is those nations and peoples who can combine a large population and a strong, united identity that will hold sway in any political order. Strong nations will always seek to expand–and conquer.

A conservative (or reactionary) counter to this idea would be the reactionary monarchies of Christian Europe that ruled over widely disparate peoples for centuries. In the distant recesses of antiquity was the European dream of Universal Monarchy, the ideal of a ruler of all Christendom. After the Protestant Reformation broke the religious unity of Europe, the links between royalty and the particular confession they supported served as a new focus for identity–for example, Protestant Prussia was distinct from Catholic Austria. The conservatism of post-Enlightenment Europe became the support of the transnational royal principle against the liberal ideal of nationalism. And perhaps the most important example of how these two differing ideologies can be reconciled in a way we can learn from today is the unification of Germany under Otto von Bismarck.

Bismarck: From Anti-Nationalist to Founder of the Reich

Otto von Bismarck originally was known as an arch-conservative and opponent of nationalism when he appeared on the political scene. If the price for the unification of Germany was popular sovereignty, than he forthrightly opposed it. One Liberal leader of the time called him the very embodiment of the medieval spirit, and he was widely regarded as a champion of what was largely seen as Junker parochialism.

Bismarck also opposed the Revolution of 1848 and condemned the constitution produced by the Frankfurt Parliament as “organized anarchy.” This is the same kind of rationalization that led Frederick William to refuse a crown offered by an elected body, rather than by the unanimous grouping of the German princes. The eventual failure of the Revolution led to a reactionary movement that restricted democratic participation in the new government–and allowed the then massively unpopular Bismarck to attain power.

Over the following years, Bismarck made the strategic decision to embrace German nationalism in order to advance specifically Prussian foreign policy goals. In his own words, he was far more of a Prussian than a German. Perhaps more importantly, he cynically disregarded his own former legitimism when it conflicted with his policy ends. Writing to the reactionary monarchist General von Gerlach (an advocate of the ideals of Karl Ludwig von Haller), Bismarck said he still shared the “principle of the fight against the Revolution,” but also noted:

“I subordinate legitimism in France completely to my specifically Prussian patriotism. Without any regard to the person at the head of the time being, France counts for me merely as a piece, albeit an unavoidable one, in the game of political chess, a game in which I am called upon to serve only my own king and my own country… “

Similarly, Count Johann von Rechberg of Austria wrote to Bismarck “that all the Conservatives of Europe must join together to fight revolution and to defend the legitimate structure of Europe as a whole.” As Erich Eyck noted critically in Bismarck and the German Empire, “The ‘legitimate structure of Europe’ was the situ
ation created by the treaties of Vienna in 1815. But it was exactly this settlement which Bismarck was determined to destroy.” [71]

As he consolidated power for Prussia, Bismarck would outmaneuver Rechberg over Schleswig-Holstein , fight a war with Austria, and consolidate Prussian hegemony over the petty German states and kingdoms as the precursor to independence.

Bismarck used remarkable ideological and tactical flexibility in order to accomplish his goal–which in the end was a function of Prussian patriotism and his own efforts at self-realization rather than an expansive German vision. Knowing he needed the Tsar as a friend (or at least not as an enemy), he allowed Russia to brutally crush Polish revolutionaries, despite the protests of the West. He tempted Napoleon III with promises of territorial gains before defeating him in the Franco-Prussian War. He formed alliances and partnerships with powers that old-school European conservatives would regard as illegitimate and revolutionary. The reward was the Second Reich.

But what was the price? As William Lind notes, Western Civilization was eventually doomed by this kind of parochial and petty competition between dynasts and states, rather than ideological unity. In World War I for example,

…[T]he obsolete paradigm was dynastic competition, especially that between the Houses of Hapsburg and Romanov; the new paradigm was set by the mortal threat posed to all Christian, conservative monarchies by the notion of popular sovereignty and Jacobinical definitions of human rights. By fighting each other instead of uniting against the left, three dynasties doomed themselves and possibly us as well. Western culture’s last chance of survival may have been a victory by the Central Powers in World War I.

Yet the “Central Powers” only had a chance at victory because of German unification and German power. And Germany under the Kaisers was only a broadly conservative power because Bismarck prevented the German Empire from becoming the liberal, democratic state dreamed of by the revolutionaries of 1848, instead forming what Mencken called in his 1914 essay The Mailed First and Its Prophet:

[A] delimited, aristocratic democracy in the Athenian sense—a democracy of intelligence, of strength, of superior fitness—a democracy at the top. Its prizes went, not to those men who had most skill at inflaming and deluding the rabble, but to those who could contribute most to the prosperity and security of the commonwealth.

Politicians, it is true, sprang up in its shadow, as they must inevitably spring up     when any approach is made toward universal manhood suffrage; but the part that they played in the conduct of affairs was curiously feeble and inconsequential.

How do we resolve this bundle of contradictions? Bismarck arguably subverted the liberal principle of nationalism in order to create a dynamic state that Traditionalists can admire in many ways (at least compared to what we have now). He also unleashed a virus of state competition over territory that would culminate in the eventual destruction of the European order.

However, had Germany won either of the world wars, it seems more likely than not that Bismarck’s achievement would be regarded as the foundation for a Western dominated world order, with the White race in a secure demographic position. Nationalism can either create a New Order that could empower Identitarians; or serve as the trap that leads us to mutual destruction.

Tribe, Nation, or Empire

What can broadly be called Identitarian political parties are largely united in rejecting the European Union while simultaneously claiming a larger European union. As the youth organization of the surging Sweden Democrats put it in a video, “Europe Belongs to Us,” it is a Europe that is “against the European Union” and “for a Europe of Nations.”

Of course, as Richard Spencer argues in “Why We Need Europe,” even if the European Union disappeared tomorrow, our circumstances will not have really changed. The same people will run our politics, our banks, our media, and all the other mechanisms of power. The new “friend-enemy” distinction should be based on race and a recognition that Europe wants to come together. Historically, nations are the interloper–Europeans of the past would have regarded themselves as residents of a certain locale or region and then belonging to a larger Christendom rather than a middling concept like “Germany” or “France.”

The highest moments of Western Man came from the quest for unity. From Greeks uniting against the Persian invader, to the First Crusade, to the international forces resisting the Red Army at the end of World War II, Occidental unity gives us teasing glimpses of what could be possible. Europe is still but a broken empire. And yet in all of the quests for unity, it was specific polities, leaders, and nations that served as the core of a larger effort.

Whatever we may think or theorize about it, nationalism is not a spent force. Whatever Western revival is to come will be largely championed by nationalist movements. However, as with Bismarck and his Prussian patriotism, even the quest for power by one state or nation could quickly turn into a larger crusade for European unity–not the sterile bureaucratic tyranny of the so-called European Union, but the real unity of the Occident hinted at by our highest moments. On the other hand, it could lead to the kind of mutual destruction that led us to this point.

The way I view secession movements is opportunistic. I support whatever undermines the power of the governing elite and presents openings for nations to break free of the governing consensus. I support the unity of Spain and the breakup of the United Kingdom. I support the territorial integrity of Germany and France, the breakup of Belgium and Italy, and the absorption of Flanders by the Netherlands as part of the creation of Dietsland. I look with both skepticism and hope to Putin’s Russia and its territorial expansion. And I claim the right to change any and all of these positions as circumstances permit.

Because in the end, none of them are particularly important to me. Nations and nationalist movements are the means to an end–the goal is an Identitarian order that will lead to Western Unity and the upward development of the race. And an authentic local patriotism will be mean a movement both down and up–autonomy for cultural regions as diverse as Brittany and Bohemia yet still united in a greater European identity that encompasses and transcends them.

We who claim the mantle of Identitarians have a dual rule. Like the original pan-German intellectuals, we have to foster an identity that transcends what has come before. But to make it meaningful and not a pointless abstraction, this means acting locally above all–building tribes that are loyal only to t
heir own
rather than the established social order. We need to build autonomous white communities that serve as safe zones for the New Right. Let a thousand Oranias bloom.

Still, underneath all of that, we have to cultivate that dream of unity, of Imperium, even Empire–lest we fall into the traps of the past and the pointless European Civil Wars–military, religious, or cultural—that have brought us to the brink of ruin. There is no necessary contradiction between supporting both Tribe and Empire–but it has to be our Tribe and our Empire. Indeed, it will be less a centralized Empire than a gathering of tribes.

But make no mistake–we will get there as if by accident. We need a Bismarck to arise in a major European state. We need someone who, by pursuing the interests of their nation-state, can create something that will transcend their nation state. And unfortunately, this means that there will be a hierarchy even within the new Europe. If the driving force comes from Germany or France–or for that matter, the “wind from the east” predicted by forces in Hungary or even Russia, that will have consequences in the arrangement of power. And there will always be struggle and conflict within the new European Imperium.

The new Bismarck that will impose this order will likely not meet our standards of ideological purity. Mainstream politics will create the opportunity for victory–not the victory itself. Our role is to create the vanguard communities and intellectual movements that will allow us to take advantage of the opportunities when the time comes. It’s by building centers of power at the most local and restrictive level that we can lay the foundation for the most expansive Imperium the world has ever seen. And by cultivating the dream of Unity, we can ensure that when we get there, we won’t tear ourselves apart as the West has done so many times before.

No Comments on We Need a Bismarck

The Scottish Play

For the past 200 years, Europe has been coming together. It might seem strange to write this in light of the ethnic hatreds of the last century’s World Wars, or even those of the World Cup. It might seem strange to write this with the ongoing ethnic conflict in eastern Ukraine, especially strange now on the eve of a referendum for Scottish independence. 

For the past 200 years, Europe has been coming together. It might seem strange to write this in light of the ethnic hatreds of the last century’s World Wars, or those of the World Cup. Or in light of the ongoing ethnic conflict in eastern Ukraine. And especially strange today on the eve of a referendum for Scottish independence.

But the geopolitical trajectory of Europe is unambiguous. The European continent—including the British isles—were once a patchwork of competing principalities and states. Today, it is defined by broad national and imperial blocs: France, Italy, Russia, Germany, and Britain being the models. Europe’s history has been, to a great degree, a history of state formation: from a multitude to many to a few . . . maybe soon to one.

More important than this political development has been the birth of a homogenous European Man. He is a man who might call someplace—maybe a little place—“home,” somewhere with a language and way of life all its own: Wales, Bavaria, Talin. . . But he is demonstrably European in his character, values, and being, especially to outsiders. Who could deny that today the differences that separate a Scotsman from an Englishman, or a Russian from a Italian—though certainly real—are easily outweighed but what they share in common? Who could deny that the mass immigration of non-Europeans has intensified our awareness of this unity, allowed us to understand ourselves in ways that we might not have otherwise?

There is, without question, a cost to this historical process, for “European Man” is, to a large degree, the “Last Man” as Nietzsche imagined him: the homogenous consumer and worker, who sees little of value above comfort and acquiring more stuff. For better and for worse, we are all becoming “good Europeans”. . . and we must understand something like the Scotts’ bid for independence in this wake.

Describing the referendum, the American commentator Patrick Buchanan wrote:

The call of blood, history, faith, culture and memory is winning the struggle against Economism, the Western materialist ideology that holds that the desire for money and things is what ultimately motivates mankind.

This can only be wishful thinking. It’s worth remembering that the Scottish National Party is not a traditionalist organization by any stretch. A perusal of its agenda reveals that it would be better described as “retro-liberal” or “Old Labor.” (For what it’s worth, the SNP wants to keep the Queen as the symbolic Head of State.)

Moreover, for every died-in-the-wool Scottish nationalist (or Anglophobe) who supports independence, there are legions who view breaking away from London in a very different way. Exiting the geopolitical world of the UK and “Anglo-sphere” would be a means of better implementing a post-historical, egalitarian welfare state . . . of becoming another “European” country, like Sweden or Iceland . . . of finding an “independent” path to the same liberal dispensation.

The SNP defines its “nationalism” as such:

to create a just, caring and enterprising society by releasing Scotland’s full potential as a independent nation in the mainstream of modern Europe.

Though the SNP desires to break from the UK (and NATO), it seeks to join the European Union. This seeming contradiction between secession and federalism reveals both the meaning and meaningless of Scottish “independence.”

Fittingly, as the vote looms, much of the discussion has been taken up with purely technical matters:

  • “What currency would the Scots use?”
  • “What about the highway, rail, and plumbing systems?”
  • “Would the financial district relocate?”
  • “Would we have to create a new suffix for Scottish websites—dot.Scot?

Technical matters like these are truly the only things at stake.


Born in 1978, I was a child during the last decade of the Cold War. The Berlin Wall existed as a powerful symbol of the ideological and imaginary “inside” and “outside” of that conflict. I envisioned that my world was “in” America and freedom and “out” of socialism and oppression. Some who were “in” Communism could escape and get “out” over here.

The events of 1989-91 turned the world “inside out” . . . and “outside in.” For the past 25 years, no European nation or state has been “outside” liberalism. Secession would change none of this. To choose another metaphor, a droplet of a liberal society (what an “independent” Scotland would become) has the same constitution as a whole gallon of one in the UK or EU.

No Comments on The Scottish Play

Edward Abbey and the Other America

The novelist and polemicist Edward Paul Abbey has not quite dropped through the
memory hole, much like one of his favorite poets and philosophical inspiration, Robinson Jeffers,
but one suspects his is a name that may not endure in the popular mind.    

Under Review
Wrenched (2013)
Directed by HL Lincoln


Why the surly hatred of progress and development, the churlish resistance to all popular improvements? … [B]ecause we like the taste of freedom; because we like the smell of danger.
– Edward Abbey, Beyond The Wall

The novelist and polemicist Edward Paul Abbey has not quite dropped through the
memory hole, much like one of his favorite poets and philosophical inspiration, Robinson Jeffers,
but one suspects his is a name that may not endure in the popular mind.

Filmmaker ML Lincoln has done a wonderful job bringing to the big screen one of America’s larger than life characters. A man who truly lived on his own terms and bowed to no master. No kneejerk liberal or kneepad Tory, as he liked to say about himself. Hard to pigeonhole, Ed was a
Democrat in the tradition of Henry Wallace but he
was also a life member of the NRA and deeply opposed to a multi-ethnic America, as he believed the working class would never get a square deal in competition with the masses of brown laborers. 

A multitude of reasons exist as to why he may yet be forgotten by future generations not old enough to remember him as the premier spokesman for the defense of the wilderness of the Four Corners area. Abbey would be a man without many mainstream supporters today, given his mocking condescension of organized religion, an inability or disinclination to portray “complex” female characters in his writing (which led to charges of misogyny by the chattering classes), his support of negative population growth (despite fathering five children with multiple wives). Perhaps the most salient reason he might be dropped by all but the most diehard supporters is that he was a race-realist; a tour of duty as a New York City social worker in the early 1960s disabused him of liberal pieties regarding racial differences.

Even a cursory review of his work will reveal enough real speech that would see him banished to outer darkness were he to appear on the literary scene in this century. He lived a portion of each year in Tucson and saw firsthand the effects of mass immigration on his desert home, which led to this (unpublished) letter to the New York Times:

The United States has been fully settled, and more than full, for at least a century. We have nothing to gain, and everything to lose, by allowing the old boat to be swamped. How many of us, truthfully, would prefer to be submerged in the Caribbean-Latin version of civilization? (Howls of “Racism! Elitism! Xenophobia!” from the Marx brothers and the documented liberals.) Harsh words: but somebody has to say them. We cannot play “let’s pretend” much longer, not in the present world.

Stop every campesino at our southern border, give him a handgun, a good rifle, and a case of ammunition, and send him home. He will know what to do with our gifts and good wishes. The people know who their enemies are.

Proud of his father who was a Wobbly, Abbey took after his old man’s politics and was certainly a man of the Old Left with regard to economic injustice and in securing a stronger position for the working man. However, un direct contrast with today’s social justice warriors, who demand an amnesty of the 12 million illegal invaders who have transgressed
our border, Abbey was a man in the tradition of Samuel
Gompers
and Cesar Chavez and other Labor leaders who recognized that the key to raising wages for the working class was shutting down the flood of new laborers—something on which GOP businessmen and world-improving Democrats are not exactly keen.

I suspect Abbey would have shared the sentiment of the title character from Tito Perdue’s novel, Lee,

There’d be but one city soon, and four hundred million in it inspecting one another’s rumps. (He wanted a small world getting smaller, and a fine people living in subtlety off the ruins.)

While highlighting the “night work” that Ed did (torching billboards, monkeywrenching bulldozers, scheming to destroy Glen Canyon Dam), the filmmaker failed to bring into the discussion the ruinous impact our incredible population growth has on
the environment. As Abbey pointed out in Desert Solitaire

Unless a way is found to stabilize the nation’s population, the parks cannot be saved. Or anything else worth a damn. Wilderness preservation, like a hundred other good causes, will be forgotten under the overwhelming pressure of a struggle for mere survival and sanity in a completely urbanized, completely industrialized, ever more crowded environment.

Abbey wrote that in 1968, when America still had a population less than 200 million.

One has to believe he wouldn’t be sanguine about prospects for saving what remains of the American wilderness as our country bursts at the seams with a population predicted to surpass 400 million by 2039

I very much wish Lincoln had called out The Sierra Club for failing to address the impact of population growth. That one of the oldest and most prestigious wilderness protection associations fails to lobby for immigration restriction and a negative population policy is a cardinal failure of that
organization.

Most of the USA is beyond redemption. It is overdeveloped and overpopulated. There is, however, a sacred part of this teeming republic that demands protection and that is the Four Corners. To my mind, there is nothing as spectacular, nothing so beautiful, nothing so enchanting as this part of the world. Read Desert Solitaire and The Monkey Wrench Gang if you want to taste the world Abbey wrote about 40-50 years ago.

Go to Canyonlands and tell me how much better it would be with derricks and pipelines. Go to Arches and let me know how it would be improved with strip mining. Go to the Grand Canyon and tell me how a gondola and a strip mall would enhance the wilderness experience. Better still, if you think in the affirmative on any of the above please drive to The Maze in July and bring back a field report. Don’t worry about water or gasoline or shelter or comfort stations. All will be provided. I’m addressing you, R. Lamar Whitmer. (Abbey wrote that you can always tell a shithead from that initial initial.)

Much credit to Lincoln for highlighting the bold Tim DeChristopher, who put his ass on the line to stop a last minute Bush administration Christmas gift to their friends in the energy business, which would have seen a great portion of Utah’s wilderness decimated. Few, indeed, are the people willing to suffer incarceration in the name of wilderness preservation.

Of course, the Four Corners is not the only part of the USA worth fighting for. Abbey was a leading spokesman for preserving as much of our precious wilderness as possible, for he knew its real value.

Doc Sarvis, while plotting the destruction of Glen Canyon Dam with Hayduke, Abbzug, and Seldom Seen, remarked,

The wilderness once offered men a plausible way of life . . . now it functions as a psychiatric refuge. Soon there will be no wilderness. . . . Soon there will be no place to go. Then the madness becomes universal.

ML Lincoln has done a tremendous service in helping keep the spirit of Abbey alive. I am hopeful this movie eventually is distributed to a wide audience and that Abbey’s message resonates with a new generation of Americans, who reject
what America has become and embrace, in the words of Jonathan Bowden, speaking on Robinson Jeffers, the idea of “a smaller America, a more natural America, a more ecologically sufficient America, and a more pagan America.”

The protagonist in The Monkey Wrench Gang, George Washington Hayduke, possessed the “conservative instinct to keep things
not as they are but as they should be.”

Abbey and Jeffers and Dave Foreman and Roger Clyne and others will be proven right, but it may take a long time for the evidence to be returned. Someday Phoenix will be a very lovely city for its remaining 100,000 residents. Someday Glen Canyon will be restored to its pristine state after the dam is overcome by nature. Someday we may finally realize that growth for the sake of growth is not the answer. Someday we may return to the primal values of our ancestors and carve out a sustainable future
for free men and women.


Desert Solitaire

By Edward Abbey

1 Comment on Edward Abbey and the Other America

Ali vs. Monoculturing

Courtesy of Muhammad Ali, we hear some strong arguments against the mixing of the races to form one big, unhappy monoculture.

Courtesy of Muhammad Ali, we hear some strong arguments against the mixing of the races to form one big, unhappy monoculture.

Watch the champion boxer (and Black nationalist) lay down truth while his low T, White liberal interviewer squirms:

And here’s him giving a fiery speech on the subject:

No Comments on Ali vs. Monoculturing

Dol Guldur

No other artist in any genre is able to capture the atmosphere of Tolkien’s world like Summoning

“And some things that should not have been forgotten were lost. History became legend. Legend became myth. And for two and a half thousand years, the ring passed out of all knowledge.”

The works of J.R.R. Tolkien have probably done more to instill a love for traditional European culture and identity than arguably any other literature. Painting a world full of majestic landscapes, magic, and a place where heroes still live and die would make any youth wish for Middle-Earth over Modern Earth.

It makes perfect sense that Tolkien would inspire many metal acts in their lyrics and their choice of band names. But few metal artists have been able to capture the epic majesty of Middle Earth with their music itself—with the glorious exception of Summoning.

Summoning began their career as a decent, melodic Black Metal band that fit within the style of the promising Austrian metal scene. That changed when they decided to push guitars to the back of their sound and embark on a keyboard-driven style that became the defining feature of their style on their second album Minas Morgul.

But it is on their third album and magnum opus Dol Guldur where Summoning hits their stylistic peak.

One of the main criticisms of their music from the metal crowd is that it is too heavy on the keyboard instead of the guitars. Unlike most Black Metal, the music isn’t aggressive or particularly fierce. It is more akin to a soundtrack for an incredible fantasy film that is too cool to exist. Also, unlike most Black Metal music, Summoning’s work is less dark and foreboding. This is more of the hero’s soundtrack than that of the cruel villains he slays.

Returning to the criticism that they’re too heavy on the keyboards, this is what gives Summoning the ability to weave a sonic landscape that allows you to escape the banality of the modern world for the enchanting terrain of fantasy. It helps that the music is minimalistic and repeats motifs throughout the (long) duration of a composition. It’s simple, but it works to create a trance-like effect for a listener wishing to experience another world with their choice of music.

On Dol Guldur, the songs are long and are bereft of choruses. Stereotypical, rock song structure is left far behind for more adventurous song structures that allow its atmosphere to take precedence over trying to rock. Keyboard riffs drive the music instead of guitar riffs, which gives the music a very different edge from that of their metal peers. Drums are programmed and the guitars serve as a kind of buzzing reminder of the danger surrounding us and that not all is beauty in this fantasy world. The highlight of the album would have to be the epic middle number “Khazad Dum”—a powerful 10 minutes that never at any point sounds cheesy.

No other artist in any genre is able to capture the atmosphere of Tolkien’s world like Summoning, and they do a masterful job of it on Dol Guldur. If you’re a fan of neoclassical like Winglord, you should easily dig this. Even if you hate Black Metal for being too harsh, you should give this is a try and realize there’s more to the genre than Burzum’s early works.

All of Summoning’s albums are worth a listen, but Dol Guldur is where you should start.

No Comments on Dol Guldur

The New Class

Most of this is exaggerated. The average tech worker owes no allegiance to the Identitarian Right or Dark Enlightenment ideas. And yet this sign of contradiction is significant. The tech industry does pose an existential threat to the managerial regime for three key reasons.

We still begin with Burnham. Even after the Second World War, the Cold War, the brushfire wars of the post 9/11 world and the rise of powers like China and India, the best guide to understanding the world is a book more than seven decades old. James Burnham’s theory of the managerial elite, a “new class” of “managers” that supplemented the capitalist ruling class of the 19th century, still captures the fundamental truth behind the global system of power. As Sam Francis, Burnham’s greatest student put it in Power and History:

The internal crisis of entrepreneurial capitalism compels the expansion of the state. Massive amounts of new capital cannot be mobilized from private sources and must come, directly or indirectly, from government. The managers, indispensable to the technical processes of modern production, find cooperation with the state and use of its coercive monopoly valuable for the continuance of production and for their own benefits. The redistribution of goods, services, and wealth is facilitated by state intervention, planning, and, ultimately, control of the process of production. Yet the expanding role of the state does not mean that the state itself controls the economy. Rather the result will be “a fused political-economic apparatus.” (p. 271)

In later works, Burnham posited that the new class would maintain democratic trappings to disguise the fact of their power even as they transferred the focus of loyalty away from the nation and traditional sources of authority. And as Sam Francis described, it is control over culture that ensures power over the process of production. Activists for diversity, anti-racists, and what are broadly termed Cultural Marxists work with (and are often funded by) capitalist institutions and government bodies to create an interlocking system of economic, political, and social control.

The great hope of Francis was that what he called the Middle American Radicals–those middle class whites dispossessed by economic globalization and the cultural New Left–could form a counter-elite and sweep aside the managerial class in a Middle American Revolution. Unfortunately, the American Beltway Right has mastered the art of racial dog whistling to fool the rubes–so when the Middle American Revolution finally came, it was Iraq War supporters smashing Dixie Chicks CD’s.  

Yet in the last two decades, a new class has arisen that is not fully under the control of the managerial elite. Neither does this rising elite necessarily share (or benefit from) the social values advanced by the managerial class. The new elite are those who have mastered computer technology, programming, and hardware and software development. And while “technocracy” is nothing new, the relative instability, social mobility, and meritocracy of the digital world makes it difficult to be fully absorbed by the managerial state.

The leading members of the digital elite are hardly closet members of the Identitarian Right. Bill Gates recently donated a million dollars for gun control and has blown tens of millions of dollars in failed attempts to boost “inner city schools” and African demographics. Mark Zuckerburg, owner of a social networking platform that will delete groups like “White History Month” but provide you every left wing group (or gender preference) imaginable, is a fanatical supporter of mass immigration. Even Steve Jobs was a fairly conventional Democrat.

Yet there is unease among the Thought Police. The commissars and pseudo-humans of Gawker, Valleywag, and associated media outlets conduct a sustained hate campaign against the tech industry’s mostly white programmers and “bro culture.” With unseeingly desperation, the media shrieks frantically about the “need” to impose the dead weight of affirmative action employees on internet companies. Salon is doing its best to make Peter Thiel as radioactive as the Koch Brothers because he doesn’t prostrate himself before university style political correctness–and because Thiel questions the wisdom of that most sacred (and useless) of institutions. Left wing activists protest the gentrification of San Francisco by wealthy tech workers. And SJW’s whisper that shadowy forces from Silicon Valley are backing the Dark Enlightenment.  

Most of this is exaggerated. The average tech worker owes no allegiance to the Identitarian Right or Dark Enlightenment ideas. And yet this sign of contradiction is significant. The tech industry does pose an existential threat to the managerial regime for three key reasons.

Technical superiority trumps ideology

Barack Obama received overwhelming support from the technology industry. The Christian Right is not going to win much of a following at Apple or Google. However, unlike in human relations, academia, or many private industries, there is nothing necessarily committing the industry to the Left, with the possible exception of gay rights.

Bill Gates may support egalitarianism with his charity, but not in his business decisions. He famously identified Goldman Sachs as Microsoft’s biggest competitor, not another software company. Ultimately, success in the industry is driven by who can attract the smartest people. The tech industry is ruthlessly inegalitarian and pragmatic–ideology can grease the skids when it comes to landing a contract or securing a positive court ruling, but it won’t make a computer program work.

This doesn’t mean political correctness or connections won’t benefit certain companies above others – as we saw with the disastrous rollout of the Obamacare website. However, unlike in education, law, journalism, government, and other industries and economic sectors, pure intelligence and technical skill ultimately trumps ideology, and there isn’t an ideological “veto” available to the Left.

The increasing efforts of the Left to “police” the tech industry (and related industries like gaming) reflect the awareness that if a “rabidly right wing” programmer or entrepreneur creates a good pro
duct, he will make enough money to be free of their control. Perhaps, more importantly, the very nature of the tech industry values elitism, intelligence, and hierarchy more than egalitarianism. This elitism currently expresses itself in SWPL style social preening–but unlike an English professor or nonprofit head, a programmer is not dependent on social justice rhetoric for his livelihood.

We must consider the possibility that some of those derided as “Urban Elves” are more open to our ideas than Palin supporting “right wing” patriots. More importantly, the wealth generated by the tech industry is relatively free of ideological control, and the instability of the industry ensures that such controls will be difficult to implement.

Technology renders the underclass superfluous

Walking through one of America’s largest cities, a friend cursed at the liberal Whites (mostly government employees and contractors) he saw because, “they may gentrify an area, but then insist on importing Third Worlders to essentially be their servants.” That may not be true for much longer. Currently, fast food workers are striking to secure a $15.00 an hour wage. We should wish them success.

Technology, particularly in the field of robotics, is progressing to the point where entire industries will simply be rendered unnecessary, especially if the cost of labor becomes prohibitive. While mass immigration (subsidized by the welfare state) keeps the price of labor low, the dysfunctional nature and political preferences of hapless and helpless Third Worlders flooding into European world may change the cost-benefit analysis. Why, after all, do we need any human fruit pickers or burger flippers at McDonald’s?

The most likely scenario is a world like that prophesied in Elysiumfantastic technology co-existing with teeming slums populated by an ever increasing lumpenproletariat. The film assumes a kind of duty for Whites to sacrifice themselves to spread the blessings of wealth and technology to the non-White masses. But there’s no reason to assume that a technological elite–particularly one convinced of its own intellectual superiority–will continue to recognize this supposed obligation.

Already, the scion of a Silicon Valley fortune is pushing a plan (endorsed by over a million Californians) to split up the state of California–including, not coincidentally, Silicon Valley becoming its own state. Thiel has endorsed various schemes such as “Seasteading” to form a kind of libertarian utopia, as have other figures in the industry.

This doesn’t necessarily translate to support for Identitarianism or Dark Enlightenment principles–but it does mean that people are looking for an escape, a way out of the Third World mass democracy that is the American system. We might be something like Eduardo Saverin fleeing to Singapore on a mass scale–an entire class deciding that they have no reason to prop up a system which offers them nothing.

Technology can avoid, subvert, or replace the existing System

There’s no greater proof of the power of media culture than “celebrity.” Every single person who reads this site is intensely aware of the personal lives and relationships of people such as Jennifer Lawrence—even if we seek to actively avoid knowledge of their existence. Their images are carefully created and protected by legions of professional media managers, public relations experts, stylists, and flacks–each one is a creation of the managerial elite as surely as a Supreme Court justice. And one wrong move or politically incorrect comment can utterly destroy them.

And yet, consider the Fappening–a shadowy group of hackers, paid in Bitcoin, devastate the reputation and social value of media creations that required tremendous amounts of social capital, infrastructure, and financial investment. In miniature, this is what can occur to more important individuals and institutions. Edward Snowden discredited the American Empire more than all the “anti-imperialist” scribbling of generations; for a time, Wikileaks constituted a power in its own right.

Entire markets, strategic assets, classified information, currency and resources–all of these things are online and within the reach of those who have the technical skill to acquire them. Ideology is utterly irrelevant–indeed, an obstacle. As technology increases, we will see even more uncontrollable possibilities, including the merger of technology with the human body and the ability to modify, hack, or artificially enhance physical or mental actions or capabilities.

Of course, this also opens up the possibility of near-complete managerial control–the media is already gleefully discussing pharmaceutical cures for “racism.” Who can doubt that technology could be used against the very consciousness of ideological dissidents? But all of this depends on the technological elite agreeing with and participating in the agenda of the current governing class. Judging from their checkered partnership when it comes to national security policies, there will be at least some dissidents. And no matter what system is implemented, there will be a workaround.

Technology also empowers tribalism in a way not seen since the Industrial Revolution. It provides workers more freedom about where to live and who to align with. It allows certain kinds of workers to break free of bureaucracies and supervisors, thus removing one of the ways the managerial elite can apply economic pressure. It allows the creation of new kinds of communities that can sustain themselves socially and financially and who only participate in the larger economy on their own terms and for their own interests.

The widespread acceptance of 3-D printers and other machines could theoretically challenge the concept of “scarcity” that underlies capitalism itself–or at least make it easier for people to opt out of constant participation in the consumer economy.

Conclusion

Power is shifting on a global scale–demographically, economically, militarily, and culturally. But ultimately, the biggest shift is the foundation of what we call power. Physical strength or elected office doesn’t convey power in the modern world. It’s technological expertise that grants control over the process of production. As such, it will be the new fulcrum of power for the next governing elite–unless those who use more old-fashioned means of acquiring power can survive what the System will throw at them.

Does this mean the managerial elite (and its anti-white policies) will be replaced? Not necessarily. Figures like Gates and Zuckerburg have essentially merged with the already existing ruling class. But the future is not certain and there is no guarantee that the next wave of industry leaders will make the same choice. It’s also not certain that second or even third tier figures will not choose to use their w
ealth and power to open up areas of political, social, or economic autonomy outside the existing system.

The great limiting factor of Identitarianism is not a lack of ideas or even official opposition–it’s simply a lack of resources. Technology represents a relatively uncontrolled source of wealth and social power and there are faint stirrings of opposition to the current order. How the course of technology and social development will play out is unknown.

But there is a Remnant that understands there is something deeply wrong with the System as it is and that the upward development of mankind is not possible without radical change. The Identitarian Right must present the alternative. Another world is possible—if we have the wealth, tools, and will to create it. 

No Comments on The New Class

The Dobermans of Political Correctness

However, there is a deeper philosophical connection besides the characteristic stupidity required for success within the Beltway Right. The Beltway Right and the self-styled “antifa” have much in common. Neither group actually advances towards their supposed goals. Both draw on phony rationalizations for their support. And both are deeply committed—even dependent—on the maintenance of the status quo.

Originally published at NPI October 2013

Well, Conservatism Inc. has found out about the National Policy Institute’s conference—and they are not happy. One “J. Arthur Bloom” (that’s his real name) at the Daily Caller bravely unmasks the “White Nationalist” conference and its “notorious” speakers, breaking from his usual trailblazing articles about Herman Cain’s “9-9-9” tax videos.

There are the usual drive-by style smears. The Traditional Britain Group is a “fringe group.” Sam Dickson is a “Klan Attorney.” The manosphere (identified as the base for NPI speaker Jack Donovan) is a “network of self-described anti-feminist bloggers and internet lurkers who seem to think there’s something courageous about misogyny.”

However, what is truly interesting is the source Bloom uses to describe the National Policy Institute. He cites one Daryle Lamont Jenkins of the One Person’s Project, er, One People’s Project. Mr. Jenkins, of course, includes such conservative luminaries as Pat Coyle of Young America’s Foundation, Phyllis Schlafly, Pat Buchanan, and that notorious radical Sean Hannity in his “Rogue’s Gallery.” OPP also publishes their personal addresses—and given its support and collaboration with “antifa” executing violent attacks on people they disagree with, one can only guess what Mr. Jenkins wants people to do with this information.

Mr. Jenkins also includes Ann Coulter as someone worthy of condemnation and, presumably, more direct actions. Coulter is a featured columnist on, you guessed it, the Daily Caller. When Margaret Thatcher died, Mr. Jenkins also gloated with a banner headline reading “Rot in Hell!”, a practice for any conservative (or person he thinks is “racist”) who dies.

The fact that J. Arthur Bloom thinks this character is more worthy of respectful treatment in the conservative press than former American Conservative Editor Richard Spencer or former National Review contributors Peter Brimelow and Jared Taylor tells us a lot about where the conservative movement stands today. Of course, this also assumes J. Arthur Bloom is actually a real person, and not just a caricature created by Tom Wolfe.

However, there is a deeper philosophical connection besides the characteristic stupidity required for success within the Beltway Right. The Beltway Right and the self-styled “antifa” have much in common. Neither group actually advances towards their supposed goals. Both draw on phony rationalizations for their support. And both are deeply committed—even dependent—on the maintenance of the status quo.

The American conservative movement systemically marginalized scholars, intellectuals, and activists who wanted to push the American Right towards a serious defense of nationalist economic, cultural, and demographic policies. Today, the Beltway Right celebrates these “purges” (their term) as the necessary price for giving the American conservative movement the “respectability” it enjoys today.

Of course, the American conservative movement is widely smeared as “racist” and is utterly dependent on White voters and thinly veiled race baiting—especially at institutions like the Daily Caller. One can even see this in comments section of Bloom’s own story, which was quickly dominated by White advocates using the “anti-racist is anti-white” talking points.

However, because the Beltway gatekeepers ensure the conservative movement never connects the dots between their platform and their constituency, the Beltway Right is allowed a seat at the table. The fundraising scams and promises of “the most important election in our lifetime” continue again and again, even as the movement stumbles from catastrophe to catastrophe. As Joseph Sobran noted of the conduct of movement conservatives, “It was a game, a way of making a living.”

As for antifascists, they are ostensibly mobilized against a system of oppression that represses people of color and maintains hierarchical social arrangements. Initially, many of these groups grew out of workers’ organizations and to this day largely coincide with various explicitly socialist and Communist organizations. However, the robber barons of today never experience any real pressure from the Left. Instead, the antifa’s posturing and strutting—which even Jack Donovan might call a bit of an overcompensation—is purely targeted at politically marginalized White Nationalists.

One can see this in the initial promise and eventual collapse of the Occupy movement. The mobilization against taxpayer bailouts of banks, corporate privilege, and the rise in inequality touched a nerve in the mass population. However, the protests quickly degenerated into a grab bag of cutesy PC policies, as SWPL’s with post-graduate degrees made sure “people of color” spoke first so they can fight institutional racism. Instead of becoming a mass movement, it became a cliché of overeducated anarchists typing away on their Macs about why someone else should pay for their Gender Studies degree. Today’s antifascists would see the workers of the world reduced to absolute serfdom so long as it means mass immigration continues to dispossess whites.

Thus, while skinheads and lonely “White Nationalists” in North Dakota without power (or running water) draw fanatical responses, the likes of George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, or Lloyd Blankfein do their business undisturbed. In practice—and perhaps even in theory—antifascists serve as the Pinkerton detectives of the multicultural state, the useful idiots of the regime. Far from being a threat to the System, they are a necessary support, even a militant wing.

Interestingly, some antiracist theoreticians recognize this, at least partially. The Communist Party member Don Hammerquist wrote in “Fascism and Anti-Fascism,” (cited at Anti-Racist Action) that the real danger of “fascism” in his analysis is not that fascists will seize power. He admits, “The policies of official capitalism carried out through the schools and the criminal justice and welfare systems are both a far greater and a more immediate threat to the health and welfare of people of color than fascist instigated racial attacks and their promotion of racialist genocide.”

However, this doesn’t mean they will actually do anything about it. Instead, “fascism” is still th
e real danger because they are the only ones talking about “issues that are regarded a part of our movement: “globalization,” working class economic demands, “green” questions, [and] resistance to police repression, etc.”

He also notes, the “question of who and what, exactly, is anti-capitalist remains very much unsettled. Some of the fascists take positions that at least appear to be much more categorically oppositional than those of most of the left.”

Indeed, the real point of the “anti-fascists” is to make sure no one is talking about important issues. The antifa position seems to be “if we can’t generate resistance to the System, no one can!” You can’t intelligently discuss issues such as environmentalism, class divisions, or what a real community actually entails without talking about the realities of diversity and the costs of mass immigration. But of course, the very things that are most important to discuss are the same things we are not allowed to mention without drastic reprisals.

In theory, anti-fascists see “White Nationalists” as their only possible rivals for a “libertatory anti-capitalism.” In practice, they simply go after the easier target. Thus, thanks to these bold fighters for the workers, class divisions continue to increase, the system of international finance is far stronger than it was a few decades ago, organized labor has all but collapsed, and upper-class Americans have an entirely new class of taxpayer-supported brown helot laborers.

But at least they mildly inconvenience groups trying to hold a conference, and make hotels pay “White Nationalist” groups tens of thousands of dollars for breaking a contract! ¡No pasarán!

Meanwhile, the antifacists also serve a useful role for the Beltway Right. They ensure that activists stick to the script and never lose sight of their role as corporate lobbyists. Economic policies are rarely attacked on their own terms. Instead, they are portrayed as a cover for sneaky “White Nationalists” lurking in the background, pulling the strings. The Left even claimed that the farce of the government shutdown was actually motivated by White racism. Whenever someone does make an explicit connection between the the conservative base and policies that would actually help the historic American nation, the antiracists cry “jump!” and Conservatism Inc. replies “how high?”

The result is the conservative movement remains permanently on the defensive on identitarian issues. The self appointed purgers and guardians of respectability, typically of a neoconservative persuasion, are empowered. The “hard right” of the conservative movement takes solace in conspiracy theories and an ever more fanatical devotion to the civic religion of aracial, acultural “Americanism,” which renders them both stupid and nonthreatening. When Bob Weissburg was purged from National Review for saying sensible things about race, Rich Lowry didn’t just explain the move as a tactical necessity—he actually thanked the “antifascists” who brought it to his attention.

Working in unconscious partnership, the antifascists and the Beltway Right ensure there is no serious threat to the system of control. The antifascists ensure that the only radical force seriously opposing those in power (by their own admission) can never organize openly. Meanwhile, the Beltway Right ensures any large-scale opposition by Whites is funneled into dead ends.

The essential contradiction of “White Nationalism” is that while it is marginalized politically, it dominates all political conversation. To echo what Marx said of Communism, where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as “racist” by its opponents in power? Where is the opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of “racism?”

On issues such as mass immigration, anti-White racial preferences, trade policy, and even cultural matters (ask a normal person what he thinks about modern art), racial realists and Traditionalists are a silent majority. An ever more elaborate system of repression is required to prevent a breakthrough. The increasingly prissy and hysterical tone of our media regarding the occasional murmurs of resistance is fully justified, as small conferences and tiny vanguards of activists could transform into a mass force overnight if the boot is ever lifted.

The “Third Way” proposed by nationalists and Traditionalists truly is “beyond Left and Right.” It is the only threat to the current order that exists. This is why both of these groups are united to destroy it.

No Comments on The Dobermans of Political Correctness

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