Radix Journal

Radix Journal

A radical journal

Three Questions for Separatists

It seems that with every passing year there is more and more discussion in “our” circles about the creation of a separate homeland for Whites in North America. While still being something along the lines of a pipe dream, it simultaneously seems more and more likely to be only solution for those who put White interests first and foremost.

It seems that with every passing year there is more and more discussion in “our” circles about the creation of a separate homeland for Whites in North America. While still being something along the lines of a pipe dream, it simultaneously seems more and more likely to be only solution for those who put White interests first and foremost. News items like White deaths outnumbering White births, coupled with models like Orania have pushed many White activists firmly in the separatist camp: Sam Dickson, Richard Spencer, and Michael O’Meara to name a few. The crowds at both Counter-Currents and The Occidental Quarterly seem all but entirely convinced that this is the solution, and with Vdare and Takimag becoming increasingly racial, it is not hard to imagine many of their readers beginning to think along the same lines. With more and more people thinking about it, and an American Renaissance conference that will have at least one lecture on the matter just around the corner, it is worth considering some of this ethnostate’s specifics, and roadblocks. The below should be taken as dabblings in complex issues, and far from the last word. Consider them jumping off points for discussions Whites are having across the globe.

1) Religion

In terms of religious beliefs, White Nationalists and their fellow travelers are an incredibly diverse bunch. Among our ranks are a number of Catholics, Protestants, Atheists, Jews, and Pagans. To my knowledge, there are no prominent Muslims, however there may well be Traditionalist followers of René Guénon (or Martin Lings or Titus Burckhard, etc.) out there who have converted to Islam and still read American Renaissance. Will all of us be able to get along? On its face, the question is easy to dismiss by claiming that any ethnostate we create will continue in the Western tradition of keeping church and state separate, and that since the nation’s defining characteristic will be race, it will be easy to leave religious differences alone.

However, the question becomes more difficult when one considers education. For me personally, and I suspect for many others, much of an ethnostate’s appeal comes from the prospect of raising my kids (or grand-kids, or great-grand-kids, etc.) in a safe and healthy environment, and much of that centers around schools. If we are to have a White country, we will have White schools, and what will they teach? We can all more or less agree on basics like history and mathematics, but what of religion? Will there be religious instruction for our children? Of what ilk? For the sake of balance, will Frederich Nietzsche be taught alongside the Torah? This broad issue of religious tolerance calls into question many smaller legal issues as well: blue book laws, obscenity laws, sodomy laws, usury laws, etc.Will “God” be in our Constitution, what about our national anthem?

Further complicating the matter is that should the racial situation in North America get so bad that a White Ethnostate is even possible, I would suspect an upsurge in religious belief, as is often the case when the going gets tough. What is to be done if a group of Evangelicals from Tennessee and a group of Traditionalist Catholics from Illinois converge at once on a flowering ethnostate somewhere in the Pacific Northwest? And what if a flock of Mormons fleeing a half-formed Aztlan arrive as well? Those who have already disposed themselves of one excessively diverse nation may well prove willing to do so again in short order. Ensuring that further splitting after a homeland begins to take form is a concern not often voiced, and worth contemplating.

2) Government

What system of government are we to have? Many of the strongest advocates for an ethnostate are also harsh critics of democracy (e.g. Richard Spencer and Michael Hart), which is fine, but begs the question, “well what then?” Are we to crown Jared Taylor king and let a monarchy flow from there? Perhaps a council of philosopher kings made up of the more prominent thinkers in our movement? If so, we have to go back to religion and debate whether each religious group should be represented on this council.

This question might grow more difficult with time. An America with sufficient racial strife and government breakdown to make an ethnostate possible will be an America so chaotic that completely apolitical Whites would likely flood our nation simply in search of a safe place. Like it or not, Americans of all stripes love democracy, even when things are bad and falling apart. The Confederates wanted a Republic, the Mormons organized democratically even before they were searching for acceptance, and even those secessionists of today in Vermont and Cascadia speak in terms of democracy. Average Whites fleeing a disintegrating Los Angeles may go along with a benevolent autocrat somewhere in the Rockies at first, but sooner rather than later they will want a voice in their new homeland. Are we give them books by Julius Evola and Alain de Bensoit to explain to them why they should not vote? Should there instead be a Republican system with limited voter enfranchisement? What will the requirements be in terms of age, sex, property, etc?

3) Censorship

If a new White Nation will be one big fresh start, how fresh does it need to be? For decades now, the art and culture of the West has been decadent and far from aligned with our conception of the world, and this trend will only be made worse with time. Will television from the outside world be banned? What of their books, magazine, and movies? Are all denizens of a White Nation to be trusted, or will they need guidance in terms of aesthetic consumption? Like with all questions of censorship, this one starts easy but gets hard quick. Banning Mandingo porn is obvious (though would imply little faith in the tastes of the citizens), but what about Moby Dick? The “Pequod” features a curious kind of racial harmony, and has touches of homoeroticism, but is a classic in the Western Canon. What about leftist political books, like those by Karl Marx? How about rap music? What about Eminem? The questions go on and on, and they all beg that the last two questions be answered as well: what role would religious doctrine play in censorship, and who would decide what gets censored?

These three topics are worth pondering, but remember to be polite. Ironically, if a White Ethnostate is ever to be founded and survive its first day, an incredible amount of tolerance will be required of all involved. The segment of the American Right unallergic to racial issues has a long history of infighting, and a very short list of victories.

No Comments on Three Questions for Separatists

Emanations of Wotan

Surely as Wotan/Odin personifies the warrior god amongst many of his emanations, Wotan also epitomizes the mystic priest, as well, as the All-father is unbound to simplistic distillations. The emanations of Wotan, as suggested by Jung in his essay, change, evolve, and adapt to the time at hand.

The Spirit of White Consciousness WWII to the Present

Much has been written about Carl Jung’s 1936 essay entitled “Wotan,” where Jung provides an esoteric traditionalist criticism of contemporary events during this precarious era of European history, focusing specifically on the rising atavistic Teutonic ethos embodied by the Nazis and the German people. However, the following paragraphs will not focus on the coming renaissance of Odinism, nor will it focus on erroneous rationalizations for RAHOWA, or any other spurious exegeses the essay has inspired.

Surely as Wotan/Odin personifies the warrior god amongst many of his emanations, Wotan also epitomizes the mystic priest, as well, as the All-father is unbound to simplistic distillations. The emanations of Wotan, as suggested by Jung in his essay, change, evolve, and adapt to the time at hand. In this manner, the ethos and Zeitgeist of modern White consciousness in all the major European theaters of the world (North America, Europe, Australia, etc…) no longer exhibits the ethos and characteristics of Wotan, the war god; instead, the contemporary White, Occidental world reflects Wotan, the master of words, language, and mysticism, as our world moves away from mass violence and mass warfare as the most effective and efficient means of communication both literal and symbolic.

The most important, and often quoted, metaphor extracted from Jung’s essay concerns Jung’s metaphor of the river bed. Through this image, Jung asserts that the gods of our ancestors, as archetypal mechanisms of the psyche, have existed as long as we have existed as a race. The subconscious archetypal gods of the Teutonic peoples are the innate creations of our earliest ancestors. The trough of their riverbed, or the subconscious erosion made by these archetypes over such a great period of time, extends the deepest and remains most readily to be filled when the flood of mystic waters flows over this subconscious topography once more. This explains how these ancient gods continue with us. Even if the river bed is dry for a time and the gods seemingly dead, the riverbed remains waiting to be filled by the spirit of these same gods. More often than not, the gods never die; rather, their aspects and nomenclature change and shift.

Jung’s riverbed metaphor explains the power that this Teutonic ethos wielded during the Nazi era. Even though the pagan period had all but lied dormant for a thousand years, this atavistic Zeitgeist remerged in the mid-20th century, irrevocably altering the landscape of the time and the people who survived the period. Viewing the Nazi period objectively, without moralism, their return to ancient ideologies, symbols, perspectives, and philosophies at least lends empirical credence to the idea of racial memory, how there is a narrative unfurling in every racial culture and spirituality, and how these aspects endure and adapt overtime.

Considering the occultic phase “As above, so below,” in other words “the macrocosm will reflect the microcosm and vice-versa,” archetypal gods such as Wotan and the Aesir macrocosmically reflect the microcosm of the Teutonic soul. In Germanic metaphysics of the soul, there existed the idea of the soul complex made up of different, yet complimentary parts, much unlike the unified soul idea of Christianity. One particular aspect of the soul complex is the fetch. On this concept, Esoteric Germanic Scholar Stephen Flowers asserts,

The fetch can be understood in the traditional sense as an entity separate from the individual, but which is attached to him for the duration of his life. It is the conduit through which the gods communicate to him, and the embodiment of all that he has ever been. It is a storehouse of images and powers from beyond this life and from beyond Midgard. (…) In this is housed all of the echoes of all of the deeds ever done by the bodies to which the fetch has ever been bound (58-59).

In other words, the fetch represents the racial collective unconscious that Jung himself introduce as a concept. On the macrocosmic level, Wotan reflects the mechanism of the fetch to the whole race instead of the mere individual. If one ponders about this archetypal role of the gods in connection with Oswald Spengler’s view of civilization as reflecting the microcosmic cycle of birth, life, and death of the human individual on the macrocosmic level, then the notion that the spiritual, that which is immaterial yet ever-present, must function on the macrocosmic level, as well. Therefore, the body of the civilization must die; however, the ancestral spirit and ethos is eternal in some sense.

The spirit of the civilization lives long after the corporeal civilization. Both the spiritual and residual physical legacy continues. The spirit of Wotan, operating as the fetch on the macrocosmic level, detaches from the dead civilization and reattaches to a nascent civilization of the same racial stock. The physical legacy is more obvious. The best example of physical legacy would be in the consideration of how important classicism (the legacy of Greek and Rome) is still to the present day. Wotan and the Aesir still linger in our subconscious though Germanic and Scandinavian practice ended a thousand years earlier. Plato’s Republic or Artistole’s Treatise on Rhetoric still reach from beyond the ancient grave to influence modern thought. In turn, the runes and the gods lied mostly dormant, much like the One Ring of Tolkien’s epic, until both the runes and the gods revealed themselves once more during the German Romantic period of the late 19th century.

It is my assertion that Wotan, the War god, reared his ugly head during this period of turmoil as the most effective means of communication and action. Unexhausted by the First World War, nations and principalities on both sides of the Ally and the Axis powers malevolently postured in the perilous geopolitical situation. The goals of these various parties and their globalist banker “philanthropists” could only be achieved through mass warfare. The most effective means of communication to fight the growth of Marxism in the Soviet Union, the Fascism of Mussolini’s Italy, or the National Socialism of Germany was to forego intellectual debates of merit and dive head strong in a measure of brute force. Though “mass” media of the period could reach and influence great numbers over great distances of geographic locations, its distribution was far too slow to keep apace with the escalating situation of World War II. The metaphysical semiotics of War, whether Ally or Axis, were far more powerful statements than the written word. Only the mass blood shed of Dresden, Nazi and Soviet Death Camps, post-war German civilian concentration camps, and last, but hardly least, the atomic bombs dropped upon Nagasaki and Hiroshima both provided the shock-and-awe military leaders, politicians, and globalist bankers wanted while also sobering the frenzied bloodlust of the world’s population for a time.

Today, Occidental denizens, White or otherwise, have reached our threshold for wanton and mass violence. There is no longer a fervor, no longer a romanticism of war. Vietnam and the War on Terror shattered the last vestiges of the idea of noble warfare. Hardly 10 years since the beginning of the War on Terror, ordinary Americans and our ordinary global counterparts no longer call for blood against nebulous, barely-identifiable groups. I feel even a true, authentic sense of shame in America for our initial reaction to 9/11 and the exponential mess originating therefrom. Not even the rednecks of my home state have the gall nor the want to wish ill-fates upon “towel heads” any longer. Too many pictures of dead women and children. Too many destroyed lives. Too many raw, uncensored videos. Even the toughest, most cynical vanguardist would be hard pressed not to be affected by an Arab father losing his daughter, wife, son, etc. Though the signs of degradation surround us, we still understand on some level that we are blessed.

The rise of global communications, the Internet, alternative journalism, and the like have begun to decimate the globalists’ logos and rationale for the continuation of purposeless wars that benefit none but the globalists themselves. Blind faith in politics, political leaders, and their agendas is seemingly less and less tolerated or fashionable on either the left or the right. We are now so much unlike the Great Generation willing to die for God and Country, a generation whose members sometimes committed suicide if unable to fight for freedom and liberty. Even the poorest of the cracker proletariats are hardly that naïve in 2014. Military service is a means-to-an-end, not a service of valor, honor, and courage. There is no authentic ethos that guides the passions of youthful combatants, only the promise of a paycheck, skills specialization, and a means of going to college. I surely do not mean this as a slight to service men and women, but they must be willing to accept the vast difference in what it means to be a part of the military now as opposed to then.

The priestly avatar of Wotan, that archetypal spinal column of the Teutons, emerges once more. No longer does the god of the Wild Hunt scorch the land. The Valkyrie no longer trails behind in such great force to lift up the 60 million slain Einherjar as the result of fratricidal World War II. Now Wotan, the god of poetry, mysticism, and language wanders the information superhighway. Wotan is present at every church, every community, every group within instinctually/inherently white cultures and subcultures. Is there any doubt there is a correlation between Odin the wanderer and the migratory nature of White “racism”? At White cultures most pacifist, our ethnic migratory trends and patterns reflect the desires of White Americans at large whether they are conscious of the fact or are completely unawares. If White culture has been rendered mute by the established hierarchy and artificial structures that reinforce cultural Marxist norms, then Whites silently congregate. Whether this is the White churches, from the “mega” to the bible study at home, or at concerts/festivals of inherently White music, or certain particular geographically insular wWhite communities, we still seek those like us. Hysterically, few Whites who engage in the latter activities would be galled to admit this is true. Yet when Christians “fight for Christmas,” they fight for Wotan. When yuppies and hipsters converge for music where they lift up their voices in one accord comfortable in the safety of familiar demographics, they sing for Wotan in their transcendent groupthink. And one day, when the place between that which is hard and the rock closes in, the spirit of Wotan will guide our voices once more.

Communication now vastly outweighs war as the most effective means of transfiguring cultural and societal landscapes. Now is the age of the “Info War,” a term Alex Jones poignantly coined. He is correct in this affair. In the First World still, battles of words and intellect have mostly replaced military or crusader tactics of submit-or-die type conversion techniques. We can take the skirmish to Twitter or Facebook instead of bloodletting on the battlefield. As such, a new spirit of Wotan now emerges. Some readers may be offended that I have reduce Wotan to the role of some beta male who is somehow emasculated; however, I would argue that Wotan is not an unlearned, uninitiated, lowly warrior. The modern world is now far too complex to apply brute strength as a means of change. The modern world is far more like a vast and complicated game of chess than a game of Battleship. The oversoul of the Teutonic, Scandinavian, Slav, and Celtic peoples must adapt to this new paradigm of warfare. A long-game strategy must be deployed. We may be forced to into defensive stance at present, but being on the defensive in the chess analogy does not mean we will lose. It means we must, we have to, play a serious, committed, and smart game for the win.

No Comments on Emanations of Wotan

NAFTA Turns Twenty

NAFTA is another nail in the coffin of the white working class and another reminder to look above and beyond the “Generic American Party.”

The ancient historian Tacitus famously said, “Laws were most numerous when the commonwealth was most corrupt.” In looking over the enormity of the actual document that is NAFTA, one wonders what the honorable Tacitus would have said upon discovering that “Petroleum gases and other gaseous hydrocarbons other than: ethylene, propylene, butylene and butadiene, in purities over 50 percent” fell under Annex 603.6 of Chapter Six (Energy and Basic Petrochemicals) in Part Two (Trade In Goods). Annex 603.6 lists exceptions to Article 603, and states that “For only those goods listed below, Mexico may restrict the granting of import and export licenses for the sole purpose of reserving foreign trade in these goods to itself.” Unless my legalese is not as sharp as I would like to think, this means that NAFTA is a guest sign-in book for America, Canada, and Mexico’s greatest lobbyists.

For all the talk that NAFTA would be good for everyone and everything involved (Mexican peasants, American workers, the environment, etc.), it was immediately obvious to anyone paying attention that this was not the case. By January 1995 Republican NAFTA cheerleaders Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole were trying to get the U.S. Treasury to issue 40 billion dollars worth of loans to the Mexican government in order to save American corporate investments from the plummeting peso. In building up to its passage, the late libertarian polymath Murray Rothbard wondered why NAFTA was receiving so much attention in libertarian circles, as opposed to equally worthy libertarian causes like ending the Federal Reserve or decriminalizing marijuana. After some investigating, he sarcastically commented that the obsession was likely connected to the Koch Brothers purchasing over a billion dollars worth of gas pipelines in Mexico in 1992. For those of you who think this sounds conspiratorial, consider that all of Mexico’s oil refineries are state-owned, and that Mexico now refines less crude oil than it did in 1994. NAFTA’s incidences of corruption and broken promises are many, but out of all the examples, what could be called the “Subsidized-Crop-Immigration Cycle” is far and away the most illustrative.

The trouble begins, like so many things, with a program that FDR created during the Great Depression. Fearing a collapse of American agriculture, in 1933 the “Agricultural Adjustment Act” was passed which established the “Agricultural Adjustment Administration” which began dispersing large subsidies (also known as taxpayer money) to farmers across the country. The string attached to the money was that farmers had to not grow as many crops as they had been, the idea being that this would create a shortage of crops, causing their prices to go up, allowing farmers to make more profit. Say what you will of the policy’s success at the time, most everyone should be suspect of the fact that a mutated form of this bill is still with us – long after the Dust Bowl’s end, and when American farmers constitute less than 1% of the workforce, not 25%, as was the case in the 1930s.

Estimates vary, but in the last decade American taxpayers have given around 168 billion dollars over to farm subsidies, with another 195 billion estimated for the next decade. Where the money ends up is also an issue, and also not known precisely. The latter of the two sources cited above claims that about one third of subsidies go to the top 4% of farm operators. The former claims 75% go to the top 10%. Either way (or hypothetically, both), America’s largest food producers receive an incredible amount of free money.

To what end is all of this extra money used? Thanks to NAFTA, said money is used to flood Mexican markets with artificially low prices on all different kinds of food. Ten years ago Allan Wall reported that the Mexican pork industry had lost about 30% of its revenues since NAFTA because of importations, and numbers released since then show things only getting worse. Between 1997 and 2005, Mexican prices for corn, pork, poultry, beef, rice, cotton, wheat, and soybeans all fell from 44% to 67%. Unsurprisingly, 2.3 million Mexicans left the field of agriculture during this period.

What happens to these unemployed Mexican farmers? Well, during the same time the above economic study was conducted, the population of illegal immigrants in the US roughly doubled. It is a sad irony that the very same businesses that use corporate welfare to bankrupt farmers in Mexico later hire them here in the US – where one in four farmworkers is an illegal immigrant. With this influx of unemployed Mexicans comes the crime, economic displacement, and cultural change reported on almost every day at Vdare and American Renaissance.

It is worth remembering too, that along with America’s working class, Mexicans are not the real beneficiaries of this cycle either. Since 1994, Mexico’s annual GDP growth has been schizophrenic, one year it will shrink by 6% and the next it will grow by 5%, while in ‘60s and ‘70s, it was steadily growing. Additionally, the supposed benefits of NAFTA have done nothing to help Mexico surpass China as Canada or America’s second largest trading partner. One would also be hard pressed to find a Mexican who would rather pick beans at abysmal wages in the US than run a family farm in his homeland. The small matter of the Zapatistas who declared NAFTA to be death is worth mentioning as well.

The beneficiaries have been given many names – Samuel Huntington called them “Davos Men,” James Burnham called them “Managerial Elites,” and Sam Francis often referred to them more broadly as “cultural and social elites.” Regardless of the name, it is those who prioritize profits and pretension to goodness over any and all cultural, racial, or national loyalties. Understanding the presence of these elites, and what their interests are, is an essential part to navigating and surviving the American political landscape. Though I would recommend reading more on the matter, it should be understood that these elites have taken over the Republican Party: after all, only 10 of the 44 Republican senators who could vote against NAFTA did so; Republican congressmen displayed only marginally more economic nationalism – 43 out of 175.

NAFTA is another nail in the coffin of the white working class and another reminder to look above and beyond the “Generic American Party.” Not long after NAFTA kicked in, Newt Gingrich and company swept the legislative branch and once George W. Bush was elected, passed bill after bill of free-trade agreements. This November, remember NAFTA, and let the Republicans self destruct.

No Comments on NAFTA Turns Twenty

Steven Spielberg’s Masterpiece of Kitsch

A.I. Artificial Intelligence is a film that suffers from some of the worst tendencies of the schmaltzy and declining Steven Spielberg. I will contend, nevertheless, that this cryptic work is, in its way, one of the most ambitious and disturbing efforts of two cinematic masters.

The film A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001), a Stanley Kubrick conception that was midwifed into existence by Steven Spielberg after the former’s passing, was met with favorable, though mixed reviews upon its release. American moviegoers, probably expecting the kinder, gentler fare more characteristic of Spielberg’s defining works, were often nonplussed by what many found to be an odd and gloomy film. A.I. has, to a large extent, been forgotten, by both fans of Spielberg and Kubrick. Generally, I can’t disagree with this popular consensus; A.I. is an odd film, indeed. It is flawed in execution and suffers from some of the worst tendencies of the schmaltzy and declining Spielberg. I will contend, nevertheless, that this cryptic work is, in its way, one of the most ambitious and disturbing efforts of two cinematic masters.

Released in 2001, A.I. was visually spectacular, and it remains one of the more successful attempts at integrating CGI with live action. The film’s deeper meaning, however, is revealed through its plotting and symbology; to understand this, one should revisit its storyline, which fluctuates between futurism and fairytale.

A.I. is set in a world where the icecaps have melted due to manmade global warming. This has caused catastrophic global flooding and changes in weather patterns. As a result, most of the important coastal cities have been lost to the advancing sea, and populations have retreated inland. These changes have also led to a dearth of resources that has annihilated Third World societies. The survivors of the First World live in a civilization that is, on the one hand, full of techno gadgets and utopian material advances and, on the other, still scared by ecological and social collapse.

To meet labor demands, Westerners have invested in the development of highly advanced robots, which require much less resource to sustain than humans. Increasingly, these robots have come to closely resemble human beings, not only in appearance but in their ability to process reality.

The film follows the travails of one particular robot, or “Mecha,” named David (who’s played by the remarkable child actor Haley Joel Osment). David is a sort of “Adam,” a prototype designed to possess a true human sentience or, as described by his creators, “the [genuine] ability to love.”

David is introduced into a human family as a surrogate child. It is a family whose only son has been rendered comatose, suffering from a seemingly incurable condition. David, as programed, develops a strong emotional attachment to his human mother, and the mother, to him. One day, the family’s human child miraculously recovers and, when he returns home, a sort of sibling rivalry ensues between robot and boy. (In this rivalry, the human boy emerges as the the real villain; David, as designed, is nothing if not guileless, innocent, and kind.)

As part of this rivalry, the human child maliciously and subtly teases David by introducing him to the fable of Pinocchio, in which a puppet is turned into a real boy by “the Blue Fairy.” A seed is planted in David’s mind, and, unable to distinguish fairytale from reality, the robot concludes that if only he could find the Blue Fairy, he could be made human—and thus be loved by his mother in the same way she loves her flesh and blood.

Eventually, David unwittingly proves himself a safety hazard to his human sibling, and the decision is made to destroy the robot. However, the mother of the family is unable to execute the plan because of David’s uncanny likeness to a real child; she instead sets him free in a nearby wood. Devastated with grief, she imparts these final words of advice: “Stay away from Flesh Fairs. Stay away from all people… . Only Mechas are safe.” (The mother seems aware of the “inhumanity” of her people when compared to the gentleness of robots.)

Abandoned and alone, David clings fast to his hope of one day becoming a real boy and returning to his mother. Hence begins David’s quest for the Blue Fairy and his journey through a human civilization in deep crisis.

Despite his human mother’s warning, David is soon captured by a wild vigilante gang of humans. He is placed in an “Anti-Mecha Flesh Fair,” an event in which obsolete and unlicensed (undocumented?) robots are destroyed on stage in front of cheering throngs of humans.

While imprisoned and awaiting destruction, the naïve David asks his fellow robots for an explanation of what is happening. "History repeats itself!” is the answer he receives from a wizened old model, who goes on to explain that their persecution is a consequence of a conflict between “electricity and blood.” Here, David also meets his companion for much of the rest of the film, “Gigolo Joe,” a robot played brilliantly by Jude Law.

The anti-Mecha humans are a vaguely Midwestern and lower-middle-class lot (the tone of the setting is like that of a Country Music concert or tractor pull). They are led by a demagogue, who tells the crowd that it is the intention of the societal elite to replace humans with ever more sophisticated robots (a fear that will be dramatically vindicated). When it is David’s turn to be liquidated, he pleas for mercy: “Don’t burn me! Don’t burn me!” Both his cries and his uncanny similarity to a real boy sway the crowd, which demands he be spared. David (along with Gigolo Joe) thus barely evade being made a holocaust in the humans’ crude ritual. In a sort of “civil rights” moment for robots, the rabble rises up against its demagogic ringleader, allowing David and Gigolo Joe an opportunity to escape the pogrom.

Mecha at the Flesh Fair

Mecha at the Flesh Fair

I don’t use the word “holocaust” frivolously. Is is an ancient Biblical term meaning “a sacrificial offering that is burned completely on an altar,” and, within the context of this scene and the film, Spielberg is likely evoking images of sacrificial offerings as well as the “Holocaust” of the Second World War.

Like David, Joe was also designed as a playmate, only he is for adults. In A.I.’s version of Sodom and Gomorrah, “Rouge City,” Gigolo Joe was employed as a sex toy for lonely middle-aged women. Joe’s “game” is, of course, crass and degenerate; but Spielberg also make clear that Joe represents a kind of upgrade on humanity. In Joe’s words, “Once you’ve had a lover robot, You’ll never want a real man again.”

Joe makes a point of relating this truth to David in front of a kitschy Catholic Church ensconced in the sin of Rogue City. According to Joe, the mortal women (shiksas?) go to the Church to seek their Creator, yet when they emerge, they invariably seek out Gigolo Joe for more earthly salvation. Importantly, the reason the robotic duo had stopped in front of the church is because David mistook an image of the Virgin Mary for the magical Blue Fairy. It is a comparison, I am certain, Spielberg makes quite deliberately.

Gigolo Joe is on the run from the law and is scheduled for imprisonment (he was framed by a jealous human for the murder of one of his return clients). And his words of wisdom to David regarding humans are similar in sentiment to the advice David received from his human mother: “They hate us, you know. The humans. And will stop at nothing to destroy us.” When David insists that Joe is wrong and that his mother loves him, Joe corrects him: "She loves what you do for her. As my customers love what I do for them. But she does not love you. You are neither flesh, nor blood.”[1] Joe continues,

They made us too smart, too quick, and too many. We are suffering for the mistakes they made because when the end comes, all that will be left is us. That’s why they hate us…

Despite his “sexbot” appearance, Joe makes a profound and prophetic assessment—and one that is the key to understanding A.I. The root of human hatred of robots is not so much fear as envy—envy of a superior “humanity.” Joe also foresees that the meek Mecha will inherit the earth. (Despite all this, David holds fast to the feeling that his human mother loves him and insists on continuing his quest to find the Blue Fairy.)

Later in the film, when Joe is finally captured by the authorities and being hauled away for extermination, he identifies himself, cryptically, to David: “I am.” Then, comically, as he is dragged away: “I was.” (This is not the only place in the film in which the dialogue and imagery shift away from sci-fi realism and take on a kind of fairly tale or esoteric hue.)

This expression “I am,” uttered as a self-identification, has a very specific religious meaning. It is the name that God uses to identify himself to Moses in the Hebrew Bible (Exodus 3:14), and it is a frequent expression in the Torah as the name of God. The Jewish conception of God is that God is synonymous, first and foremost, with the Jewish people; hence every Jew is also God (or a part of him). Is Gigolo Joe identifying himself as a Jew? Perhaps metaphorically … unless, of course, the robots are the metaphor.

Eventually, David’s quest for the Blue Fairy ends when he encounters her in the form of a statue amid the submerged ruins of the Coney Island amusement park. There he sits in a submersible vehicle, baptized by the ocean, vainly praying to this watery siren (an “idol,” which you’ll remember, has already been explicitly compared to the Virgin Mary). Alas, his innate nature is such that a “conversion” is impossible.

David's devotion

David’s devotion

Two thousand years pass—the length of time between the birth of Christ and the making of the film—and the ocean freezes around him … as he prays, endlessly, hoping to become “real.”

After the ice age, David is excavated by a race of highly evolved Mecha. They are, in fact, Mecha descended from David’s own race of robots. Two thousand years later, carbon-based civilization has been replaced by silicon. Intriguingly, much like the aliens of Close Encounters of a Third Kind, in physical form, these advanced robots tend to remind one of emaciated prison-camp inmates, with an aura of both long suffering and benevolence.

The Aliens of *Close Encounters of the Third Kind*

The Aliens of *Close Encounters of the Third Kind*

Soon it is revealed that humans have gone extinct. Anti-Mecha fears and Joe’s prophecies have proven accurate. Effectively, humans birthed a species that became better than themselves through scientific (or religious and “ethical”?) development. Man lost a competition for dominance in much the same way species may develop a subspecies of itself through mutation, and then lose a struggle for survival against it.

Tapping into David’s memories, these evolved Mecha are able to recreate the setting of his human home. They are even able, at his request, to resurrect his human mother through the DNA of one of her locks of hair (which David’s teddy bear companion has preserved). The rub: she’ll only last a day, at the end of which she’ll die. In a scene suggestive of rabbinical counseling, an advanced Mecha gently explains to David the terms of this interaction before gaining his consent. The ensuing scenes, where loving mother and loving child spend their last joyous but fleeting day together, like a macabre cereal commercial, are undoubtedly Spielberg at his most mawkish and manipulative.

When the mother passes away into oblivion at the end of the day, little David lies next to her in bed (in what, in Freudian terms, could be seen as an Oedipal victory over an absent father). David drifts off to sleep, suggesting that he has finally become a real boy … a mortal … which means that he, too, will cease to exist. As the narrator describes it: “And for the first time in his life, he went to where dreams are born.”

In embracing Mother—humanity, the Blue Fairy, the Virgin Mary—David has converted to a faith that promises a selfish personal afterlife, but which will ensure he does not inherit the earth, as do others of his kind.

So what has just happened here?

Is A.I. merely another cautionary tale of technological development gone amok? Is it merely an arty variation of “robot apocalypse” movies like James Cameron’s Terminator series?[2]

Or is there, as one strongly senses, a deeper metaphor at work? Who are these manmade robots? These rejected and cast-out Golems, who—unlike the Golems of Rabbinic fables (among whom Adam and Eve are included)—prove more intelligent and divine than their creators? Who are these beings that are both irresistible saints and irresistible entertainers (and smarter, more industrious and productive workers, endlessly capable of adapting, “progressing,” and evolving)? Who are these descendants of “David,” prophesied to inherit the earth while all other nations of man are cursed by God are destroyed (and destroyed in a flood of Biblical proportions)?

And what are we to make of the striking Anglo-ness of Jude Law and Haley Joel Osment? Is this casting simply an effort to more deeply conceal an esoteric message? Or is it an abstruse form of scapegoating (much like that carried out by the Gentile Martin Scorsese in the film The Wolf of Wall Street, in which Leonardo DiCaprio portrays Jordan Belfort)? (The term “scapegoating” derives from the ancient Jewish practice of figuratively placing the sins of the tribe onto a goat and then sacrificing the animal. Thus the goat, like Christ, dies for the tribe’s sins, thereby absolving it.) Or perhaps this casting speaks to how “robots” have come to so closely resemble “humans,” though not, as we learn, in their ultimate evolution? (Or maybe Spielberg simply wanted to get butts in the seats by casting cute actors?)

Whatever the case, Spielberg (using images and ideas from Kubrick) has created a work of potentially great longevity (despite its current obscurity), largely because he has imbued A.I. with esoteric elements analogous to those in Wagner’s Ring of the Niebelung, Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, and the ancient myths of Scandinavia, Rome, Greece, and Judea.

A.I. is certainly not high art; nevertheless, I imagine that it will have a staying power, whereas better films will prove ephemeral. After all, when one reviews the Biblical oeuvre, one is struck by the innumerable instances of crude, convoluted, unimaginative, and simply soporific tales—which have, nevertheless, remained touchstones in Jewish and Occidental cultures because they are imbedded in peoples’ ethnic and religious understandings of themselves.

In other words, Spielberg and Kubrick have created a story with an exoteric value— that is, the sci-fi, CGI-laden, sentimental “entertainment” that is consumed by the masses—and one that simultaneously carries an esoteric meaning—which speaks to those parties with ears to hear.

Kubrick decided well before his death that he would not be the director of A.I., and he considered Spielberg’s aesthetic far better suited to dealing with a child-centered story (which, as mentioned, even includes a robotic teddy-bear). Certainly, the “coldness” in much of the film (at least in comparison to Spielberg’s other offerings) would have been greatly magnified had Kubrick helmed the project (and it would have likely turned off a great deal of the movie-going public). As a director, Kubrick’s interests were never in “humanizing” protagonists; his cinematic world is one of “de-humanization,” in which landscape, color, and abstract ideas overwhelm the drama. Kubrick was also a master at wryly and caustically satirizing his protagonists’ “authoritarian personalities” (most notably in Paths to Glory, Dr. Strangelove, A Clockwork Orange, The Shining, and Full Metal Jacket).

Spielberg, on the other hand, had E.T. on his résumé, the heart-warmer about a trans-galactic immigrant who was more “human” than the humans. (E.T. was also a parable, and, in retrospect, Spielberg’s rehearsal for A.I..) This was likely Kubrick’s real motivation for selecting Spielberg: to create a protagonist that audiences could feel deserved, in some way, to outlive humans. And certainly, handing the film to Spielberg gave Kubrick’s vision greater salience in the world: more eyes would see it, and thus more kindred minds might understand it. Additionally, if the film was, in fact, intended to carry the esoteric message I’ve suggested, Spielberg is a most subtle vehicle for delivering it. Kubrick is a darling of film buffs and academics, and his works are picked apart endlessly for possible esoteric meanings.[3] A Spielberg movie, on the other hand, is “just a movie,” that is, art that can be passively absorbed by audiences and critics without undergoing much deep analysis.

A.I. thus represents a rare synthesis: the originator of the film’s mythos and ideas—which are shocking and disturbing in unmediated form—had the self-awareness and honesty to hand the project off to another director who, though inferior as an artist, was much better skilled at imbuing the film with entertainment value and “innocence.” And it is fitting that Kubrick and Spielberg carried forth this work together, like Biblical scribes, as it is a story bigger than either one of them. The exoteric myth of A.I. is that of Pinocchio, the puppet who wants to become a real boy; the esoteric myth is that of Exodus, in which the Chosen People must flee a persecuting and degenerate society, which is, afterwards, destroyed by “God” or “I Am”.[4]

Those who wish for a rebirth of Occidental civilization would be wise to follow this example and learn the importance of collaboration—and of finding the right messenger. A.I. is a masterpieces of kitsch. Let us strive to make masterpieces of high art!


  1. In the midst of this tirade, one is tempted to wonder if Spielberg feels the same of his audiences, for whom he furnished entertainment, moral instruction, and enlightenment, even while, perhaps, believing himself to be envied and reviled by these very same ungrateful hypocrites.  ↩

  2. In these films, Cameron predicts that Austrian-accented Nazi robots will inherit the earth … quite a different vision to Spielberg’s!).  ↩

  3. Incidentally, A.I. compels another look at the more opaque 2001: A Space Odyssey.  ↩

  4. In this effort, Spielberg and Kubrick remind me of a less cohesive, less complementary version of the Cohen Brothers, who are, likewise, deeply convinced of shared goals and through a effective, close, and egoless collaboration have brought into the world works they feel serve a purpose larger than themselves.  ↩

No Comments on Steven Spielberg’s Masterpiece of Kitsch

Is H.H. Hoppe’s Idea Of Monarchy Spreading?

It is said that the first step is to be ignored, the second to be laughed at, and the third to be fought. It seems the idea of Hoppean monarchy now is at the third stage. The American Conservative is not that mainstream, but it is something.

 

Over at The Week, Matt K. Lewis is apparently frustrated at an “obsession” in the U.S. with monarchies.

Noah Millman of The American Conservative is apparently a bit angry at American monarchists (and that for him perhaps includes those who favor monarchy over democracy but do not identify as monarchists).

Mr. Millman says:

There’s a common argument that monarchies are more likely to have limited governments. I don’t see any evidence of that; rather, two hundred and fifty years ago, nearly all governments were monarchies and, at the time, all governments were much more limited than they are now. Medieval Iceland had very nearly no government at all, and it was not a monarchy. Meanwhile, the Scandinavian monarchies are not generally known for their parsimonious welfare states.

The argument is that monarchies are more likely to have limited government – or as the argument also goes; that monarchy tends to give more limited government than democracy. Attempting to disprove this with medieval Iceland and contemporary Scandinavia is rather unconvincing.

Medieval Iceland existed in a mostly monarchical world. There was no “We are the Government” illusion to the extent we have it now. Also, the parallels with modern democracy are limited at best, as Iceland had a system of chieftains. With the transition from monarchy to democracy in the world, we seem to be stuck with the confusion of the ruled and the rulers, a confusion which leads most people to believe that they participate in the rule. Hence, they allow themselves to be ruled to a much larger extent (yes, there is more to it than that, but that’s an important part of it).

As for Scandinavia, the monarchs there are very emasculated, and in this context it would be more correct to call them crowned democratic republics than monarchies. That being said, there are advantages of the typical constitutional monarchy of Europe, such as the Scandinavian monarchies and the British monarchy. I would mention the separation of the “worship of the head of state” and politics. However, you cannot have that to a large extent while still having a monarchy that substantially, in paraphrasing the Emperor Franz Joseph, protects the people from their government. This separation is what Michael Auslin of the American Enterprise Institute suggests when he proposes a First Citizen.

Monaco and Liechtenstein are the only monarchies of Europe that are relevant to the argument of monarchies producing more limited government. Granted, they are small in area size and population as well. They are still those that are relevant, and Mr. Millman chooses contemporary Scandinavia as one of only two specific examples in the entire history of the world to refute a theory of likelihood. Indeed unconvincing!

It could be that Noah Millman seriously believes that the argument is that monarchy as formal form of government per se likely gives more limited government. If so, I’d say he’s confused.

I suggest Mr. Millman has a read of Martin van Creveld’s The Rise and Decline of the State, Bertrand de Jouvenel’s On Power and Sovereignty, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn’s Liberty or Equality, and Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s Democracy: The God That Failed. It seems he could have read none of them.

Mr. Millman goes on to, apparently, ranting against American monarchists (and other Americans favoring monarchy?) for their not understanding that monarchy is not viable in America. A lot of them do understand this. So is Noah Millman confused?

Although a monarchy for those United States is probably not viable, there are still mistakes in the Union’s history that are worth pointing out. In American mythology, George III gets a lot of the blame. However, W.E.H. Lecky wrote in his Democracy and Liberty:

The disruption of America from the British Empire was largely due to the encroachments of Parliament on the ancient prerogative of the Crown[.]

H.L. Mencken wrote (collected in A Mencken Chrestomathy):

Even the American colonies gained little by their revolt in 1776. For twenty-five years after the Revolution they were in far worse condition as free states than they would have been as colonies. Their government was more expensive, more inefficient, more dishonest, and more tyrannical. It was only the gradual material progress of the country that saved them from starvation and collapse, and that material progress was due, not to the virtues of their new government, but to the lavishness of nature. Under the British hoof they would have got on just as well, and probably a great deal better.

Mencken wrote in his Notes on Democracy:

What is too often forgotten, in discussing the matter, is the fact that no such monarch was ever actually free, at all times and under all conditions. In the midst of his most charming tyrannies he had still to bear it in mind that his people, oppressed too much, could always rise against him, and that he himself, though a king Von Gottes Gnaden was yet biologically only a man, with but one gullet to slit; and if the people were feeble or too craven to be dangerous, then there was always His Holiness of Rome to fear or other agents of the King of Kings; and if these ghostly mentors, too, were silent, then he had to reckon with his ministers, his courtiers, his soldiers, his doctors, and his women.

One of the most recent contributions to the challenging of the wisdom of the American founding is a new novel by LRC contributor Becky Akers, Abducting Arnold.

It is said that the first step is to be ignored, the second to be laughed at, and the third to be fought. It seems the idea of Hoppean monarchy now is at the third stage. The American Conservative is not that mainstream, but it is something.

No Comments on Is H.H. Hoppe’s Idea Of Monarchy Spreading?

Nation-States, the European Union and the Occident (2/3)

Below is the second installment of a three-part series on how we get from stato-national feeling to Pan-Occidental awareness. In the first part we discovered how Nation-States can be seen as “stepping stones towards globalism.” The third and last one will be about “reclaiming the Occident,” since there’s a misconception in New Right circles about Europe and the West being antagonistic.

Below is the second installment of a three-part series on how we get from stato-national feeling to Pan-Occidental awareness. In the first part we discovered how Nation-States can be seen as “stepping stones towards globalism.” The third and last one will be about “reclaiming the Occident,” since there’s a misconception in New Right circles about Europe and the West being antagonistic.


Before we get started for this second part, I would like to insist on something that isn’t always clear in nationalist movements: discarding Nation-States and emphasizing racial and civilizational kinship doesn’t mean believing in “some mythical Whitemanistan,” to borrow Matt Parrott’s phrase at Occidental Dissent, in the bygone days when that website was worth reading.

As I demonstrated in my article, Nation-States don’t only negate what is above themselves (the West & the White race) but also what is beneath them (ethnicities). What is really mythical is this vision of a homogenized nationhood that could be embodied by a State built on abstract and uprooted grounds.
But there is a more serious criticism in nationalist movements about White identity being “shallow” compared to national identities. I believe, however, that this idea, repeatedly asserted by Andrew Fraser (here and there, for example), is completely wrong.

Webzines like this one are precisely here to help people reconsider their false conceptions. If it is true that people keep defining themselves as members of nations rather than as members of a race or a civilization, then what are they actually talking about when they complain that “Britain/America/France/etc. is under attack”? Quite simply it is their racial and civilizational identity, period. They may not be aware of it, but the content of what they rightly say is threatened is purely racial and civilizational. Identical claims are made throughout the West that “our nation is under siege,” with the same phenomena denounced: third-world mass immigration, anti-White policies, multiculturalism, etc.
These phenomena are affecting the West as a whole, and must therefore be analyzed from a Western perspective. As Richard said in a speech he delivered in London in 2012 (from 27’00” to 27’30”): “Clearly, vis-à-vis the colored world, the third world, we are White people much more than we have ethnic identity.”

The problem now is that White identity is only acknowledged by enemies of Whites. When there are flashmobs in America, it is officially Whitey that is attacked, and not ‘Yankee.’ Our enemies know who we are, because they know who they are. More and more, they define themselves by race, because it is what matters today. Only Whites seem to refuse to accept this fact. I think this Pan-Occidental awareness is there, and it is just crying out to be given a name. This should be the role of people like us: White identity cannot only be a negative one, given by our enemies. It has to become a positive one, and only we can achieve that. As I told an American friend: if you go to a North African neighborhood in Paris, you won’t be seen favorably just because, being non-French, you’ve not colonized Maghreb. We have to throw our ‘national’ glasses away, for they prevent us from seeing reality.

Now we have to disprove a second misconception, common in nationalist circles, that the European Union is, by definition, “our enemy,” and that the remedy to its unproven threat would be more emphasis on Nation-States. As we’ll see, even if the EU was an actual threat, Nation-States would be of no help, since the EU is effectively run by its constituent States.

The European Alibi

In European nationalist movements, even those which stress the prevalence of European identity over national identity, the European Union is most of the time blamed for contradictory things: it is accused of being a “new Soviet Union;” of advancing “ultra-liberal” (in the continental, classical sense) economic policies; of being the first step toward a Global Government; and of being a kind of new Carolingian Empire dismantling Nation-States for the benefit of Europe’s main power, Germany. While political socialism and economic laissez-fairism are perfectly compatible, and this mix describes well Europe’s situation, the idea that “Brussels,” where the European Commission is located, is responsible for Europe’s plight is not serious, and I will show why here.

Clarifying this is all the more necessary, since there have been threats, mostly coming from the UK, to leave the EU, given the Union’s current situation. It would be, according to Britain’s ascendant UKIP a way for Britain to recover her sovereignty. But is Britain really dependent on the EU?
To answer this question, we have to analyze the European Union’s structure of power.

The EU is run by the States

• The highest political body of the European Union is the European Council (not to be confused with the Council of Europe, a mistake often made by stato-nationalists due to their ignorance of European institutions). The European Council is composed of the heads of state or government (presidential regimes send their president, while parliamentary regimes send their Prime Minister or the equivalent). It meets four times a year to define the European Union’s agenda.

• Then comes the Council of the European Union (again, not to be conflated with the Council of Europe, which has nothing to do with the EU), which shares legislative and budgetary authority with the European Parliament (more on that “august body” below). The composition of the Council of the European Union depends on the topic discussed: for example, when agriculture is discussed, it is composed of the 28 ministers of Agriculture of the member-States. The presidency of the Council rotates every six months between the States.

• The European Parliament is the least national of all the EU’s political bodies. However, even if its MPs seat according to the transnational groups they belong to (social-democrats, conservatives, environmentalists, etc.),they are still elected on a national basis. Thus, every important party of each member-State sends its own delegation to the European Parliament. National politics being still much more prestigious than European politics, national parties usually send second-rank figures. It is also a way to get rid of politicians who fell into disgrace at home. Unlike the European Commission, the Parliament has no legislative initiative.

• The European Commission, which “Euro-skeptics” often describe as the government of the European Union (which it is not), is simply the executive body of the Union. It executes the decisions taken by the Council of the European Union or the Parliament, knowing that these decisions stem from the European Council’s strategy. The members of the European Commission are nominated by the States.

As we can see, the European Union has no more power than what the States give it. But could a State be constrained or have its interests overridden by a majority of the Nation-States coalescing against it? In theory, yes, except that most delicate decisions of the Council of the European Union, those concerning foreign relations or security, require the unanimity of the States. Most other decisions require a qualified majority, knowing that a vote has to get a sufficient proportion of the States and of the European population to pass. Eastern European countries usually side with UK when it comes to restrictions of “sovereignty.”

And even when a decision is taken and it contradicts the will of one or several States, national governments often overlook European decisions. Much is said, in Europe, about national laws being mere transcriptions of European laws. It should be said, however, that even when European legislation is integrated into national constitutions, it is often disrespected.

Let’s take an important example: States which have adopted the Euro currency have in theory to respect “convergence criteria” to ensure the stability of the Euro zone. These criteria include inflation lower than 1.5% a year, a public deficit of less than 3% a year, and public debt restricted to 60% of GDP. Only Finns (Finland and Estonia) and Luxembourg comply with these criteria. In theory, States that don’t respect these criteria have to be punished; yet they aren’t, which tells us that when European politicians come back from Brussels and tell their constituency that they’re powerless in front of the “Eurocrats,” they’re not telling the truth. The truth is that European policies are pretty much what national politicians want them to be.

If the EU is really responsible for Europe’s current demise, how come that Norway, which doesn’t belong to the EU, is invaded to the point that 100 percent of the rapes, in Oslo, are committed by non-Whites? Would Britain really be better off if UKIP took power and managed to get the UK out of the Union? One of the arguments for leaving the EU is immigration restriction, but the European treaties on the matter were ratified by the States, and can be undone the same way (or, simply, not applied; the EU has no serious means to constrain a State to comply.)

And it should be noted that mass immigration began long before Europe was politically integrated. When Enoch Powell delivered his “Rivers of Blood” speech, in 1968, Britain wasn’t even a member of the ancestor of the EU, the European Economic Community (that occurred five years later, in 1973). If the UK left the EU, the problem would be unchanged. The EU is an alibi for national failures. Thus, petty nationalists are either ignorant of how the EU works or simply dishonest. I leave the choice to their responsibility.

Could the EU become a White Superstate?

During American Renaissance’s 2013 conference, France’s Bloc Identitaire’s president, Fabrice Robert, gave a speech on the future of Euro-American relations. After the speech came the time of questions and answers. The first question was raised by Richard, who had delivered a speech in the afternoon about the Ethno-State project.

Richard asked Robert if the EU could become a kind of White Superstate. This question was related to his own speech, in which he considered the idea of White Americans simply “going back to Europe,” as the ‘antifas’ outside the room were asking them to do.

I think this provocative question’s aim was twofold: first, to remind the American audience that White Americans have to get closer to Europeans, who are confronted with the same dangers as them, and second, to point out the benefits that Europeans could gain from a structure that embodies their common civilization.

The politicians and bureaucrats currently ruling the EU are globalists, and they see Europe’s unity as a mere step towards a World Government, but the tool they’ve created could be used in a radically opposite way: if a European awakening occurred, this tool could indeed be useful in shaping common policies actually halting immigration from the Third World, for instance.

This seemingly counter-intuitive idea that “globalists are doing a part of our job” will be the basis for the third and last part of this series, “Reclaiming the Occident.” There, we’ll see that the New Right is wrong when it tries to oppose Europe and the West, or the Occident. “West” or “Occident” is simply how Europe was called before the 16th century, when the term “Europe” took over. More recently, “Western Civilization” as a geopolitical concept has been used by Neo-Conservatives to push forward their globalist agenda. But they might not be aware of the forces they have actually unleashed in doing that. What I will suggest in my next article is merely to hijack their notion and use it to our own purposes.

This article was originally published at AlternativeRight.Com.

No Comments on Nation-States, the European Union and the Occident (2/3)

Planet of the Apes

There is another type of monkey-rage that could be triggered by this unfair treatment. The white students, who are to receive harsher punishments for the same misbehaviour, might not see how this will benefit them in the long run. In their short-sighted adolescent minds, these youngsters will think they’re being picked on and will revert to some backward state of furious, hateful monkeydom. 

The frenzy for equality is motivated by a very primitive urge, so primitive in fact that even monkeys have it. You may have seen this video of an angry monkey on the Internet. Liberals watch this monkey and see him as proof that equality reflects an incontestable principle which is fundamental to human nature. “Even our primitive simian cousins can understand it, but those dumb conservatives can’t!

I can sympathise with our genetic relatives from further down the evolutionary scale, and with the monkeys, too. When my housemate leaves me to clean up his mess, rather than responding like a mature adult human, I grit my teeth, shake my monkey fists, and am overcome by that primitive state of monkey-rage that is aroused in those who sense injustice. I’m not proud of it, but I recognise that this impulse is in me, and it’s in other people, too.

A good manager understands that he should make his staff feel like they are being fairly treated and that this has a lot more to do with feelings than with objective reality. When your people feel like they’re getting the short end of the stick, they can descend into monkey-rage and that’s never productive. But modern politicians very rarely make good managers, a fact that will probably lead to some unfortunate consequences for the American education system.

In 2012, Barack Obama called for race-based discipline filters to be applied as part of his African-American Education Initiative. Such measures have already been enforced in a few districts, including Washington, DC, and will continue to expand. This means that teachers will be expected to enforce different standards of discipline depending on the race of the students. The “thinking” behind such lunacy is rooted in a monkey-rage response to the fact that Black students are statistically more likely to be disciplined by teachers than white students are. Compensatory measures are thus taken to soothe the seething mass monkey-rage of the nation’s liberals.

Even the mainstream media have criticised Education Secretary Arne Duncan, Attorney General Eric Holder and Barack Obama for what are essentially racial quotas in school discipline. It might be argued that this is a new type of unfairness, that African-American students will no longer get their fair share of educational discipline and that this will lead to new levels of inequality. Inequality means monkey-rage and no one wants to see that.

But there is another type of monkey-rage that could be triggered by this unfair treatment. The White students, who are to receive harsher punishments for the same misbehaviour, might not see how this will benefit them in the long run. In their short-sighted adolescent minds, these youngsters will think they’re being picked on and will revert to some backward state of furious, hateful monkeydom.

Is Obama trying to make a monkey out of America? If unfair treatment leads to monkey-rage, then treating unfair outcomes of authoritative discipline (both in and out of schools) with unfair legislation intended to redress the racial balance, will surely lead to more monkey-rage. The monkey in the experiment is sated when he sees that he gets the same piece of fruit as the other monkey. I finally overcame my rage when my housemate agreed to do his share of the chores. But will the metaphorical monkey cage of America ever know such peace? Surely equal treatment under the eyes of the law, from cradle to grave, from school to prison, is as close as we can get to fairness? Any measures taken as compensation for perceived unfairness are rendered valid only by existing perceptions of fairness, but these measures become unfair themselves when perceptions change. This isn’t really fair, it’s just monkey business. Monkeying around with the way teachers exact discipline on students throws a monkey wrench in the works of the educational system. Race is already a divisive issue in the USA, and this will only get worse while young people are made to feel painfully aware of how differently teachers treat them. If teachers can’t treat kids the same regardless of their race, then how can we expect them to treat each other fairly? After all, monkey see, monkey do.

No Comments on Planet of the Apes

The New Libertarian Hegemony

For the past 20 years, non-aligned rightists in America—paleoconservatives, paleolibertarians, traditionalists, nationalists, et al.—have focused on the malevolent and all-powerful *neoconservatives* as their chief enemy. (And for good reason.) Readers of noted publications and websites have been treated to long chronicles of how the neocons undermined the “Real Right” in America. As we await a fresh recounting of the time Harry Jaffa scuttled Mel Bradford’s nomination to the National Endowment for the Humanities, I must point out that this familiar narrative is quickly becoming outmoded. The neocons no longer control the movement operationally or ideologically. In fact, they’ve largely been displaced by libertarians, who, in their way, are even worse than the neocons (yes, worse.)

For the past 20 years, non-aligned rightists in America—paleoconservatives, paleolibertarians, traditionalists, nationalists, et al.—have focused on the malevolent and all-powerful neoconservatives as their chief enemy. (And for good reason.) Readers of noted publications and websites have been treated to long chronicles of how the neocons undermined the “Real Right” in America.

As we await a fresh recounting of the time Harry Jaffa scuttled Mel Bradford’s nominaiton as chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, I’m forced to point out that this familiar narrative is quickly becoming outmoded. The neocons no longer control the movement operationally or ideologically. In fact, they’ve largely been displaced by libertarians, who, in their way, are even worse than the neocons (yes, worse).

Put simply, the Dubya Era is over. Enthusiasm for foreign interventions to bring democracy to Third World nations has dried up among the GOP rank and file. Moreover, the desire for a strong state apparatus and the willingness to compromise with the welfare state is the complete opposite of what the conservative movement now advocates. The proposed intervention in Syria failed to get off to the ground largely due to Republican opposition, and many conservative legislators are now actually intent on eliminating some government programs (rather than just talking about it to get reelected).

So how is this a bad thing?

Besides the opposition to needless foreign intervention, the conservative movement is now more thoroughly libertarian than when it was a hodgepodge of neocons, paleocons, libertarians, and other political misfits. There’s no room for dissident thought, and the movement has become an unwelcome place for those who think differently about race and the future of America. And in a way, the libertarians’ ideology is far more removed from what identitarians believe than that of the neocons.

And libertarian power in Washington is growing with each passing day.

Edward Luce, a columnist for The Financial Times, sympathetically declared that “[t]he tide is rising for America’s Libertarians.” According to data provided by the Cato Institute, more than a third of Republicans now identify as libertarian, and almost a quarter of all Americans do.

Is this all because libertarians assure Whites that America will not turn into the hellish world of Elysium? Is it because libertarians promise to keep jobs here domestically and curtail immigration? Is it because libertarians craft policies that actually serve the interests of Middle America (unlike the two dominant parties)?

Sorry to burst to your bubble, but it’s none of the above. To Luce, it’s because they strike at authority like no other ideology does at the moment. In truth, the authority that libertarians oppose is not really state power so much as the power of tradition.

Gay marriage does not increase freedom, it only increases the control the state has over relationships. Legalized hemp does not hurt the state, it raises more revenue for it and offers the masses yet another distraction from reality. No serious figure actually wants to eliminate free trade, but removing the few restrictions on it only increases the disenfranchisement of White America and leads to more dependence on the state as jobs disappear.

Do you believe that libertarians actually care about issues affecting White interests? Do you think that Ron and Rand Paul are secret White nationalists?

To be frank, the Pauls and the libertarians would rather accumulate Bitcoins and promote enterprise zones in Detroit ghettos than preserve their people. Who knows what Rand and Ron really think, but effectively they have the same views on race as your average Sociology professor.

Don’t believe me? Look at the policies that a prominent libertarian thinks “the Liberty movement” should focus on in 2014: Drug Legalization, Gay Marriage, Economic Choice, and Bitcoin. (Yes, these are the issues libertarians really care about.)

“Economic choice” that allows for more instant gratification, legalized weed that allows for more instant gratification, and gay marriage that allows for . . . well, delayed gratification, I suppose. Judging by this list, Libertarians are shouting “Bring Us the Last Man!” at the top of their lungs.

At least the neocons had some sense of a higher ideal and celebrated the warrior spirit (if only for Zionists). Instead, libertarians just want to make sure you can vegetate on your couch without fearing that “the feds” might ruin your good time. Ain’t that America?

Again, the great irony of this “libertarian” program is that its policies attack tradition much more than the state. Libertarians are no longer paleolibertarians; indeed, the paleolibertarians are no longer paleolibertarains. Lew Rockwell, the man who probably penned the Ron Paul Newsletters and published Jared Taylor on his website, now publishes shrill screeds about rising fascism. (Taylor has beeb scrubbed from LRC’s archive, so Lew can better refashion his image as a Catholic universalist.)

Ann Coulter was somewhat correct when she dubbed libertarians “pussies.” Instead of focusing on issues that matter to White Americans, like employment discrimination laws, they continue to focus on pot legalization. But, in a way, libertarians aren’t pussies; I believe that they focus on these issues precisely because they care more about attaining freedom from tradition and cultural mores than almost anything else. They really don’t care about employment discrimination laws—in fact, some libertarians think that one of the few responsibilities of the state is eliminating racism.

Even when you might hope that the libertarian love for freedom would lead them to allow discourse on racial topics, they, once again, manage to beat expectations! Alexander McCobin, the President of a large and well-funded libertarian group known as Students for Liberty, responded to Coulter’s “pussies” accusation by essentially reaffirming the label. He even included a helpful guide for conservative movement groupthink:

We know what’s up for debate, and so we also know what’s not. The justifications for and limits on intellectual property? Up for debate. Racism? Not up for debate. Deciding which government agencies should be abolished, privatized, reformed, or maintained? Up for debate. State-sponsored discrimination against individuals based on their sexuality? Not up for debate. Austrian versus Chicago economics and their responses to Keynesianism? Up for debate. Ann’s claim that liberals are out to destroy the family? That’s so clearly absurd that it’s in stand-up comedy territory.

So the next time you want to talk about the future of Occidental civilization with libertarians, please try to relate it to the causes of the business cycle.

It’s worth noting that McCobin’s group is currently engaged in promoting liberty in Africa by giving away the books of Frederic Bastiat and Milton Friedman. Maybe this will convince Somalis that they are actually living in a limited-government utopia! (Even David Frum, who in 2004 co-authored a book entitled “An End to Evil,” sounds more grounded in reality than your average DC libertarian.)

As we’ve seen, the neocons’ policies in the 2000s led to the creation of a small, though passionate, opposition within the Right; and the enemy-of-my-enemy mentality that prevailed allowed for a certain openness to radical ideas. It’s worth noting that Richard Spencer worked within the movement during the Bush era, and The American Conservative regularly published Steve Sailer.

But the libertarians seem to be the only group that has actually benefited from these years of opposition. And the examples of Jack Hunter and Jason Richwine illustrate this point.

Hunter, as it has been well documented, used to be quite open about his views on race and immigration. He was a columnist (under Spencer) at TakiMag, and there was no hint of political correctness about him.

In an emasculating and widely mocked confession in Politico, Hunter declared that he had only pretended to be a racist. While the assault on him last summer forced him out of Rand Paul’s office, Jack managed to recover and now has an editorial position at the conservative media site Rare. When he was initially attacked, libertarians took to social media to declare #GotYourBackJack, and Hunter still enjoys considerable support, in spite of his past truth bombs.

Why? Because Jack groveled, fully recanted, and proved his bona fides by providing off-the-shelf libertarian commentary. While he might have lost some of his standing, Jack remains a major player in libertarian circles due to the fact he’s now 100% politically correct. (His current message is that libertarians need to be pro-gay marriage, pro-weed, and pro-life to win over more voters.) Essentially, Jack’s survival strategy has been to become a political eunuch.

On the other hand, Jason Richwine has experienced a quite different fate. As a researcher for The Heritage Foundation, and co-author of its study of last year’s amnesty bill, Richwine found himself under attack over his Harvard Doctoral dissertation. In it, he merely pointed out that Hispanics, on average, have lower IQs than American natives and that their mass migration into the states would have a negative effect on America’s average IQ.) This is, in a way, far less radical than what Hunter had said when he “played” a racist.)

Richwine’s dissertation bore the seal of Harvard University, but that wasn’t enough to save him when he faced a brutal assault from both the Left and Right and was forced to “resign” from Heritage. Conservatives didn’t start a hashtag declaring they had his back, and he never received a cushy back-up job after he was purged. Richwine also never groveled, and his Politico op-ed, unlike Hunter’s, reaffirmed his past research in an articulate and unapologetic manner.

But the ideas Richwine raised are no longer allowed in conservative circles, and it is likely that he will never have a job connected to the movement again, despite his credentials and skill level.

The libertarian takeover clearly spells out to identitarians that the conservative movement is no place for us. The libertarians, in a way, hate us more than they do the progressives (with whom they share a common soul).

But with every development comes new opportunities. If anything, it is past time for identitarians to stop focusing on electoral politics and donating to candidates they think might be closet WNs. They aren’t. And even if they were, they would be banished immediately by both the system and the party that put them in power.

It is time for us to focus more on culture and building communities with racially conscious Whites that would allow us to embark on our own path. We cannot rely on Conservative Inc. to change its ways and to suddenly nominate Jared Taylor as the Republican candidate for President. It will never happen. And we have to develop our own strategy for supporting our cause.

Libertarians are not our allies, and they support the destruction of our identity. Why should we want to be in the same movement with these pussies anyway?

No Comments on The New Libertarian Hegemony

Nation-States, the European Union and the Occident (1/3)

Below is the first installment of a three-part series on how we get from stato-national feeling to Pan-Occidental awareness. The second part will be about the “European alibi,” dealing mainly with the wave of anti-European hysteria currently washing through Britain, and the third and last one will be about “reclaiming the Occident,” since there’s a misconception in New Right circles about Europe and the West being antagonistic.

Below is the first installment of a three-part series on how we get from stato-national feeling to Pan-Occidental awareness. The second part will be about the “European alibi,” dealing mainly with the wave of anti-European hysteria currently washing through Britain, and the third and last one will be about “reclaiming the Occident,” since there’s a misconception in New Right circles about Europe and the West being antagonistic.

NATION-STATES AS STEPPING STONES TOWARDS GLOBALISM

I have hesitated before writing about the obscolescence of the Nation-State since I’m not sure that American readers, not to mention their European counterparts, are ready to fully realize its implications. White nationalism is a promising movement, but it is still defined in narrow American terms (“a homeland for White Americans”). On the other side of the ocean, Euro-nationalism is on the rise, but its conceptual framework still relies on Nation-States, which aborts the movement before it can fully develop.

Whether the project is a White Republic in the Pacific Northwest or a Southern Republic in Dixie (the latter being as likely as the restoration of absolute monarchy in Europe), or a “Europe of Nations,” miraculously deprived of extra-European settlers (and with the same failed states as today), nationhood, or rather “nation-statehood,” is still involved, and it is what prevents us from imagining a path out of the present mess. I suggest that, as a vanguard webzine, we get rid of nation-statehood altogether. More practical, grass-roots organizations will have to speak in terms that people will understand, but we are here to coin new terms, forge new concepts, and discard all the irrelevant ones. 

Short-term National interests vs. Long-term Western interests

The main problem with the Nation-State is that it negates both what is above itself (race and civilization) and what is beneath itself (ethnicities). When stato-nationalists pay lip service to the “Europe of Nations” mentioned above, what they think of is Nation-States, and they defend Europe only to the extent that European states remain “sovereign,” that is, remain able to betray the European whole at any moment if it is in their short-term, selfish interests. From Francis the 1st allying with Suleiman the Magnificent against the Habsburg Emperor to Germany helping Lenin return to Russia during WW1, stato-nationalism has a clear record of repetitively harming the West. This will continue to happen as long as nations are not submitted to the Western, greater good.

Stato-nationalists have to resort to historical manipulation to justify their position: for them, nations came first, and then they “created” Europe/the West. Actually the reverse is true: Western European nations originate from the Carolingian Empire, which was shared out in 843 A.D. between the three grandsons of Charlemagne. This separation was rendered necessary both because of the dynastic rivalry of Louis the Pious’s sons and because of the linguistic gap between the Latin and Germanic parts of the Empire. One year before the Treaty of Verdun officialized this separation, two of the three sons of Louis the Pious, Charles the Bald and Louis the German, concluded an alliance against their brother Lothair, who was claiming the whole Empire for himself. Charles the Bald, whose troops were Latin-speaking, had to swear an oath in High Old German for Louis the German’s soldiers to understand. Reciprocally, Louis the German swore his oath in Old French. The latter is the earliest known text in this language. From the dislocation of the Western Empire, as it was then named, emerged thus three states. These were Francia Occidentalis (which would become France) and Francia Orientalis (later the Holy Roman Empire, which was Germanic). Lothair kept an awkwardly-shaped strip in the middle, including all the regions European powers would seek to conquer up to WW2: what would later become the Low Countries, Rhineland, Alsace, Switzerland, Northern Italy. 

The Denial of Ethnicities

Petty nationalists often summon, quite hypocritically, the “principle of subsidiarity” to explain why Nation-States have to remain “sovereign.” It is hypocritical because this same principle is not applied within the Nation-State. Let’s take a relaively recent example: in April 2013, there was a referendum in France to determine whether Alsace, France’s Germanic region, could be reunited in one single sub-national entity, instead of being divided between two départements (the French equivalent of U.S. counties).

Marine Le Pen’s Front National campaigned against it because it would “dismember” France, and it even used anti-German and anti-European imagery to make its case. That unfortunate campaign meant that Germanic Alsatians have to remain separated from their German brothers in the name of “France,” an entity that doesn’t mean anything outside the Germanic, Celtic and Latin peoples the royal state had managed to unite while respecting their uniqueness.

Modern Nation-States are based on the denial of ethnicity. Aside from a few cases, most states don’t reflect the ethnic composition of Europe, let alone North America. Ethnicities are scattered in various states (Magyars in Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Serbia and Ukraine), or their homeland is divided between more than one state (Catalans, Flemings).

Is there any wonder, then, that Nation-States still exist in the current context of globalization? Far from being fences, Nation-States are actually the stepping stones upon which globalists relied, and still rely, to advance their agenda. I will deal with the European Union in the next installment. I’ll demonstrate how the EU is effectively run by its member-states, proving how stato-nationalists, particularly British nationalists, are deadly wrong on this matter, which they don’t seem to really understand or even know about.

Aside from the European Union, other supra-national organizations gather Nation-States together. The United Nations, the IMF, the World Bank, the OECD, and the WTO, are funded by Nation-States (which, to this day, are the only entities capable of raising taxes), composed of representatives of those states, and act, when they effectively do so, on behalf of their member states. 

It is therefore ironic to see civic nationalists like UKIP’s Farage present the return to “sovereignty” as a matter of national pride for Britain, given that the entire globalistic project was built upon the basis of Nation-States. In Farage’s case, civic nationalism is perfectly compatible with global corporate “free” trade, as he has repeatedly admitted.

Divisive symbols

But before I move on to the next part, I’d like to conclude the present one with an observation that should be obvious for anyone thinking seriously of these questions: stato-nationalism has already failed, and there is no reason why it would magically succeed in the coming decades. Stato-nationalists, in their propaganda, have to use historic symbols of the division of the West. I can only feel admiration for Joan of Arc, who, when she was only 17, decided to rise up in arms and “chase the English out of France.” As admirable as this historic figure might be, and as necessary as her deeds were in the early 15th century, she obviously belongs in history books as of 2013. The enemy is not “the English,” and what has to be saved and reborn is not a single kingdom, but an entire race and civilization.

The English still pompously celebrate their Waterloo victory by shabbily welcoming continental trains at the eponymous station, but Napoleonic troops are unlikely to invade Britain through the Channel tunnel. Rather, Pakistani gang-rapists, West African soldier-beheaders and Caribbean looters come by plane, and are granted visas by the same state that British nationalists profess to defend.

Where are the Las Navas de Tolosa airports and Lepanto stations in today’s West? Having to raise the question, and even having to explain what these battles were about and why they mattered for the fate of the entire White race, illustrates how far we are from a real Pan-Occidental awareness, and how it will be needed in the times to come.

This article was originally published at AlternativeRight.Com.

No Comments on Nation-States, the European Union and the Occident (1/3)

The Eugenics Taboo

In the popular imagination, the word “eugenics” conjures up images of death panels, concentration camps, and piles of bodies. Or alternatively a faustian “super villain” who seeks to wipe out humanity and breed a Master Race in space (a scheme that was thwarted by James Bond in the campy adventure Moonraker (1979).)  For those who love to hate it, eugenics amounts to little more than rhetorical bogeyman or scarecrow—something to point at in horror. 

Interestingly, in these depictions, eugenics alternates between being, on the one hand, a “pseudo-science”—that is, ineffective, ungrounded, fraudulent, and bizarre—and, on the other, all-too scientific—that is, marking the point at which religious or governmental authorities must intervene to prevent science from “going too far.” 

The following is adapted from my Foreword to a new annotated edition of Madison Grant’s Conquest of a Continent, which has recently been released by Wermod & Wermod.


In the popular imagination, the word “eugenics” conjures up images of death panels, concentration camps, and piles of bodies. Or alternatively a faustian “super villain” who seeks to wipe out humanity and breed a Master Race in space (a scheme that was thwarted by James Bond in the campy adventure Moonraker (1979).) For those who love to hate it, eugenics amounts to little more than rhetorical bogeyman or scarecrow—something to point at in horror.

Interestingly, in these depictions, eugenics alternates between being, on the one hand, a “pseudo-science”—that is, ineffective, ungrounded, fraudulent, and bizarre—and, on the other, all-too scientific—that is, marking the point at which religious or governmental authorities must intervene to prevent science from “going too far.”

Ultimately, the “totalitarian” connection to eugenics has never held much water. For instance, the eugenics programs in Nazi Germany were, historically speaking, quite unremarkable: they were begun during the Weimar Republic and were no more advanced than those of Sweden or the State of California. Furthermore, the Nazis’ brutality against Jews, in what has come to be known the Holocaust, and Slavs, during campaigns on the Eastern Front, were not eugenic in any real sense of the word and should be criticized in other contexts.[1]

It is worth pointing out that state science during the other reviled totalitarian regimes of the 20th century was based on the very opposite of Darwinism. The head of Soviet Biology during Stalin’s regime (and beyond), Trofim Denisovich Lysenko (1898–1976), believed, quite literally, that a plant could be genetically altered by its pot—and that these acquired characteristics would be passed down to its offspring. “Lysenkoism” was applied as both agricultural policy during collectivization as well as “political science,” with equally disastrous results. The philosophy of “environmentalism”[2]—the ideal of the “Blank Slate” that can be written upon by progressive leaders—justifies, much more so than Darwinism, the treatment of people as “material,” whose nature can be altered at will, with the “reactionary” parts simply cut off and discarded.[3]

Moreover, historically, Darwinism has been—much more frequently than liberalism or leftism—the ideology of those who seek to conserve the natural world. The 20th-century eugenics movement was, in fact, an outgrowth of the natural-conservation movement. Before taking up immigration restriction and eugenics, Madison Grant had dedicated himself to, among other things, the conservation of the American Bison and the California Red Woods and the creation of the Bronx Zoo and Glacier National Park. Among today’s elite, “environmentalism” (qua natural conservation) has never been more popular and White racialism, never more reviled. And yet, as Grant’s recent critical biographer, Jonathan Peter Spiro, writes, “There was no duality to Madison Grant’s life, no basic conflict between his espousal of conservation and his preaching on behalf of Eugenics and immigration restriction.[4]

It is important to remember that Grant never sought to create a “New Man.” He sought, instead, to conserve the results of natural selection, as he sought to conserve the natural world.[5] Moreover, eugenic thinking is a logical implication of the Darwinian and the Mendelian (i.e., genetic) scientific revolutions, . The first chapter of Charles Darwin’s (1809–1882) On the Origin of Species (1859), “Variation under Domestication,” is an extended analogy between evolution through natural selection, Darwin’s thesis, and evolution through artificial selection, which was well known to his readers as the breeding and domestication of birds, dogs, livestock, and the like. As Darwin notes, “the great power of this principle of selection is not hypothetical.” Francis Galton (1822–1911), Darwin’s cousin and originator of the theory of eugenics, was likely thinking of that passage when he quipped, “If a twentieth part of the cost and pains were spent in measures for the improvement of the human race that is spent on the improvement of the breed of horses and cattle, what a galaxy of genius might we not create!”[6]

Whatever the case, it is eugenics, and Darwinism generally, that is forever associated with mass-murder, whereas the Blank Slate is let off scot-free. (For instance, whenever a public figure denies the reality of race, he rarely get scolded by journalists—“What are you saying!? We know where that kind of thinking leads!”)

Franz Boas—whose scraggly visage appeared on the cover of Time magazine in 1936 announcing the triumph of “environmentalism”[7]—actually theorized that as Italian immigrants entered the United States, their head shapes would mutate according to the environment, with the second generation having a shape closer to that of the American majority than their parents.[8] This marked Boas’s frontal assault on Grant, in particular, his distinction between Dolichocephalic (long-headed) Nordics and Brachycephalic (round-headed) Eastern and Southern Europeans (i.e., “Second Great Wave” immigrants).

The problem for the legions of egalitarian anthropologists who followed Boas is that their Master’s study is utter bunk.[9] Boas “fudged” his data for a good cause (in this case, the myth of the American “Melting Pot,” in which democracy dissolves heredity). More importantly, Boas’s thesis is preposterous and risible on its face from the standpoint of Darwinian evolution, that is, from the standpoint of accepted biological science in the 21st century. Boasianism is, at its core, little different than Lysencoism or various other experiments in Marxian biology. Madison Grant’s oeuvre, on the other hand—however we might want to revise Nordicism—remains scientifically and rationally defensible.

One of the primary lessons racial idealists can draw from studying Grant’s career is that science (or at least what is perceived to have scientific authority) matters; it is no coincidence that the most successful effort in racial idealism in modern American history was grounded in Darwinism, or that egalitarians and globalists must constantly slander their opponents as purveyors of “pseudo-science.”

Of course, as good science, Darwinism can be revised, expanded upon, and, potentially, falsified. Also, as good science, Darwinism does not favor or justify any one group or desired outcome. Indeed, as the 2005 science-fiction comedy Idiocracy points out, natural selection does not even favor what one might call the strongest, most beautiful, and most intelligent.[10]

That said, Darwinism offers a compelling and rational justification for Whites to act on behalf of their ancestors and progeny and feel a shared since of destiny with their extended kin group. As Kevin MacDonald correctly points out, “rational, scientific discourse” is granted pride of place in advanced Western societies; and one shouldn’t underestimate the “emotional commitment” that Darwinism can instill in Whites—as it raises politics to the level of collective survival, above claims to fairness that dominate the language of liberalism. Darwinism is seemingly more “effective in rallying Whites, especially elite Whites, than religious feelings.”

The story of religious feeling in the modern age has been to either sink into irrelevance for secular Whites (who are likely to be more educated) or be diverted into causes that are suicidal for religious Whites.”[11]

Viewed from another angle, Madison Grant had become relevant for contemporary racial idealists due to the increasing irrelevancy of what might be called “respectable” or “patriotic” immigration reform, that is, restriction on the basis of legality or concerns about assimilation (which are the only restrictionist arguments that are granted a hearing in the mainstream media.[12])

According to the U.S. Census Department, by the summer of 2011, the majority of births in the United States were non-White infants. This means that if all immigration, legal and illegal, were (quite miraculously) halted immediately, nothing of significance demographically would change. The proverbial 2050 “tipping point”—when America reaches “majority-minority” status, with no single racial or ethnic groups defining the national character—will merely be delayed by a decade or two. Moreover, “assimilation” has become a deceptive and misleading term, as it begs the question “To What?” Hispanic immigrants have been assimilating downward across generations towards the culture and behavior of African-Americans.[13] Indeed, one possible outcome of the ongoing demographic transformation is a thoroughly miscegenated, and thus homogenous and “assimilated,” nation, which would have little resemblance to the White America that came before it.

Put simply, the discourse that has predominated for the past 60 years on the Immigration and National Questions is increasingly disconnected from reality; for the racial idealist, it has become useless. To even understand the phenomenon of mass immigration—and the globalized world that underlies it—one must, following Grant, think racially. And for the racial idealist, the point is not just to understand …


  1. For a discussion of this issue, see John Glad, Future Human Evolution: Eugenics in the Twenty-First Century (Schuylkill Haven, PA: Hermitage Publishers).  ↩

  2. The distinction should be made between Boasian “environmentalism,” outlined above, and the contemporary meaning of the term qua natural conservationism.  ↩

  3. See Steve Pinker, The Blank Slate (Viking, 2002).  ↩

  4. Jonathan Peter Spiro, Defending the Master Race: Conservation, Eugenics, and the Legacy of Madison Grant (Vermont University Press, 2009), p. 136.  ↩

  5. Moreover, though it will not likely win him any PC points today, Grant actually supported maintaining the integrity of all races, not just Nordics. Through his Southern colleague Ernest Seveir Cox and others, Grant proposed an alliance with Marcus Garvey, the Jamaican-born Black Nationalist, whose “Back To Africa” movement envisioned a radically traditionalist destiny for Black Americans. In Conquest, Grant lamented the fact that the “religious world, the political world, and the educational world alike seem to have conspired” to promote Mulattos as the “talented 10th” stand-ins for the Black race, as well as race-mixing in general. Grant clearly favored returning Africans to their homeland; however, by 1933, he saw prospects for this as quite unlikely, and thus favored the unsatisfactory tactics of strict segregation, anti-miscegenation laws, and the promotion of birth control among Blacks.  ↩

  6. Galton, “Hereditary Talent and Character”.  ↩

  7. Time, 11 May, 1936.  ↩

  8. Franz Boas and Helene M. Boas, “The Head-Forms of the Italians as Influenced by Heredity and Environment,” American Anthropologist, April-June 1913.  ↩

  9. Corey S. Sparks and Richard L. Jantz, “A Reassessment of human Cranial Plasticity: Boas Revisited,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 8 October 2002. See also, Nicholas Wade, “A New Look at Old Data May Discredit a Theory on Race”, New York Times, 8 October 2002.  ↩

  10. In film’s opening scenes, a stereotypical high-IQ WASP and Jewish couple is depicted as a continually forego child-rearing (“Not now, not with the market as it is…”), while a stereotypical low-IQ redneck family breeds with passionate intensity. The ultimate outcome, by 2050, is a collapsing, exceedingly vulgar world in which the average IQ of the population is at retardation levels.  ↩

  11. Kevin MacDonald, “The Dispossessed Elite,” Radix I: The Great Erasure: The Deconstruction of White Identity (Washington Summit Publishers, 2012).  ↩

  12. As Byron Roth observes, the “debate” on immigration in the Western world throughout the 2000s was over whether Third World immigrants should or should not assimilate to the dominate culture, not whether this is possible or desirable. Roth, The Perils of Diversity, Chapter 1. 35 See Richard Spencer, “Who’s Taking Over?” American Renaissance, Vol. 21, no. 4, April 2010.  ↩

  13. See Richard Spencer, “Who’s Taking Over?” American Renaissance, Vol. 21, no. 4, April 2010.  ↩

No Comments on The Eugenics Taboo

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