Radix Journal

Radix Journal

A radical journal

Tag: Essay

The Metapolitics of America

America and France are the twin “proposition nations” of the Western occident. (This sibling rivalry explains much about the popularity of France-bashing and _l’antiamericanisme_ in opposing countries.) Their “national” days are unique in the world in that they celebrate historical events that were cast, at their very inception, as liberal advancements for all humankind. 

The Fourth of July is the centerpiece of American nationalism and identity . . . even if few remember what exactly they are celebrating.

But even in their comical ignorance, Americans seem sure that there’s an ultimate meaning to the Fourth: Freedom! . . . from . . . uhh . . . the South . . . er . . . the Nazis? . . . or whatever.

America, it is assumed, achieved independence from some sort of big, bad traditionalist oppressor.

Many nation-states celebrate “independence days,” which usually mark important or unlikely military victories over invaders or imperial powers. As memory gets mixed with myth, these events are imagined as popular liberations. Mexico’s “Cinco de Mayo,” which might soon displace the Fourth in prominence in the United States, is emblematic in this respect.

But the Fourth of July—as well as France’s Bastille Day of July 14—are holidays of an entirely different character (whatever surface similarities they might share with others).

America and France are the twin “proposition nations” of the Western occident. (This sibling rivalry explains much about the popularity of France-bashing and l’antiamericanisme in opposing countries.) Their “national” days are unique in the world in that they celebrate historical events that were cast, at their very inceptions, as liberal advancements for all humankind.

Today, of course, every nation-state on earth—from Nigeria to North Korea—mouthes some sort of “human rights” mumbo-jumbo. But the U.S. and France are exceptional in that they emerged as direct ideological expressions of the Enlightenment, and occurred at a critical moment in its history. One hundred years after the death of Spinoza, the French and American Revolutions marked the point at which Enlightenment values left the realm of philosophy (and what could be called the 17th-century “radical fringe”) and entered the realm of state-making and geopolitics. Both Revolutions would, in turn, occur some 125 years before the Great War definitively ended the Old Order. Every state thereafter would be “American,” the vestiges of aristocracy and monarchy persisting only as tourist attractions.

“The Rights of Man” . . . “the pursuit of happiness” . . . “inalienable rights . . . endowed by our Creator” . . . The great slogans and myths of 1776 and 1789 have a quaint ring to them today. They hail from an older phase of the Left, and thus have become, as it were, “conservative.”

These platitudes function like dogma and form the unexamined basis of political action and speech. This is most obvious through a familiar political shorthand; in the words of Congressman Paul Ryan, America is “more than just a place . . . America is an idea.” (As geography is thrown out the window, so is race, people, culture, history, and more.) Ryan’s meme is reiterated across the spectrum—from a rock star’s urgings that Americans be “one” with the world, to the inaugural addresses of Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama. Much of political discourse in America involves politicians accusing rivals of not believing in the American dogma hard enough.

To be an American is to be committed to liberty, equality, and individual autonomy—perhaps even to have left one’s home and people in the name of such principles. America’s highest ideal is, in a way, an anti-ideal—that the state shall not express a people’s spirit and history, a source of wisdom or tradition, or a vision of something greater, more dominant and powerful than an individual. The character of America is imagined as an endless tabula rasa or Etch-a-Sketch; it gets written on, but always returns to zero.

The “Founding Fathers,” as they are know, are revered not so much as martial heroes but as the wise designers of the world’s greatest legal mechanism. There seems to be no parallel in other Occidental cultures to the reverence of the Supreme Court, as a set of nine Talmudic Judges who, depending on your persuasion, will either divine the Constitution’s One True Law or else view it as a living will.

Other countries might have negative national consciousnesses. Germans, for instance, have internalized de-Nazification. But Germans remain, despite it all, self-consciously German. Americans, on the contrary, are nothing . . . they’re always starting over . . . they like to tell themselves they have an unbounded future, but only at the cost of never having a past.

One can be an American and also be Roman Catholic . . . a Muslim . . . a Buddhist . . . or a trans-gendered performance artist. American society is, indeed, encouraged to fragment into as many pieces as possible. So long as no identity, ideal, or meaning predominates over others; so long as every identity ultimately wants the same.

Religion in America, particularly Protestant Christianity, has rarely opposed this anti-identity; at critical moments, it has reenforced it. There is a “storybook” history to the many fanatics, who, choosing to abandon their homes and cultures, sought to create a “new Israel” in the New World. What we call “tradition,” they called “corruption” and “poison.”

One could imagine an alternative reality in which American religious institutions had opposed the 1776 Revolution (or at least had been highly skeptical of it), urging loyalty to mother country and mother church. Instead, the 18th-century pulpit was a place of revolutionary fervor. Jefferson’s Independence Declaration had resonated with—and was, indeed, continuous with—a whole series of “compact” beginnings for Christian Americans, who in a spirit of Hebraic separatism, desired to break with Europe.

The Europeans had been Germans . . . Gauls . . . Russians . . . Lombards . . . Britons before they were Christians. In their national consciousnesses, they could remember conversion experiences. Americans, on the contrary, were Christians before they were Americans.

One could counter that the American dogma is all rhetorical—that the Founders, some of the wealthiest men on the continent at the time, sought to secure an aristocratic order, that American society has been informed by ethnic, political, and monetary agendas, etc.

But to understand America, one must understand its outcome—that there are certain impulses and implications that only become clear later on (ironically, when the entity has reached its end point). Today, the United States has achieved the most robust and most popular civic religion that explicitly denies its racial, historical, and civilizational identity. This spiritual negation is more devastating than the displacement of the founding stock through mass immigration.


Our perspective is of living in America, without being of it. As we escape America’s assumptions, we can look upon the entity objectively.

A century and a half ago, Alexander Stephens, Vice-President of the Confederate States of America, was faced with the prospect of the victory or annihilation of his nation and fledgling state in what is now referred to as the American Civil War.

In his greatest address, “The Cornerstone of the Confederacy,” he did not speak (mendaciously) about “states rights” or any kind of Constitutional legality. He instead cut to the heart of the social order he was opposing. He stressed that the Confederacy was based on the conclusion that Thomas Jefferson was wrong; the “cornerstone” of the new state was the “physical, philosophical, and moral truth” of human inequality.

Ours, too, should be a declaration of difference and distance—”We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created unequal.” In the wake of the old world, this will be our proposition.

This article was originally published on July 4, 2014.

No Comments on The Metapolitics of America

Antifa: An Obituary

If you listened carefully enough to the din of broken glass and shrill Leftist lamentations, you’d have heard another sound this weekend: the death rattle of Antifa.

“What’s equality? Muck in the yard,
Historic nations grow, from above to below”
W.B. Yeats Three Songs

If you listened carefully enough to the din of broken glass and shrill Leftist lamentations, you’d have heard another sound this weekend: the death rattle of Antifa. The cheap assault on Richard Spencer, along with the damage wrought in Washington DC, does not mitigate the fact that so-called ‘anti-fascism,’ in all meaningful respects, has been dying since the mid-1990s. What we witnessed in the weekend that has just passed was the desperate actions of a spent force. What occurred was disgraceful, and we should challenge it, but we shouldn’t be unduly disturbed about future prospects. Nor should we exaggerate the threat these people pose, or our response to it. In its death agonies, Antifa has been as noisy as it was in life, and this noise may have caused the less well-informed to conclude that there was vitality yet in this old hag. The perceptive, however, will have noted that this noise only slightly masked the increasing senility of an obsolete movement that has struggled, staggered, and gasped its way to the pyrrhic victory of a cheap-shot and a few burnt trashcans. In this new era, the age of Trump, Brexit, Nationalist murmurings across Europe, and the rise of the Alt-Right, anti-fascism is politically dead.

No autopsy is required. ‘Anti-fascism’ was born with the defect that would ultimately carry it off; a deformation of its vital systems that for long periods rendered it heavily dependent on its adversaries for political oxygen. Part of this deformation arose from its internal divisions. On the one hand, a substantial element of Antifa activity consists of the peaceful, democratic type. These are the misguided vicar’s daughters and soccer moms who are inveigled into organizing, attending, or donating to ‘anti-racist’ demonstrations, music concerns, or similar public events. We witnessed much of its constituency in the Women’s March that followed Trump’s inauguration. This element has always been ideologically lightweight, and participates less out of ideological convictions than it does out of vague moral twinges and panics. The other element of Antifa has always been smaller, but is the one we are perhaps more familiar with. This is the revolutionary anti-fascist or crypto-Bolshevik wing, consisting of Trotskyists, Marxists, Anarchists, and Jews. Its members possess a tangled mess of often conflicting ideologies that are nevertheless set aside in the name of confronting the perceived fascist threat. The latter element has always frightened and disillusioned the former. The tensions between the two have marred the history of anti-fascism, which witnessed several fractures, and failed attempts at even the most basic form of ideological unification, from the 1970s to the 2010s.

The pathology of anti-fascism, present from its birth, is that it has all the hallmarks of a particularly weak parasite. Here is an entity that is conceived purely as an anti-ideology. Its stated primary foe was ‘the Fascist,’ who was understood to lie behind all societal ills. Since actual Fascists were difficult to find after 1945, and organizing explicitly against them was thus liable to have one regarded as a paranoid eccentric, ‘anti-fascists’ hastily added ‘the State’ as a secondary, quasi-substitute for the real thing. If ‘Fascists’ couldn’t be found, they would have to be invented. Language about ‘the Fascist State’ thus became ubiquitous in these circles. Eventually, this mode of language became endemic on the Left. All political movements to the right of modern liberalism were perceived, and labelled, as quasi-Fascistic, and ‘anti-fascism’ would thus provide itself with something to mobilize against. The problem, of course, was one of linguistic economics. As the Left flooded the verbal ‘market’ with its currency, this currency underwent a dramatic deflation in emotive value. The Left’s incessant invocation of ‘Fascism’ led to the term’s precipitous and irreversible decline. Anti-fascism, in the fulfilment of its pathology, began undermining the strength of its own propaganda.

The in-born pathology of anti-fascism extended to its tactical capacities, which were also stunted and retarded from birth. Anti-fascism’s founding tactical principle was that it would oppose with violence any attempts by ‘fascists’ to organize at street level. For a time, there was some vitality in this tactical emphasis. From the 1960s to the early 1990s Antifa was sporadically engaged in violent activity against Nationalist groups throughout the West and, particularly when one considers running battles with Britain’s National Front, one could argue that there was a kind of ongoing ‘battle for the streets.’ However, by the early 1990s Nationalism became aware that it had allowed itself to be relegated to the fringes of political discourse where, along with its opponents in Antifa, it became trapped in futile turf wars that made little impact on national political trajectories. There was an internal revolution in Nationalism that led to the influx of greater numbers of ‘quality’ people, and the adoption of policies, aesthetics, and approaches that began to cut into the ‘mainstream.’ Nationalists began winning electoral victories, appearing on television, and creating their own media.

Anti-fascism at first claimed a kind of victory. With much aplomb it claimed to have conclusively ‘won the streets’ and, according to many an Antifa screed, the spineless fascists had fled the field. It was only during the late 1990s that Antifa realized that it hadn’t won anything, and had been caught on the wrong foot. If the primary weapon in your tactical arsenal is street confrontation, and your opponent is enjoying unprecedented success precisely because they have abandoned street confrontation, one might expect that a tactical change would be necessary. However, anti-fascism’s stunted development led instead to stagnancy and confusion. Nationalism had gone places that anti-fascism couldn’t or wouldn’t follow. Anarchists, a sizeable proportion of the Antifa cohort, were ideologically and temperamentally disinclined to participate in parliamentary and traditional politics. Militant Antifa was thus even more starkly contrasted with its non-violent allies, and even less likely to find acceptance in mainstream society. Antifa tactics were redundant. It was thus symbolically significant when, in 2001, England’s Anti-Fascist Action (AFA) formally disbanded.

Other factions limped on, of course. In these foul residues, problematic ideological abscesses continued to fester. The movement continue to posture itself as being opposed to a ‘system’ it perceived as reactionary, ultra-conservative, and anti-working class. It escaped many on the far-Left that anti-fascism was itself reactionary by nature, being entirely dependent for stimulus on the actions or moves of its opponents. Indeed, this was the conclusion of Nigel Copsey, scholar of fascism and anti-fascism, who described Antifa as a “reactive phenomenon” that could only manifest in accordance to stimulus. Further, while Nationalists, and others labelled as fascists, began advancing structured programs for social and economic change, Antifa could advance no vision, no position beyond reactive opposition. The assertion that Nationalists and others were ultra-conservative also began to ring increasingly hollow in an age when the far-Left influenced political outcomes to a greater extent than it has ever openly admitted. Marxism, in its cultural expressions, went mainstream. Mass immigration obliterated the efficacy of national borders. Social engineering led to the slow destruction of the family. In this context, the goals of Antifa and the ‘the State’ it claimed to oppose became indistinguishable. Antifa, more than Nationalists, had more to gain from ‘conserving’ the status quo. Nationalists, the alleged ultra-conservatives, increasingly distinguished themselves by their open desire for cultural revolution; a destruction of all that is, a revisiting of what once was, and the planned construction of what might be.

But perhaps the greatest of Antifa’s internal incoherencies was its claim to support the cause of the working-class. To be sure, Antifa was from its inception a diseased protrusion of the neurotic middle-class. In particular, it drew its lifeblood from pathological or alien elements in the upper middle-class. Always directed by middle-class intellectuals, who were frequently Jewish, Antifa was staffed by a motley of materially spoiled, attention-seeking youngsters, who sought in their Jewish or Russian gurus what they could not find from disinterested, career-minded parents. These spurned children would seek to destroy the material assets and values of the world of the hated parents, substituted now with the ‘Fascist’ or ‘the State.’ It goes without saying that the real world of the worker played no part in this drama. Bernd Langer of the Autonome Antifa, Germany’s largest anti-fascist organization, once admitted: “Most of the political activists have a middle class background, few workers are involved in the movement. They are rather the exception. The working class plays no role in the anti-fascist struggle.”

Similarly, when the Sydney Morning Herald sought out members of Australian Antifa for an inside look at the movement there, the journalist might have been persuaded by Leftist propaganda to expect to find a young dock-worker or manual laborer. Instead, and more predictably from our perspective, he found dialogue with a young, “gluten intolerant,” activist who had grown up in the wealthy suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne, had been sent to an expensive university by his parents, and had developed a love affair with ‘Marxism’ at the behest of guru professors. Our young Anarchist apparently proceeded to explain his moribund political philosophy between sips of rose tea at a fashionable cafe, as he peered over a pair of designer spectacles. Antifa is the bastard child of Marx and Goldman Sachs, conceived in the Hamptons, and nursed on the psychiatrists couch.

These yawning gaps between Antifa’s proclamations of class war and the reality of its staffing, led in many instances to friction between the duped and the deluded. Particularly during the 1990s, there were conflicts between those who saw themselves as old-school class warriors and those who came from, or drew ideological succor from more newly emerged victimhood narratives. Unlike Nationalists, with their almost obsessive care for statistics, facts and news analysis, the far-Left was bogged down in barely penetrable theory and a reliance on emotional responses to perceived slights. Thus, even the most committed economic Marxist couldn’t prevent the inevitable descent of Antifa into what Nigel Copsey described as “a multicultural, middle-class mind-set, in which the deification of difference (race, gender, and sexual preference) had replaced class equality.” Anti-fascism thus found it increasingly difficult to posture as a movement with even tangential mass appeal, instead pigeon-holing itself as a mere movement of ‘victims.’ The middle-class ‘daddy issue’ set now found themselves joined by those with other resentments; the homosexuals wanting ever more attention and acceptance, the feminists seeking revenge on an explicitly male form of political expression, and the minorities nursing ethnic grievances and possessing an interest in weakening White identity politics.

Resentment can provide a certain amount of energy. But this energy is not inexhaustible, and is certainly not comparable to the drive that can arise from the pursuit of a higher vision. Once Nationalism largely ceased its public expression in the form of marches, anti-fascism switched its focus to the disruption of conferences and meetings. This is a tactic we were all familiar with. There has rarely been a major meeting of American Renaissance, the National Policy Institute, or the London Forum that has not in some form been protested against or otherwise disturbed by Antifa intrusion. However, the cost-benefit outcome of such actions have always been negative for Antifa. In a pattern very likely to have been replicated elsewhere, Copsey found that German militant Antifa comprised only around five thousand individuals who amplified their impact by travelling non-stop around the country to disrupt meetings. It goes without saying that a large amount of time and resources would be required to maintain such an effort, and this time and resources was most often wasted. While Nationalist meetings may be disturbed to some extent, this disturbance has rarely been serious. Few meetings have had to be cancelled. Nationalism has continued to grow, both in terms of numbers and political victories. While Nationalists maintain a focus on the ‘main event,’ Antifa has remained a side-show; a kind of half-time entertainment during conferences.

Another area which Antifa neglected, and which Nationalists have exploited to an unprecedented extent, was the sphere of the ‘counterpublic.’ Having abandoned the streets, and remaining excluded from mainstream media, it was Nationalism that truly embraced cyberspace. Here the limits of “physical space,” and hence “physical confrontation,” were truly thrown into sharp relief. As the internet grew, Nationalism expanded into new forms of intellectual space, pioneering both the political forum and systematic, alternative media. Increasingly, Antifa reliance on countering mostly non-existent marches, and holding concerts for migrants and other ‘victim’ classes, began to look dated. Meanwhile, by the close of the first decade of the new millennium, Nationalism was pioneering TV channels, publishing outlets, intellectual and mass-appeal webzines, and a plethora of podcasts ranging from the high-brow to the comedic. Antifa inherently lacked the creative power of its opponents, and its main expression turned to endless sober warnings to the mainstream that here was ‘fascism’ in new clothing. First they came in suits, then with cartoon frogs.

By contrast, Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin hold little comedic appeal for the masses. Nor do such figures even evoke the kind of edgy discomfort that can be elicited by a gothic bogeyman of the type that Hitler, the ultimate Fascist, had been crafted to be. Since Communism eked out its last days with sputtering cars, and against the background scent of chemicals and stale soup, it is neither darkly attractive nor particularly intimidating. Like Antifa itself, explicit radical socialism is an anachronism; a joke perhaps, but one where the punchline made sense only in a prior age. Anarchists can sport t-shirts promising “An Ice Pick for Every Trot,” but this is a weak gallows humor. As Trotsky himself might have testified, jokes and even light dissent cost lives in the ‘worker’s paradise,’ and Leftists are notoriously thin-skinned when it came to the dogma of Marxist-Leninist theory. The Anti-fascist environment is one in which everything is taken seriously, and nothing more so than the anti-fascists themselves.

It is this extremely high level of self-obsession that gave rise to such tremendous shock when, in 2016, the Antifa’s proverbial sky began to fall. With great self-assurance, the radical Left and its fellow travellers in academia and the media asserted that Brexit would never happen. What the Left failed to realize was that, as long as the principle of the secret ballot remains, and as long as Nationalists or their ideas have any means whatsoever to influence the opinions of voters exercising that secret ballot, their monopoly of the media, the colleges, and ‘the streets’ will never be enough to end our politics or assure the victory of theirs. Having failed to learn from the Brexit experience, the same smugness asserted itself on the eve of an allegedly ‘inevitable’ win for Hillary Clinton in the US Presidential elections. We now live in the age of President Trump.

The outburst of juvenile violence which accompanied the Trump inauguration should not be taken as indicative of the health of Antifa. This is not a robust movement. It is floundering tactically, and its biggest mistake has been its misguided portrayal of Trump and his voters as fascists. The Left wins when the Alt-Right and the Antifa remain on the fringes of mainstream discourse and the mainstream remains under Left-liberal ideological control (via academia, the media, and political tunnel-vision). However, in its shock and rage at Trump’s victory, the Left has been unable to move away from a discourse that paints Trump and his very substantial bloc of voters as belonging to a homogenous Far Right. What the Left risk doing by pursuing such a strategy is reshaping the mainstream, essentially splitting it in two. Trump voters will be forced by Leftist hostility into buying into the narrative that they belong with the Alt-Right. In this scenario, Antifa and the Left do our work for us. Thus, while I agree that the assault on Richard Spencer was a huge story that deserves our attention, the bigger story from the inauguration weekend was the assaults that took place on Trump supporters unaffiliated with the Alt-Right. In scenarios like these, Antifa will act as recruiting sergeants for our cause. This is the definition of a movement that has failed in every possible sense.

To conclude, I might caution against the advice given by some in our movement that we should ‘take the fight’ to Antifa, or attempt to engage them once more on the streets. By doing so, we would validate their existence once more, and run the risk of again placing ourselves on the margins. Without compromising our values, we should continue to push as deeply into the mainstream as we can, and especially focus on forging links with Trump voters, Brexit voters, and right-leaning citizens throughout the West. As the Left continues to wail at its losses, it will continue to lash out indiscriminately. This will be to our benefit. For our part, we should focus on improving our security, while allowing the Left to show its true face to the people. Our priority is winning cultural influence and political power, not confronting small numbers of social effluent. And, rest assured, we will one day be in a position to drag this fading nuisance into the light and deliver to it a long-overdue coup de grâce.


[1] N. Copsey, ‘Crossing Borders: Anti-Fascist Action (UK) and Transnational Anti-Fascist Militancy in the 1990s,’ Contemporary European History, 25 (4), 707-727.

[2] Ibid. 

[3] Ibid. 

No Comments on Antifa: An Obituary

A Cautionary Tale

I also wanted to speak about the current political situation, since we are all thinking about Trump’s victory. The main point I wanted to make was the necessity of prompt and decisive action on the part of the incoming administration, especially on immigration related issues. But everyone else I have read on our side has been making the same point. So rather than repeat them, I will limit myself to a brief cautionary tale about the consequences of delaying action on those fleeting occasions when all the political stars align perfectly.

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

I also wanted to speak about the current political situation, since we are all thinking about Trump’s victory. The main point I wanted to make was the necessity of prompt and decisive action on the part of the incoming administration, especially on immigration related issues. But everyone else I have read on our side has been making the same point. So rather than repeat them, I will limit myself to a brief cautionary tale about the consequences of delaying action on those fleeting occasions when all the political stars align perfectly.

It concerns Ronald Reagan. I am pleased that we have a fairly young audience here, but that means many of you are likely to have a distorted view of Reagan and his presidency. It is stunning how quickly the history of a single generation ago has been spun, rewritten and in parts forgotten: a process which began as the events were still unfolding. The failure of Ronald Reagan’s presidency—by its own declared standard of judgment—is the single best-kept secret of the American Right.

This is what actually happened. Reagan the candidate was analogous in many ways to Donald Trump, a political outsider distrusted by the elites but popular with the plain men and women of the United States. He began his march to the White House in 1976 by challenging an incumbent Republican president, thereby earning the hostility of the party establishment.

In 1980, they would have greatly preferred to nominate George Bush, Sr. When they were unable to do so, they presented Reagan with an ultimatum: put Bush on the ticket or we will not support your candidacy. Thus, the disastrous Bush dynasty was foisted upon our country. I have sometimes wondered what would have happened if Reagan had just said “screw you” and gone on to run without the party’s support. Trump certainly showed it can be done.

In any case, Reagan’s message resonated powerfully with ordinary Americans, many of whom crossed over from the democratic party to vote for him. In part this is because his campaign rhetoric was almost as radical as Trump’s talk of “draining the swamp.” Reagan aptly summarized his politics in the aphorism that “Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem.” He vowed to cut the size of the Federal government drastically. Two departments he promised to abolish outright: transportation and education.

Immediately after taking office, Reagan made a few inconsequential cuts to the federal payroll, after which the Federal government resumed its previous rate of growth, and nothing was ever heard again about cutting it. At the end of eight years, Reagan left the Federal Behemoth significantly larger than when he had found it—including the departments of transportation and education.

He bore responsibility for other egregious failures as well, such as the 1986 Amnesty. That was supposed to combine legalization for a million or so aliens with strict enforcement ever after. What we got instead was legalization of over four million and no enforcement. Hence the precarious situation we are in today.

Columnist Joe Sobran got it right when he wrote that the Reagan administration had in reality marked an historic failure of nerve. Placed at the levers of power, Reagan flinched from the radicalism of his own campaign rhetoric. He satisfied himself with administering the welfare state he had promised to go at with hammer and tongs.

But perhaps even more disturbing than this failure itself was that it did not really matter to his followers. Having gotten a self-described “conservative” elected turned out to be enough for them. To true believers, Reagan’s whole presidency was like an eight-year- long inaugural ball. Some of them are celebrating to this day.

And after Reagan, the right would never get a second chance to go after the welfare state. We would never—until now, when it is almost too late—get another chance to go after mass immigration. By the Obama years, if not before, the Reagan presidency could just as well never have happened.

We cannot afford a failure of nerve today. We are no longer talking about overregulation hampering economic growth, as in Reagan’s time, but about whether we shall survive as a people at all. And it is easy for those who remember the excitement over Reagan to imagine a future in which every hack politician operating in the dwindling White enclaves of what used to be America will be fishing for votes by piously describing himself as a “Trump conservative.” If this happens, it will mean we have failed. I don’t say this is going to happen, but preventing it is our task for the next four years.

Now, to conclude my remarks I want to offer some thoughts to our younger followers and those who have joined us recently. Popular accounts of the Alt Right highlight the phenomenon of “trolling,” in other words saying things in order to shock or provoke our enemies. We’ve seen a lot of this since the election, especially. In my view, trolling is not a worthwhile activity and does nothing to advance our cause. It may have been more excusable when the anti-White Left’s grip on power seemed unassailable. But we have just won a great victory, and we need to raise our sights. We need to understand that the kind of people we may be tempted to troll are simply not worth your time. Let’s leave them to talk only with one another. We have more important work to do.

Much of this work involves educating ourselves and others. If you wish to play an active role in the transformation we are trying to effect, you must go beyond tweets and blogs. The section of the Radix site called “The Red Pill” is a good place to start, and we are going to be adding to it in the coming months. When you do speak to those outside our movement, ignore declared enemies and concentrate your efforts on ordinary Whites : “normies,” as we call them. Remember that you will catch more flies with honey than with gall.

Our movement sometimes gets into internal disputes over how best to label itself: Alt Right, nationalism, White advocacy, and so forth. Past a certain point, such disputes can become unprofitable. But if we must bear a label, my personal favorite is “the Reality Based Community.”

The universalistic liberalism we oppose is forced by its very nature to ignore or deny certain realities: human differentiation by race and by sex, the universality of the tribal instinct and ethnic conflict. We are simply people who strive conscientiously to study these realities objectively and to shape prudent policy with a view of them. We believe this will benefit our own people without doing any injustice to others. And it is an infinitely more rewarding and profitable activity than attempting to rivet any ideological mold upon the living reality of human society.

No Comments on A Cautionary Tale

Normal

A professor brags about his desire to genocide an entire race. He is the victim. Those who notice what he’s done are evil because “White genocide” is somehow both a myth and a self-evident good.

 

A professor brags about his desire to genocide an entire race. He is the victim. Those who notice what he’s done are evil because “White genocide” is somehow both a myth and a self-evident good.

Members of a group who commit wildly disproportionate violence against both their own and other peoples are occasionally shot by police while committing crimes. This is “genocide” against this group. Those who deny it have death wished upon them by thousands of people. Those who make these threats are praised for doing so.

People whose presence in the country is illegal, go on to commit additional crimes. A newly elected president, widely called a “fascist,” says he will deport them. This is called an attack on families.

The President-elect takes a congratulatory phone call from an American ally under constant threat of attack and invasion by a nominally Communist and indisputably authoritarian state. This is condemned as a provocation.

The same President-elect praises a far less repressive leader for not imposing sanctions on the United States to the detriment of both countries. This is also condemned as a provocation.

A donut-licking thot famous for posing in cat ears and grinding to autotune baselines about getting screwed till you can’t walk excites one of the thirsty male fans that sustain her lifestyle. This is taken for a violation of the decorum she evidently expects. She is now a feminist hero.

A homosexual teacher and his “husband” commit suicide after being exposed for abusing underage boys for years. They claim they are the real victims in a suicide note and other teachers hold a moment of silence for them. The school which presided over the abuse issues a bland statement about how it strives to provide a “safe and secure learning environment,” and is offering “mental health counseling.”

Members of one group receive preferential treatment in applying for jobs and coveted slots in elite institutions. Individuals of mixed race, or even entirely of other races, try to become members of this group to receive social and economic benefits. This group is still “oppressed.” Even denying that this group is oppressed renders one a “racist.”

Members of another group have high rates of income and education relative to other groups. They systematically organize in defense of their group identity and are concentrated in culturally influential professions. The United States military defends their ethnostate, even though the alliance brings no benefit to America anyone can identity. This group is also “oppressed.” If you deny it, your career will be ended and you will be cast out of polite society.

Violence and shootings of predominantly African-American residents have increased in most major cities across the country, especially in cities affected by a movement proclaiming itself “Black Lives Matter.” Attacks on police officers have also increased, including ambushes against cops sitting in their cars. In response to the unrest, there is now a painting portraying police officers as pigs hanging in the U.S. Capitol’s office complex. Saying “All Lives Matter” is a deeply offensive statement. Saying “White Lives Matter” is economic suicide.

An activist group attempts to extort a woman for financial gain. The government and the media join the campaign. This is called activism for “human rights.”

Voters in the United Kingdom overcome an unprecedented media campaign and say they want to withdraw from the European Union. A thrice-married woman from Guyana who moved to England at 10, whose latest husband is nicknamed “Mr. Hedge Fund,” files a lawsuit and stops it. She credits her “strength” to the breakup of her last marriage. Her ex-husband says she simply married someone who had more money. She is praised as the “woman of the century.” Perhaps she is.

A ‘model’ named Tess Holiday, who weighs 280 pounds, is too disgustingly obese to fit into a complimentary robe provided at hotels. She “calls out” the hotels. She is very brave.

The United States government, currently $18.96 trillion in debt, provides grant money to illegal immigrants who get deported to El Salvador. This is perhaps one of the less objectionable expenditures of the federal government, which include, at random, $152,000 to stimulate adoption by lesbians, $100,000 to produce “socially-conscious puppet shows,” and $4.6 million to increase the “emotional wellness of refugees.” Meanwhile, Republicans say Trump’s border wall may not be constructed because it is too expensive.

While Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton had a foundation where foreign countries could donate money. Reports from even left wing media sites suggest it may have been used in pay-for-play schemes. This was fine, but the incoming president has his name on hotels, so he should be impeached.

A video game for children features a hero saving a princess. This is called unsuitable for children. A lesbian relationship is inserted into another video game. This is a “step forward for video games.”

For no ostensible gain and after no vote, Europe’s most powerful nation insists on abandoning border controls to admit an unlimited number of young, male, Muslim migrants. It is perhaps the most consequential decision in postwar history, but there is no mainstream party which disagrees with the policy. The overwhelming majority of migrants are both unemployed and unemployable. The cost is ruinous. Crime has increased and dozens of lives have been taken in terrorist attacks. In response, the government is censoring news, covering up reports of crime, arresting citizens for posting criticism, and allowing armed thugs to attack anyone who disagrees. This is called liberal democracy.

A Catholic priest sets up a nativity scene where the Virgin Mary is placed in a burqa and the Star of Bethlehem is replaced with the homosexual flag.

A woman says she is in love with a robot and wants to get married.

Children as young as four are having sex change operations. A nine year old transsexual is on the cover of National Geographic. A male YouTube “celebrity” was recently made the face of CoverGirl. They are all, we are told proudly, “making history.”

At the same time, at a university named after a man who used to be called the Father of Our Country, history majors are no longer required to study U.S. history. Given the quality of education, this is probably a good thing.

And finally, the only White father on television who isn’t portrayed as weak, cowardly, degenerate, or perverted is a Literal Nazi.

This is “normal.”

In contrast to the above, we are told Donald Trump isn’t “normal.” Indeed, he and his supporters must not be “normalized” by portraying them as reasonable people with legitimate ideas or grievances. In fact, those who did portray Trump as a normal man, television hosts like Jimmy Fallon, should “go to hell.”

Instead, the propaganda of pathology must be intensified. Trump won because of “fake news.” He won because Russia “hacked the election.” He won because the media didn’t do enough to shut down “racist” viewpoints. It’s not because free people agreed with him and made an informed choice. It was all a nefarious scheme of some kind, some aberration of the natural order. After all, what could be more sick, unnatural and self-evidently evil than a leader who, at least rhetorically, believes it is his job to guard the interests of his own citizens?

Of course, civic nationalism, as objectionable as it is to those who determine our morality, is not what they truly fear. What is the most horrific, noxious, and insane thing imaginable is White people living by their own standards and on their own terms.

There’s no scenario where White people are reduced to a small enough minority or stripped of enough wealth and power to be left alone. If the entire White population was one village living in the middle of nowhere, there would be an international media campaign screaming about the evils of “segregation” and exclusion.

In fact, there already is. Consider the situation in South Africa, where a small but hardy group of Afrikaners have, in full compliance with the law, created the settlement of Orania where they can live in peace. It is in undesirable land near a desert. The people pose no threat nor can anyone seriously argue there is “exploitation.” Yet every year, some journalist goes there to pathologize the residents and implicitly agitates for it to be abolished.

The latest is from Thomas Page of CNN, who appears and thinks exactly as you would expect. His article marvels that the settlement is allowed to exist and sneers at those who “intellectualize the argument for self-imposed segregation” as opposed to embracing the glories of the Rainbow Nation. Orania’s residents have “divisive” views on race, we are told.

Page also shills for a book from a Swedish woman, Kajsa Norman, who worries about the “radicalism” of her kinsmen that question their dying nation’s immigration policies. Norman spent time in Orania and, having been let into the lives of its residents, now works to deconstruct and destroy them. Poor Afrikaners have it rough, but they lack “empathy.” People in Orania may not be the most racist people she knows, but they are “not role models.” Incredibly, Norman also dismisses Whites’ fears of violent crime because more Blacks are victims than Whites. Of course, that’s also because they tend to be surrounded by other Blacks, which is exactly what journalists are demanding of Whites.

This is what you would expect of course. Journalism is not a profession; it is a tactic. It is activism by different means, no different in intent than protesting, sabotage, throwing shit at your political opponents, or simply murdering your enemies. The usual goal of a journalist is to destroy his subject. Information is a weapon. Trying to “convince” a journalist is like trying to have an earnest exchange of views with the far-Left fanatic hysterically screaming he wants to kill you. They’re the same people, with the same ends and driven by the same hateful beliefs. And they have truly skewed belief about what is normal and what is not.

Orania, in their view, is not “normal.” South Africa’s president singing songs about killing Afrikaners at political rallies obviously is.

What is “normal?” Well, consider Steven Otter. He was a White man who rejected “self-imposed segregation” and lived in a Black township. He lectured his fellow Whites about the “misperception” of high crime. He attended rallies of the comically anti-White Julius Malema and his “Economic Freedom Fighters,” complete with a goofy red beret and indoor sunglasses. (Incidentally, abolishing the “racist enclave” of Orania is a goal of some in the EFF.) He also indulged in the kind of ethno-masochism pushed on Whites worldwide, berating himself for thought-crime when he pondered “racist things.” Objectively, Otter was an unstable lunatic. By the standards of the society which gives us all the blessings listed above, he was “normal.”

And he died as you’d expect, murdered by robbers who broke into his home, the fifth recent housebreaking in his neighborhood and the third on his street. No one has been arrested and probably no one ever will be. Does Otter deserve sympathy? Poor form to celebrate a man’s death, but Otter demanded that all White South Africans live like this, with no possibility of escape. Why shouldn’t he be forced to live, or die, with the consequences?

Norman smirks in the CNN article that Afrikaners who have “become the most successful in South Africa today have given up their Afrikaner identity and become South Africans first and foremost.” Otter was a South African and he died as one. And despite all the virtue signaling and temporary tributes, his death was essentially meaningless. None of the underlying premises of that Third World society will be challenged. In South Africa, the goal of the deracinated European is simply to make enough money to isolate yourself from social collapse – or just move to another country entirely, as many of the liberal Whites who agitated against apartheid have already done.

This is not meant as an insult to South Africa. Today, every Western country is a “Rainbow Nation.” An as an spokesman for the Orania Movement puts it to CNN, today there is an “existential attitude towards human identity that views it as a mere construct, to be reconstructed by anyone and everyone for and by him/herself.” I’d argue that to be “normal,” this is exactly what you need to believe. And once you build your society around this, the headlines above are only the beginning of what you will get.

The Orania spokesman said defiantly, “That is not the way we plan to live.” And neither can we. Living under siege is more noble, and more “normal,” than living the way we do now. And as some reviews of Norman’s book note, ultimately, the choice of whether to separate and survive or deracinate and die confronts not just the Boers but the Swedes and ultimately all Europeans. And this isn’t “normal.”

“Normal” is knowing who you are, living with dignity and purpose, and leaving a legacy which means something. Normal is pursuing the upward development of your own people, not tearing down everything decent and beautiful in pursuit of the twisted visions of egalitarianism. Normal is taking pride in your own nation. Normal is having a place to call home. We owe the perverted fanatics who seek to take this away from us no explanations, only defiance.

All the progressives freaking out about Trump and the course of 2016 are right for the wrong reasons. This isn’t normal. Nothing about our culture is normal. Nothing about the state of our people is normal. But Trump’s election is one tiny step towards normality. And we should be confident in our eventual triumph and restoration.

After all, we are Europeans. Victory is our birthright.

No Comments on Normal

Whose America First?

One of the most remarkable turn of events in America’s 2016 election has been the revitalization of the phrase “America First!” America First as a slogan has its origins in the pre-World War II America First Committee which was dedicated to keeping the United States out of that war. It was a slogan that energized many in the hinterlands against what they saw as a useless entanglement over foreign interests many thousands of miles away. Notable supporters of the Committee included future presidents John F. Kennedy and Gerald Ford along with cultural figures like Walt Disney, Frank Lloyd Wright and E.E. Cummings. It even included many leftists independent of communist marching orders like Norman Thomas. And of course, there was its most noted celebrity spokesman, aviator Charles Lindbergh. 

One of the most remarkable turn of events in America’s 2016 election has been the revitalization of the phrase “America First!” America First as a slogan has its origins in the pre-World War II America First Committee which was dedicated to keeping the United States out of that war. It was a slogan that energized many in the hinterlands against what they saw as a useless entanglement over foreign interests many thousands of miles away. Notable supporters of the Committee included future presidents John F. Kennedy and Gerald Ford along with cultural figures like Walt Disney, Frank Lloyd Wright and E.E. Cummings. It even included many leftists independent of communist marching orders like Norman Thomas. And of course, there was its most noted celebrity spokesman, aviator Charles Lindbergh.

America First as a slogan gained a second life in the candidacy of Pat Buchanan in the early nineties, a figure who sought to shake off the moribund morass of the Cold War and return America to its earlier traditions. However, by this time a new America was emerging, one which was not only at war with the Old America, but was downright hostile to its history, traditions and very people.

Old America

Many involved with America First had radically different views of what America ultimately was, but what united them was an understanding that America was a nation with its own interests and its own people. The old America that they defended was, in many ways, birthed out of the tragedy of the War Between the States. The all-consuming fire that tore asunder what could be called the American First Republic was put back together after a painful process of radicalism and reconciliation between its formerly warring parts.

After the shameful and destructive excess of Reconstruction in the Old South was ended, a place was carved in American history for its formerly warring White nations. The valor and honor of the Southern cause was acknowledged, as well as its monuments and particular memory, while at the same time the nation was understood as one, moving ever towards the frontier.

This was acknowledged from the Founding onwards; for instance, John Jay in Federalist no.2 states:

”With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people–a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.”

In 1921 then Vice President Calvin Coolidge would re-enunciate this similar spirit in an article for Good Housekeeping, writing:

There are racial considerations too grave to be brushed aside for sentimental reasons. Biological laws tell us that certain divergent people will not mix or blend. The Nordics propagate themselves successfully. With other races, the outcome shows deterioration on both sides. Quality of mind and body suggests that observance of ethnic law is as great a necessity to a nation as immigration law.

The title of his article? “Whose Country is This?”

Ultimately, the American nation of this time was defined by its White citizens, be they Yankee, Confederate, or Western. It was a tapestry reaching back to Plymouth Rock, Jamestown, and Columbus that provided a shared history and vision, and it was, for the most part, based on the history of its White citizens.

The settlement of the frontier led to the creation of what is now deemed “the American Heartland,” the breadbasket from whence America was fed and the yeoman collection of family farms birthed a vision of the “American Dream,” regardless of its fulfillment. The White men and women who went west formed the backbone of the America First Committee, along with many old stock Americans who were perturbed by foreign influence on American affairs.

The America First Committee was much maligned by many in the mainstream media of its day, as Nazis, Babbitts, or even Bolsheviks.

Things came to a head on September 11, 1941 when a man simultaneously derided as a “Nazi” and a “gopher Bolshevik” gave a speech to a Des Moines, Iowa crowd. Here, in the heartland, Charles Lindbergh made his plea:

” Men and women of Iowa; only one thing holds this country from war today. That is the rising opposition of the American people. Our system of democracy and representative government is on test today as it has never been before. We are on the verge of a war in which the only victor would be chaos and prostration.

We are on the verge of a war for which we are still unprepared, and for which no one has offered a feasible plan for victory–a war which cannot be won without sending our soldiers across the ocean to force a landing on a hostile coast against armies stronger than our own.

We are on the verge of war, but it is not yet too late to stay out. It is not too late to show that no amount of money, or propaganda, or patronage can force a free and independent people into war against its will. It is not yet too late to retrieve and to maintain the independent American destiny that our forefathers established in this new world.”

That “American destiny” that our “forefathers established” was at the crux of Lindbergh’s argument: that the destiny of America should be in the hands of Americans alone, and in particular, the historic American Nation bequeathed to us by the Founders. Not an abstraction, not an ideal, and sure as hell not an idea, but a people.

Of course, Lindbergh’s speech would go on to name another group of people, a group that could roughly be described by an American of his time as an anti-America. was one which sought to put various tribal, ideological and commercial interests ahead of those of the living historic America. In some ways, this was a milder form of a division that also occurred in that other “nation of the enlightenment,” France, which had similarly divided up into a France/Anti-France distinction.

Lindbergh went on to describe the groups as follows:

” The three most important groups who have been pressing this country toward war are the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration.

Behind these groups, but of lesser importance, are a number of capitalists, Anglophiles, and intellectuals who believe that the future of mankind depends upon the domination of the British empire. Add to these the Communistic groups who were opposed to intervention until a few weeks ago, and I believe I have named the major war agitators in this country.”

Of course, it didn’t matter that in the speech Lindbergh acknowledged the Jewish plight against Germany as “understandable.” It was enough to sink him and the movement. Just two months later Pearl Harbor would come, America would be at war, and the America First Committee would shut its doors and do their part for their country.

Even Lindbergh would fly in bomber raids over the Pacific. However, the America he fought to preserve started on a dialectical path that would forever change the nature of its people and its history.

The post-war Lindbergh serves as an interesting microcosm of the America he wanted to put first. He got involved in environmental activism preserving the natural beauty of his America.

Many of today’s largest immigration restrictionist organizations trace their origins to the nascent environmentalist movement with concerns about quality of life and a literal preservation of America as a place. Many old stock Americans were involved in this cause including not only Madison Grant and Lindbergh, but people like John Tanton, another American from the heartland who seeks to preserve not just America, but its people.

This impulse was even derided throughout popular culture. Thus, you have jokes like those of brash fraudster Gordon Gekko in 1987’s Wall Street who declaims, “That’s the one thing you have to remember about WASPs: they love animals and hate people.” Contra Mr. Gekko, it’s not hatred of people, just an indifference to an alien people. Indeed, among the groups who opposed the 1965 Immigration Act, which transformed the United States demographically, were the Daughters of the American Revolution, who if thought of at all now are just a prop to establish someone’s WASP identity in popular culture.

But America was a changing place after the war, and prosperity and progress were intermingled with battles for the soul of the American nation that reverberate to this day.

Boomer America

Post-war America was one of peace, prosperity and cultural hegemony, so much so that many refer to this era as “the American Century.” The generation that returned from the carnage of Europe and the Pacific eagerly started to enjoy the fruits of their victory: in the G.I. Bill, the massive infrastructure improvements, and most of all, in starting families. Between the end of the war and the beginning of the 1960s Americans gave birth to millions of children who would grow up in a much different America than the one we have today, and would go on to shape America in a vastly different direction than many of their predecessors.

The children of America’s soldiers came of age not only in an “American” era, but one dominated by mass forms of media, large corporations, and big government. The way mass media consumption of movies and television have shaped “boomer” attitudes towards their own history would come to have massive repercussions for the America of today.

Looked on from today, many complain that the boomer generation faced few if any conflicts; however, that is not exactly correct.

The boomer childhood witnessed some of the greatest feats of humanity, including our earliest voyages into space and our (so far) impressive discipline in not blowing ourselves into a cinder. At the same time, it was punctuated with “events” that gave them the feeling of history. I say events, because in the dawn of the mass-media age, history is never just “made” but is molded not just in its moments but for many years after. The two biggest of these events were the Vietnam War and the so-called “Civil Rights” movement.

The Vietnam War was more of a watershed for White America than the Civil Rights movement, even if it is hard to see it that way today. In addition to its literal battlefields, Vietnam served as a sort of opening salvo in the culture wars. While the descendants of Lindbergh’s America First coalition were largely yelling to “nuke Hanoi,” left-wing inspired youth largely staged massive draft protests and became known as “hippies” and founders of the peace movement.

Even the demonstrations were very different. Take for example one of the Vietnam War’s most well-known protesters: Jane Fonda.

There couldn’t be a bigger difference between Jane Fonda and Charles Lindbergh. Lindbergh was known throughout the world for his daring feats of aviation and engineering prowess. The man even started work on a heart perfusion pump when his sister-in-law came down with a condition. This in contrast with Fonda, who was a second-generation actor whose biggest claims to fame at that point included “Barbarella” and being amongst the radical chic set.

One has only to contrast the ways the speak against their wars, and of the America they represent:

”In the shadow of the Temple of Literature I saw Vietnamese actors and actresses perform the second act of Arthur Miller’s play All My Sons, and this was very moving to me- the fact that artists here are translating and performing American plays while US imperialists are bombing their country…I cherish the memory of the blushing militia girls on the roof of their factory, encouraging one of their sisters as she sang a song praising the blue sky of Vietnam- these women, who are so gentle and poetic, whose voices are so beautiful, but who, when American planes are bombing their city, become such good fighters.”

While the Vietnam War was a major tragedy on the part of America, the country that Fonda speaks of is very different than the one spoken of by Lindbergh.

For Fonda, America is Arthur Miller, Hollywood and its assorted causes. It is ultimately an idea and not a place. The tragedy isn’t just that Americans are bombing the Vietnamese, but that the Vietnamese are living closer to some fantasy of America than Americans themselves. For many who came of age at this time, their patriotism was essentially forged as one for a country as an idea, rather than a place built by a particular people.

This was a watershed stage in the decline of American consciousness. Where once it was asked to think twice about its foreign interventions by a hero, here it was asked to do so by a harlot.

Vietnam was the first time that White America felt a modicum of doubt about the way history was moving. The American South had tasted such a reversal of history before, giving it a kind of strangeness to the rest of the American spirit, but the post-war reconciliation that carried through the World Wars largely delivered an American South that was, to paraphrase Walker Percy, victorious and prosperous. That is, except for the vexing race issue.

The Civil Rights movement has gone down as the new Founding Epoch of America’s new post-1968 mythology. The “dream” of Martin Luther King Jr. has gone on to crowd out all other dreams of America, to animate a far different country than the one its original Founders intended.

More ink has been spilled on this era than almost any other by movement pens. However, what is usually missed is how deep the story of the Civil Rights Movement goes into the America of today. That’s because America now is largely a different country than the one most American right-wingers envision it to be.

The America of today declared its independence with the 1964 Civil Rights Act and has sought to bring in line the rest of its institutions by any means necessary.

But for an older generation of White Americans, the Civil Rights movement was less of a revolution in the very mythological underpinnings of the American state and more just another brokered peace. Just as there was reconciliation after the “brother’s war” between the states, so too did many White Americans see the passages of most Civil Rights legislation. In this way, all the programs initiatives and welfare of the past half century have been nothing more of a counterfeit peace offering that White America deludes itself into believing. That’s because unlike the truce between the warring factions of North and South which were united by “common ancestry, customs” etc. the irreconcilable differences between the different racial groups in America have almost always led to conflict.

Understanding the America that the boomer generation has constructed helps to understand what it is they want to preserve. The triumphalist narrative of their history is best represented in such popular schlock at Forrest Gump which depicts an idiot’s encounters through various nodes on the staircase to progress.

For boomers, America was less a place of ancestry and heritage and more of a place of potential. In particular, individual potential. Its why an old hippie can become a yuppie without batting an eye. Their America is one of narrow possibilities and potentials, not an America of blood and soil.

Thus, the radicalism of the sixties gave way to the American boosterism of the Reagan years. Supply-side economics made everyone a king, from the Huxtables to Family Ties. The America of Ronald Reagan represented the conservative entrenchment of the revolution begun in the sixties. It even had its own “shining city on a hill” speech.

We arrive in an America forged on the cliffs or Normandy, where it once was Plymouth Rock, and declaring its own independence and purpose in ordaining that “all men are created equal” (with the only dispute within that catechism as to what it is true equality actually means).

That most boomer of presidents Bill Clinton captured this spirit when he spoke about the coming racial transformation of America and said:

“We should be honored that America, whether it’s called the City on a Hill, or the Old Gold Mountain, or El Norte, is still seen around the world as the land of new beginnings…America is not so much a place as a promise, not a guarantee but a chance, not a particular race but an embrace of our common humanity”

This would become the new American dream of boomer America. An America where everyone could be another unique brick in the wall. An America that didn’t see any colors but red, white, and blue. It was an America that was built through orgiastic dreaming and even some good impulses, but it was a fantasy America that never existed.

America was birthed anew, and today we are living in it.

Obama’s America

Pat Buchanan tried to build a new coalition around “America First” throughout the 1990s. It was largely a failure, but succeeded in questioning the contours of the new America in both foreign and domestic policy. His most lasting testament however might be that he elucidated the divide in America more clearly than anyone else in his famous “Culture War” speech of the 1992 GOP national convention.

He intoned:

”My friends, this election is about more than who gets what. It is about who we are. It is about what we believe, and what we stand for as Americans. There is a religious war going on in this country. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we shall be as was the Cold War itself, for this war is for the soul of America.”

Buchanan was largely correct that America was now engaged in its own internal cold war. What was missing, however, was the fact that not only was there a grand cultural replacement going on, but also a demographic one. America was losing its historic, meaning White, character. The events of the following decade would only make this clearer.

On September 11, 2001, the certainties of this new America came shattering down in downtown Manhattan. The ‘end of history’ turned out to merely be its prelude. The attack by Islamic extremists on what was then the pax Americana sent shockwaves throughout the system with many trying to justify the horror that had just been broadcast to millions of people.

People were lectured about how our enemies hate us “for our freedoms” and a variety of the other various nostrums of the day. Many believe in this, because, having grown up with tales of America’s inexorable march towards the current year, no one could hate us for what we do. There was a right and a wrong, a Japan and a Pearl Harbor, a Bull Connor and a Martin Luther King Jr: and we had a “decider” as president.

It didn’t take long for America’s response to go south. Soon we were engaged in a war in Iraq, with soldiers largely coming from the rural south, America at home meanwhile was engaged in an orgiastic economic boom of “home ownership” whose hollowness would be laid bare.

But when many of those same men returned home, it was to empty homes. Most of them were foreclosed on in one of the largest economic downturns since the Great Depression. America, drunk on a mix of the prosperity gospel and anti-discrimination laws, at last found itself at a bust.

The “conservative” movement of this time was a largely moribund husk which mixed snake-oil evangelical outreach along with “MLK Was a Republican” style argumentation. In fact, it was argued that by their very existence Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice had shown that the color-blind society of boomer conservatives was not only real, but in practice.

The Bush years however, only managed to accelerate major trends in America. Its indifference to immigration and obsession with policy minutiae just moved the age of Barack Obama closer.

Obama’s eventual triumph in the 2008 election was the culmination of the America that was given birth in the sixties. The multicultural smart set finally had everything they ever wanted in a president. To quote the first lady “first the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country.”

Obama was also perhaps the first presidential candidate of the left to articulate the internal cold war going on in America. At a campaign stop in Pennsylvania he decried rural mostly White Americans who “cling to their guns and bibles.” Cultural agitprop is largely used as a proxy for speaking in demographic terms. That’s the truce in our cold war: race is the identity that dare not speak its name, lest we have blood on the streets.

Whose America?

Today, writing from Trump’s America one assumes that today Michelle Obama couldn’t be sadder. Trump’s campaign revived the phrase “America First” in a way that Pat Buchanan’s just couldn’t do. However, what remains is the question of what “America” it is that Donald Trump wants to put first.

Usually the phrase is interpreted by those on the right as having to do with the American “heartland” and the rural people there who “cling to their guns and their bibles.” But this is begging the question, who are these people?

They are mostly White, older Americans who have felt deeply betrayed by the way their country has been run. In turn the inhabitants of the other America largely see this group as Kulaks to be liquidated on the march to progress.

For conservatives, the question “who are we?” is an unsettling one, because they’ve bought into an America not based on a people, but on “principles.” Unless it comes to grips with the fact that America was founded and largely defined by White men, the country it puts first will always be one born of the left.

For them, they must answer the question: whose America first? And they must answer before it’s too late.

No Comments on Whose America First?

The Alt Right: The American Resistance

The United States is a sick place. In 1958, famous poet Ezra Pound once noted that “America is an insane asylum,” and those words seem truer today than they did back then. Many Americans feel that the United States is in decline. Our culture has become too hedonistic, too materialistic, too degenerate, too apathetic and too nihilistic.

The United States is a sick place. In 1958, famous poet Ezra Pound once noted that “America is an insane asylum,” and those words seem truer today than they did back then. Many Americans feel that the United States is in decline. Our culture has become too hedonistic, too materialistic, too degenerate, too apathetic and too nihilistic.

Massive demographic changes are taking place that will permanently alter the fabric of society. Both men and women are fallen to a large degree from masculine and feminine ideals. Political Correctness has run amok and imposed a set of soft totalitarian speech codes upon our discourse. Our elites appear to be openly hostile to us.

Our media, which no one trusts anymore, is controlled by a therapeutic managerial state which seeks to modify our behaviors and thoughts through propaganda. If you have a problem with any of this then you are some type of thought criminal who needs to fired from your job, exiled from polite society, or sent off to be re-educated in the values of ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity.’ If you are said thought criminal, then welcome to the resistance.

Finally, it seems that the winds are blowing in a new direction. We have identified the demon that is destroying our nation: globalism. Donald Trump built his entire presidential run on opposing globalism in favor of what he calls ‘Americanism’ – a type of civic nationalism.

This is a positive shift but it is not quite enough.

What is it about globalism that makes it so terrible? Sure, the off-shoring and outsourcing of labor overseas creates unfriendly economic conditions at home for some American workers. That is not the most damaging effect of globalism though. The most damaging effect of globalism is the free movement of labor across borders – that is to say immigration, mass Third World immigration. Importation of different ethno-cultural groups is damaging to our culture and our way of life. It deracinates and degenerates the traditional American nation – that is to say White people, people of European ancestry.

This has become more than just immigration with failure to assimilate – this is an invasion. Multiculturalism is just colonialism in reverse. We are being colonized. We are being replaced.

“But America is a nation of immigrants!” you hear our critics screech. America has been throughout most of its history a White nation. Sure, there were various ethnicities that came to the US: the English, the Irish, the Germans, the Italians, etc. Sure, there were many different religious denominations that came as well. These various Europeans all assimilated to an Anglo-Saxon culture.

The traditional American nation that existed up until 1965 was a White nation. Sure, there were a handful of other groups like Blacks or Native Americans that constituted about 10% of the population. It is important to note that even after having shared this continent with other races for centuries there has still not been any assimilation of these groups – only a desire to be separate from us.

People of European ancestry have come to define what it means to be an American. White Americans are the de facto American whereas all other racial groups are some type of hyphenated American. By replacing the traditional American nation, you replace America. It becomes something entirely different. It will never be the same either.

This is why Trump’s civic nationalism is not enough because it ultimately does not solve the most damning aspect of globalism. If anyone can be an American simply by filling out their paperwork properly then being an American is entirely meaningless. Even in Trump’s America, we will still find ourselves culturally and racially alienated from our own countrymen. We will still find ourselves living in an America which is changing for the worse.

Don’t get me wrong, I do admire Donald Trump. I admire him for clearing the way for our movement. He has given us a chance to breakthrough and try and save the traditional American nation.

The Alt Right is the sole authentic resistance movement of our time. Do not be fooled by other so-called revolutionary or populist movements as they only offer you false hope. As mentioned previously, the Trumpian ‘New Right’ of civic nationalism is simply inadequate along with the other names it is known by – Western chauvinism, cultural libertarianism, or the ‘alt lite‘. The Bernie Sanders movement was a promising populist movement on the political left that we saw in 2016. Sadly, their movement is entirely compatible with the design of the managerial state. In many ways, their populist demands will only increase the size and power of the managerial state as they demand more social programs while grumbling about the corporate greed of the 1%. Not to mention that their “anti-racist” rhetoric is entirely aligned with the multiculturalist agenda of the managerial state. Civic nationalism and left-wing populism offer phony opposition to the system.

If you really want to challenge the status quo and speak truth to power then join the Alt Right. The Alt Right seeks to wage all-out metapolitical warfare against all enemies of the traditional American nation. We are identitarians and this is our concern. We seek to preserve and foster White identity – both here at home and globally around the world to all of our European brothers and sisters no matter where they may be.

Considering that the USA is the breeding grounds for globalism and has cultural hegemony that reaches every inch of this planet, we American identitarians find ourselves in the heart of Mordor. Our success here will very likely determine the future of all European people around the globe who find themselves in a very similar boat of being replaced in their own homelands by Third Worlders. Our movement is a global effort in alliance with European identitarians of all stripes. We must unite to destroy the great evil that is destroying our peoples.

We will halt the Third World invasion. We will reverse its colonialism. We will destroy the ideology of globalism. We will fight. We will win. We have no other option.

No Comments on The Alt Right: The American Resistance

Safety Pin Resistance

Ah, the late 90s. Rosie O’Donnell was “the queen of nice.” Ellen Degeneres was controversial, rather than the comforting television friend of housewives who want to watch Hillary Clinton awkwardly dancing to hip-hop. And Keith Olbermann was the guy from the Boston Market commercials, making fun of self-important, fashion-conscious poseurs by telling them to “eat something!”

Ah, the late 90s. Rosie O’Donnell was “the queen of nice.” Ellen Degeneres was controversial, rather than the comforting television friend of housewives who want to watch Hillary Clinton awkwardly dancing to hip-hop. And Keith Olbermann was the guy from the Boston Market commercials, making fun of self-important, fashion-conscious poseurs by telling them to “eat something!”

Now, the failed sportscaster who used to rhapsodize about the joys of “four ooey-gooey cheeses” has proclaimed himself the head of “The Resistance,” striking what is presumably meant to be a defiant pose wrapped in an American flag. Unfortunately, he looks more like a homeless man covering himself while he self-abuses and leers at passersby.

His facial expression is also hard to interpret. He’s vaguely angry but also ironically smirking, as if he knows he’s self-consciously posing as something he’s not. His shade from the 90s would doubtless bring him some mac n’ cheese so this troubled soul can “eat something!” and experience some succor.

Olbermann, who can boast of being replaced on Current TV by Eliot Spitzer, was given an Internet show by GQ. GQ also features the semi-literate screeching of Lindy West, the unearthly monstrosity whose presence on this planet, let alone at a men’s magazine, suggests a grotesque mockery of existence itself. After all, what sophisticated, masculine gentleman can’t conquer the boardrooms and boudoirs of America without having his worldview shaped by Olbermann and West?

Initially called “The Closer,” Olbermann renamed the show “The Resistance” after The Fall of Hillary. He stares angrily at the camera and gives what he imagines are revolutionary manifestos. The logo for the show also features the safety pin – or diaper pin – liberals have adopted as their logo. Thus, it’s a “resistance” movement, which won’t accept the rule of Trump, but it’s also a movement designed to make you feel safe and good and not make you do anything. For example, his big idea to delegitimize the Trump regime is the womanish, passive-aggressive tactic of not calling him president.

Yet this Kabuki theater is still interesting for what it tells about the Left today. And this kind of rhetoric has consequences even for the faux resistance fighters of Generation Tumblr.

Consider an unhinged performance where Olbermann grandly proclaims the Russians have performed a bloodless coup, “so far.” Thus, America is no longer a sovereign nation or a free people. (Of course, that part is true, but it has nothing to do with Russians.)

Olbermann casually tosses around words like “traitorous” and makes ludicrous comparisons to “Pearl Harbor.” Eventually, this ridiculous hysteric in an ill-fitting suit, who can’t even drive a car because of an “equilibrium problem,” urges “desperate measures” be taken. Otherwise, power will fall into the hands of “scum!”

Or as he puts it, “Russian scum!”

Assuming arguendo Olbermann still has what can be called a career, consider how quickly it would end if he applied this descriptor to a different nationality.

The government of Mexico quite openly meddles in American affairs through a vast consular network, encourages its nationals to become American citizens to defend Mexican interests, and proudly
proclaimed its determination to interfere in the recent election. Can we denounce “Mexican scum?” After all, we don’t have to look very hard to find actual evidence of their attacks on American sovereignty. And it’s a lot easier to show Mexico, rather than Russia, has designs on American sovereignty and territory.

What about “Arab scum” or “Muslim scum,” like the Saudi royals who have close ties with American officials, routinely violate Western laws, and purchase influence in American media organizations?

Or “Israeli” or “Jewish scum?” The Israeli government isn’t exactly shy about its espionage activities, nor about its close relationships to American politicians and pressure groups.

Nothing like this would ever happen. Only a White nation can be casually denounced as “scum” and an entire people dehumanized in the most extreme terms. And we don’t even need to address the absurdity of self-styled citizens of the world suddenly caring about concepts such as national independence or sovereignty.

“If we did it to another country, it would be described as an act of war!” continued Olbermann. Well, much of the history of Eastern Europe and the Middle East since the end of the Cold War has been precisely that, including many of the stupid color-coded revolutions designed to break down resistance to the Borg of international finance. If there is in fact a war, it’s one the United States, or, rather, those who control American foreign policy, deliberately started.

Indeed, the dominant theme of Vladimir Putin’s domestic and foreign policy is the desire to counter the State Department/Soros playbook of regime change. Banning NGO’s dependent on foreign money, organizing youth groups designed to co-opt opposition, and funding ‘independent’ groups such as the Night Wolves MC, which can be counted on as loyal auxiliaries, are all part of this effort. Both Assad and Putin are defending their legitimate governments from subversive movements funded by the United States. Considering the gruesome fate of Gaddafi, can anyone blame them?

But leave aside the ridiculous spectacle of Keith Olbermann, of all people, LARPing for a redux of Red Dawn. He clearly wants to bring the war home. Kellyanne Conway is a “fascist.” Trump has “no authority.” Republicans are “traitors.”

Ok… therefore, what? Do you start shooting people? Announce the dissolution of the Union? California is practically already in a state of rebellion when it comes to immigration laws. Olbermann supposedly once dated Trump supporter Laura Ingraham. Should he attack his ex-girlfriend? The punishment for treason is pretty clear, after all.

Absurd scenarios all. Olbermann is a poseur as surely as the fashion models he used to mock in his sandwich salesman days. But it’s likely someone will act on this rhetoric. People are already being murdered because of incitement about “white privilege” and Black Lives Matter.

And nothing he says is “extreme.” Years ago, Olbermann was a target for parody even by the likes of Jon Stewart or Saturday Night Live. But today, there’s nothing he says which is any different from what comes out of The New York Times, or Slate, or the Democratic Party.

If Donald Trump had lost the election and refused to accept the result, he could not be doing more to undermine American institutions than the mainstream Left is today. Conservatives are cheap dates. All Hillary would have had to say is “let’s work together” and the Beltway Right would have caved entirely. Even if Trump had openly said not to accept Hillary as President, no other Republicans or mainstream conservative media outlets would have joined him.

But leftists, with the vast institutional advantages they enjoy in huge foundations, organizations like the National Lawyers Guild providing support, and the mainstream media providing air cover and protecting activists from negative PR, are always ready to kick off street action. Already, we see the borderline gleeful reaction from Antifa and Far-Left groups who are going to LARP that they are fighting a real “fascist” regime. And organizations on the Far-Left are growing almost as quickly as the Alt-Right.

Sadly, we don’t have a revolutionary regime in power. What we have is a civic nationalist in alliance with clueless Republicans like Paul Ryan who see the present moment as just another opportunity to screw over their supporters by slashing Medicare.

But events may overtake everyone, even the Far-Left. Memeing Trump into a “Far-Right” God-Emperor is a two way process. The likes of Olbermann and the tens of millions of other leftists who think they are going to live out Rogue One or Harry Potter are playing with forces they do not understand and starting a process they will not be able to control. Throwing around words like ‘rebellion’ and ‘fascism’ to hysterical cucked Whites and furiously hostile non-Whites is asking for an explosion.

As long as the Trump Administration doesn’t completely cave on immigration policies (unlikely if Jeff Sessions gets in), there will be at least some confrontations between federal forces and emboldened leftists or angry minorities. What happens when someone takes a shot at DHS officers arresting deportees? When we see a new outbreak of terrorism after President Trump approves more pipelines? When Attorney General Sessions drops the hammer on the next Ferguson riot?

Ultimately, even the most extreme leftist Antifa is dependent on the normal suburban Whites they hate accepting the moral frame created by mainstream media gaslighting. In theory, philosophical conservatism admits the flawed nature of man, that he must be governed. In practice, nice, normal, conservative goofballs want to believe everyone is basically good and that all “Americans,” whatever their race, are all in this together. The best thing which can happen is for Normie America to be forced to witness how this is simply not true.

During the primaries, we saw how every protest led to increased support for Trump with Republicans rallying to the “strong man” when there is chaos in the streets. And unlike George W. Bush, Trump fires back at his opponents, rather than apologizing. We’ve already got supposedly mainstream figures appearing at events organized by the Revolutionary Communist Party and being livestreamed by the Huffington Post. The stage is all set for the Left to kick off the revolution for us. And on our side, we at least have the beginnings of a movement which won’t cuck and run.

The first test is weeks away. If the Inauguration is a peaceful celebration, Trump is legitimate and “normalized.” If it turns into a melee, the ride is just getting started.

SJW’s always project. We’re always told about how conservatism and nationalism is built on “paranoia” and “fear” by the same people currently screeching Literally Hitler will be President of the United States. When their entire political movement is built upon whipping up hysteria, eventually someone is going to take it seriously. Feeding these lunatics revolutionary fantasies is dangerous.

Of course, I doubt Keith Olbermann and those like him actually want to start a “rebellion.” I question even the most “militant” leftists of today. These subsidized puffballs wouldn’t last five minutes, and at some level they know it. But there’s now a significant chance their more excitable followers are going to start taking certain actions they won’t be able to retract. And once something like this is set in motion, it only ends one way.

At the end of each of Olbermann’s segments, he declares: “Resist! Peace.” Well, which is it? We’ll soon find out.

No Comments on Safety Pin Resistance

Ghosts of Christmas Past

Christmas is certainly being de-Christianized, the result not only of snooty liberals but the gradual waning of faith across the population as a whole. What remains, through, are the  Germanic, Latin, and Slavic customs and rituals of Yuletide.  These might seem vulgar, hallow shells of themselves (Christmas *kitsch*), but they are distinctly European and distinctly ours. And they are a starting point for becoming who we are.   

There is a pair of clichés about the Christmas season that carries more significance than we might think: “Christmas is for children,” we say, and “Christmas makes me feel like a kid again.

The first saying refers to a certain innocence we envy in the children around us, who seem to really believe in Santa, magic, and the world of fairies, and who instinctively love Christmas. For us, Christmas has become both expensive and cheap: the over-planned parties and schedules . . . the chore of buying gifts that will be quickly forgotten, disposed of, or re-gifted . . . the trudging through horrible, muzak-filled malls . . .

“Becoming a kid again,” at least for a time, is our redemption.

And it’s a very real feeling. Entering the world of adults is entering a world that is incessantly moving forward. Our lives are defined by projects, goals, accomplishments, deadlines, etc. Christmas, on the other hand, is an Eternal Return, a natural cycle that gives us a respite from linear thinking and planning.

We experience this Return not only through the season itself (when the nights become long and cold) but also through ritual. Ritual is something modern people, even devout Christians, are too quick to dismiss. Ritual is, we think, a dispensable, even embarrassing remnant of something irrational from long ago. But ritual is, among other things, a way we can physically experience being-in-the-world and our own past. We remember through our bodies and senses, which are intertwined with mental processes. When we visit our old high school, for instance, and whiff a certain smell to the grass: the entire experience is immediately recalled: the high and low, triumphs and failures, the friendships and fears. Every Christmas, we do the same things over and over: drink the same drinks, hang the same decorations, hear the same music. In reenactment, we are transported back to a series of moments earlier in our lives. We become “kids again.”

These memory-experiences are mostly postcard flashes. Every Christmas Eve, for instance, as I glance at lights on the tree and the too-dark sky, I re-live waiting, greedily, for Santa. Another flash, which is still quite vivid, comes from age seven or eight, as I lay in bed feeling real guilt and inner turmoil over wanting to believe in Santa Claus but no longer being able. Smelling hot-spiced wine, “Glühwein,” I’m reminded of wandering the streets of Vienna in December as a young man in my early 20s, hearing the sounds of the Christmas market in the distance . . . observing it, while not being a part of it . . . and not having a clue what to do with my life.

“Bob’s eggnog recipe” or your favorite “Christmas sweater” might seem like recurring jokes. But in their ways, they fulfill the function of grand ritual. And this aspect of Christmas holds not only for our personal lives but for our people and civilization as well. We have become so accustomed to Christmas rituals—and so accustomed to them in the form of kitsch—that we forget how deep they take us into our race’s history . . . far deeper than what the holiday is said to celebrate. For the rituals through which we understand ourselves are fundamentally Pagan in both essence and form.

The Conversion

In his famous book The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity, James Russell wrote of a “double conversion” that occurred when the early Church began spreading beyond the Mediterranean and Near East and sought to bring “the Germans” (i.e., the northern European tribes) into the Christian fold. At the time, these Europeans practiced what is now referred to as Germanic Paganism, a constellation of myths, gods, and symbols that was, at once, centered on the tribe and family and also shared by White men across the continent. Europeans did, eventually, profess Christianity, but the real “conversion” was that of Christianity itself, which both accommodated Europeans folkways and began to be articulated by them.

This process occurred on various cultural levels, from the Europeanized image and conception of Christ to notions of Right and sovereignty. The mix of Germanic, Scandinavian, and Roman customs that define Christmas as we know it is a metaphor of this history. For Christmas remains the most radically Pagan of all holidays, if we have the eyes to see it.

This begins with the day itself. Nowhere in the Bible does December 25 appear as the birth date of Jesus Christ. (If the shepherds were attending their flocks by night (Luke 2:8), then Jesus would have been born in Spring.) December 25 was, however, well known as the birthday of Sol Invictus, the sun god who was patronized by later Roman emperors, including Constantine. The 25th was Dies Natalis Solis Invicti—“Birthday of the Unconquered Sun,” when, after the Winter Solstice, the arc of the Sun across the sky begins to rise again. The famous literary pun of “Son” and “Sun,” which works across Germanic languages, was a real experience of our ancestors. For after passing through the darkness of the Solstice, the Son also rises.

Thinking in the way, the meanings of things we take for granted unlock themselves before our eyes: the evergreen (the endless life cycle) . . . the Yule log (festival of fire) . . . kissing under the Mistletoe (the sacred plant of Frigg, goddess of love, fertility, and the household) . . . and, of course, Santa. “St. Nick” is only remotely related to Saint Nicholas, a Church father at the Council of Nicaea whose feast day falls on December sixth. The character of Santa is much more a conflation of various Germanic gods and personages. One of these, as evidenced by Santa’s descent into the fiery chimney, is the smithy god Hephaistos or Vulcan. (In other words, “The Church Lady,” and many puritans before her, was right to fear that Santa has an etymological connection to S-a-t-a-n.) Most important of all is the chief god, Odin or Wotan, who stares out at us from behind Santa’s many historical masks—from Father Frost (Ded Moroz), the Slavic god accepted by Russian Communists, to the jolly fat man promoted by Coca Cola. Odin is the Wanderer from the North, a god of war, but one who delivers gifts to children during Yuletide. Odin commands Sleipnir, the horse with eight legs, who, in his translation to contemporary myth, became the eight reindeer: Dasher! now, Dancer! now, Prancer and Vixen! On, Comet! on Cupid! on, Donder and Blitzen!

The War on What?

A few years back, Megyn Kelly, then a FOX News host, was roundly ridiculed and condemned after she declared on national television that “Santa just is White” (along with Jesus). She affirmed this in response to an African-American blogger who argued for more multiracial depictions of Santa, or for him to be racially neutralized as a friendly Penguin. Santa, as we can know, is White, but in ways that Kelly is unable to understand.

The amusing “White Santa” controversy of 2013 was a variation on a theme. Between Thanksgiving and New Years, FOX’s programming is packed with tales of the “War on Christmas,” with reports of “Gingerbread Persons,” insufficiently festive Starbucks travel cups, and cold-hearted atheists. These are denounced by conservative Republicans and nationalists, who seem to define their identity against an ever-growing list of PC atrocities.

Like so many other “conservative” causes, the so-called War on Christmas masks much more than it reveals. To begin with, focusing on “secularization,” exemplified by the dreaded “Happy Holidays” greetings, is convenient for Americans who want to ignore the ways Christmas rituals are being hallowed by consumerism. Apparently, maxing out your credit card on useless junk is fine, so long as the checkout girl says “Merry Christmas” and the indoor mall features a nativity scene.

Those who lament the “war on Christmas” rarely pinpoint what exactly is being warred upon. Undoubtedly, there is an elite in the United States and Europe that has contempt for Christian belief. But this effort has not led to any decline in public festivals and holiday merrymaking. The Bolshevik or Puritanical dream of literally “banning Christmas” in favor of grey-on-grey efficiency or “pure” (that is, de-Paganized) Christianity failed miserably, and has very advocates. In my lifetime, the Christmas season has grown noticeably longer and public and private festivals, more elaborate and intense. To be sure, much of this has to do with the fact that America’s post-industrial, consumer-driven economy depends on end-of-the-year gorging. But I also sense that something bigger is taking place—that in a multicultural, fragmenting society, Christmas, alongside football and super-hero movies, is one of the precious few collective rituals shared by all of us.

Glimpsing The Gods

Christmas is being de-Christianized, the result not only of snooty liberals but of the gradual waning of faith across the population as a whole. What remain, though, are the Germanic, Latin, and Slavic customs and rituals of Yuletide. These might seem vulgar, hallow shells of themselves—Christmas kitsch—but they are distinctly European and distinctly ours. And they are a starting point for becoming, again, who we are.

In the small ski town in which I spend the holiday, every Christmas Eve, everyone goes to the base of the mountain and watches skiers descend the slopes holding flaming torches; the procession creates a magnificent display of lights. At the end comes Santa, illuminated like a god.

As I mentioned, one of my stranger Christmas memories is of struggling with my failing faith in Santa, as if in disbelieving in him, I would betray my parents and family and the whole joyous season. But what is belief, really? When we honor Santa by speaking of his coming, when we leave him offerings of cookies and milk, when we adore his icons, we effectively believe again in the gods. When we celebrate Christmas in its fullness, we become—in our limited and maybe goofy ways—Pagans again.

For the time being, though, we know not what we do.

Read also:

1 Comment on Ghosts of Christmas Past

“Cultural Enrichment” and Sexual Competition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No Comments on “Cultural Enrichment” and Sexual Competition

The Myth of the Right Wing Extremist

The Anglosphere stands transfixed by an elusive bogeyman: ‘right-wing extremism.’ And more than any other nation at the present time, the United Kingdom seems to be in the grip of a media-engineered moral panic bordering on paranoid hysteria. This same country, it should be recalled, banned Richard Spencer in June because he had the temerity to advocate for the founding of a White nation on lines similar to those of the State of Israel. Spencer also dared to suggest an ideal of racial self-improvement. In the view of the British Home Office, then under the authority of Theresa May (now Prime Minister), if Spencer continued making such suggestions on British soil it would not be “conducive to the public good.” Furthermore, and without any self-awareness of its own hyperbolic unreason, the same department claimed that Spencer’s positions amounted to the “fomenting” of “serious criminal acts,” “terrorist acts,” and “inter-community violence in the UK.” Spencer, according to this narrative, is an ‘extremist.’

Editor’s Note: This essay first appeared at the Occidental Observer here.

Neither man nor angel can discern
Hypocrisy, the only evil that walks
Invisible

John Milton, Paradise Lost

The Anglosphere stands transfixed by an elusive bogeyman: ‘right wing extremism.’ And more than any other nation at the present time, the United Kingdom seems to be in the grip of a media-engineered social panic bordering on paranoid hysteria. This same country, it should be recalled, banned Richard Spencer in June because he had the temerity to advocate for the founding of a White nation on lines similar to those of the State of Israel. Spencer also dared to suggest an ideal of racial self-improvement. In the view of the British Home Office, then under the authority of Theresa May (now Prime Minister), if Spencer continued making such suggestions on British soil it would not be “conducive to the public good.” Furthermore, and without any self-awareness of its own hyperbolic unreason, the same department claimed that Spencer’s positions amounted to the “fomenting” of “serious criminal acts,” “terrorist acts,” and “inter-community violence in the UK.” Spencer, according to this narrative, is an ‘extremist.

Given such an assessment, one might expect that the aftermath of an average NPI conference would be a veritable war zone. One imagines minorities fleeing the disintegrating streets of Washington D.C., pursued by radicalized and frenzied militants in trendy three piece suits. All, presumably, against a cacophony of explosions and the distant drone of an Aryan war chant. Like many forms of madness, this strain of political dementia has its darkly humorous aspects. However, the political and cultural expressions of this socially-engineered panic are no laughing matter. In many cases, the legislative actions undertaken in such contexts are oppressive, tyrannical, and a dire threat to our most cherished freedoms. The myth of the ‘right wing extremist’ is ultimately a rather calculated tool, regularly employed with the sole aim of stifling White voices.

The myth is built on a foundation of disingenuousness and moral perversion. Ever-amplified, the myth of right wing extremism is regularly and artificially boosted by government and media, while violence arising directly from Leftist terrorists, or indirectly from Leftist pet projects such as mass immigration, prompts only silence, evasion, or logically gymnastic apologia. Even a cursory glance at the relevant statistics reveals a stunning neglect of the Leftist threat both historically and in contemporary contexts. According to a 2001 report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Energy, Leftist extremists were “responsible for three-fourths of the officially designated acts of terrorism in America in the 1980s. From an international perspective, of the 13,858 people who died between 1988 and 1998 in attacks committed by the 10 most active terrorist groups in the world, 74 percent were killed by Leftist organizations.” (Editor’s note: At the November, 2016 NPI conference it was leftist antifas who assaulted Aryan Gondola, the cameraman for Emily Youcis, while shouting “die, die, die.” Many attendees were afraid to leave the building during breaks for fear of similar assaults and with the expectation that the police would do nothing. Thorborne Richardson recounts several other assaults by leftists at this event. And at last year’s NPI conference, an attendee was also assaulted by an antifa. Despite an arrest, no charges were filed.)

Hypocrisy is rampant. While affable, and clearly non-violent, figures like Richard Spencer receive continent-wide banning orders, highly volatile groups like Black Lives Matter are indulged with fawning press coverage, and treated with kid gloves by government, academia, and law enforcement. This despite the fact that while BLM may posture as having a purely political and community-based agenda, the same can also be said of those Black Leftist groups of the 1970s that gave rise to terrorist groups like the Black Liberation Army and the Republic of New Afrika. By indulging Black agitation, feeding Leftist paranoia about ‘rigged’ elections, and stoking a panic over the ‘extreme right’ folk devil, the media-government symbiote is stirring a witch’s brew of anti-White resentment that threatens to erupt at any moment.

In just one example of what can happen when these ingredients are brought together, one might consider what happened when the Black Liberation Army (1970-1981) joined forces with Leftist terror group the ‘Weather Underground’ (1969-1985), the brainchild of Jewish radicals John Jacobs, Eleanor Raskin, Mark Rudd, David Gilbert, and Kathy Boudin. In October 1981, in the village of Nyack, NY, Boudin and several Black associates, fuelled by a joint desire for ‘class war’ and the ‘appropriation’ of White wealth, robbed an armored Brink’s truck of $1.6 million. In the process, they murdered one Brink’s guard and critically injured two others. The 2001 report commissioned by the Department of Energy further recalls that, “At a police roadblock five miles from the robbery, they killed two police officers and wounded a third.”

In order to shed light on the hypocrisy underpinning the myth of the right wing extremist, and while not excusing violence in any form or from any quarter, the aftermath of the events described above need to be placed in some kind of comparative context. In particular, it should be noted that even this single act alone, perpetrated by the alliance known as the May 19th Communist Organization (M19CO), exceeded in violence the entire criminal career of a group known as The Order, also active in the 1980s. The media and judicial treatment of both groups in the aftermath of their respective criminal activities is incredibly telling.

Kathy Boudin, who was heavily involved and present during the Brink’s robbery, is now an adjunct professor at Columbia University, having previously enjoyed a stint as Scheinberg Scholar-in-Residence at New York University School of Law. Mark Rudd wasn’t involved in the Brink’s robbery, but was heavily implicated in the attempted bombing of a servicemen’s ball in March 1970, a prospect that was only averted because the device exploded prematurely, killing its manufacturers – Jewish Marxist terrorists Terry Robbins and Ted Gold, along with Diana Oughton, the gentile girlfriend of Weather Underground co-founder (and now retired professor of education at the University of Illinois–Chicago) Bill Ayers. Rudd went on to be a mathematics instructor at Central New Mexico Community College and is now retired. Eleanor Raskin is now an adjunct instructor at Albany Law School, and an administrative law judge at the New York State Public Service Commission. Other notable Weather Underground figures include Naomi Jaffe, a Jewish former undergraduate student of Herbert Marcuse who participated in the infamous Flint, Michigan War Council (1969) that plotted a series of bombings and murders, including those targeting judges and congressmen. Jaffe currently lives comfortably in New York where she directs an organization devoted to women’s issues and ‘anti-racism.’

Nor should we neglect to mention the later years of the Black terrorists. An excellent example is the early Black Panther Party leader Eldridge Cleaver. Cleaver, a compulsive criminal, once advocated for the rape of White women as “an insurrectionary act,” and having followed his own advice remarked that “it delighted me that I was defying and trampling upon the white man’s law … defiling his women.” He derided what he called “white pigs,” and added “we encourage people to kill them.” Cleaver died a free man in 1998. An extremist and criminal by any definition of those terms, he was never banned from entering Europe, and even lived in Paris during the 1970s, after his vision of living in Africa ended in an ignominious departure from Algiers. Rather than being subject to serious media critique, during their heyday both Cleaver and the Black Panther Party were the darlings of liberal intellectuals. For example, the composer and conductor Leonard Bernstein is just one member of the Left-liberal cultural elite known to have held Manhattan fund-raisers for them. Posthumously Cleaver would receive fawning academic tributes, the most absurdly bucolic emerging from a Professor Richard Rose of the University of La Verne, who described Cleaver as a “gentle spirit.” One is reminded of similar sentiments recently expressed after the death of Fidel Castro, a figure who ended a speech marking the 40th anniversary of the Cuban Revolution with the words: “Socialism or death!”

Perhaps more important than the benign fates of these anti-White Leftist terrorists is the fact that their legacy has been one of rose-tinted recollection, white-washing, and ideological triumph. These terrorists produced a political theory that sought to pose every one of their criminal acts as an ‘anti-imperialist,’ ‘anti-racist’ struggle; and they were the first to articulate the formulation of White guilt-inducement known as ‘White privilege.’ Their comfort in middle age and beyond reflects the victory of the ideas they conceived in their youth; ideas that led to the theft of millions of dollars, at least seven major bombings, and the deaths of innocents. Expressed in simple terms, these terrorists and their contemporaries are triumphant because they convinced society, or at least its most influential elements, to adopt their terminology, their ideology, and their moral schema. Expressed in more complex terms, we might refer to the teachings of Naomi Jaffe’s mentor, Herbert Marcuse, who wrote that:

Once a specific morality is firmly established as a norm of social behavior, it is not only introjected – it also operates as a norm of ‘organic’ behaviour; the organism receives and reacts to certain stimuli and ‘ignores’ and repels others in accord with the introjected morality.(1)

The meagre judicial treatment of these terrorist figures, and their comfortable later lives, are thus both a sign and a symptom of the corruption of social morals and norms. The moral norms that currently prevail preclude a rational response to ‘stimuli’ like Leftist terrorism.

In the context of a society given over to a corrupted mentality, one would expect responses to vary not according to scale of violence and the extent of threat, but according to disturbances to the introjected moral schema. Rationality is dispensed with. In such a society, extremely violent Islamic terror can evoke less intense responses than threats from and toward abstract protagonists. We are all familiar with the side-stepping of Muslim bombings and beheadings in favor of public handwringing over ‘shared values’ and the putative need to guard against ‘hate.’ Note how the debate is lifted from emergency rooms and placed in the philosopher’s chair. Equipped with this understanding, we should not feel any sense of surprise that the fates of the ‘Weathermen’ contrast sharply with those of The Order, a smaller, less lethal, and less influential group whose members were afforded quite different treatment by the media, government and judiciary.

By espousing an ideology with White identity at its core, as opposed to the anti-White ideology of M19CO, The Order was in direct conflict not only with the law but also with the prevailing moral schema. Its fate would reflect that. The group’s leader, Robert Mathews, was surrounded by the FBI in December 1984. A decision was taken to fire incendiary rounds into the home in which Mathews had barricaded himself, resulting in him being burned alive. Of the remaining members, David Lane was sentenced to 190 consecutive years in prison, his main crime being that he denied the civil rights of Alan Berg, a Jewish talk show host. Lane was subjected to long periods of solitary confinement before dying in prison in 2007. Bruce Pierce was handed a similar fate, having been sentenced to 252 years on the same charges, dying in prison in 2010. Richard Scutari was given a 60 year prison sentence in 1986 and remains incarcerated. On a cultural level, matters are much the same. David Lane’s ‘Fourteen Words,’ impelling the survival of Whites and their progeny, are unable to be articulated in public. In stark contrast, the ‘White Privilege’ meme, concocted by the Weathermen, Black radicals, and their New Left associates, saturates every aspect of contemporary culture and politics.

To be clear, the argument presented here is not that the right wing extremist is entirely mythic or fictional because figures committing crime in the name of White identity have never existed. They have existed, but the facts tell us that they are both extremely rare and often very much disengaged from the heart of the movement. Despite recurrent breathless claims, such as Kurt Eichenwald’s Newsweek article claiming that right-wing extremists are more dangerous than ISIS, the reality is far different. FBI agent Michael German, who spent years undercover with White identity groups, and is certainly no friend of our ideas, has remarked that “There are millions of racists in the United States. There are hundreds of thousands of people who are with organized white supremacist groups. Very few actually commit acts of violence.” The argument presented here is rather that the ‘myth’ of the right wing extremist is always greater than the sum of his parts, whereas the Leftist extremist is always somehow less than the sum of his. Furthermore, because it is moral infraction more than violent threat that lies at its heart, the myth of the right wing extremist envelopes even the most non-belligerent advocate of contrarian ideologies. The violent Leftist, the anarchist, the Black ‘liberationist,’ on the other hand, is forever a ‘gentle spirit.’

Disinformation is crucial to the maintenance of the myth. The Southern Poverty Law Center is one of the world’s leading producers of propaganda in this regard, primarily through its Intelligence Report and Year in Hate and Extremism. In the words of Alexander Cockburn, SPLC President Morris Dees “has raised an endowment of close to $100 million, with which he’s done little, by frightening elderly liberals that the heirs of Adolf Hitler are about to march down Main Street, lynching blacks and putting Jews into ovens. The fund raising of Dees and the richly rewarded efforts of terror mongers like Leonard Zeskind offer a dreadfully distorted view of American political realities.” Such distortion is a defining feature of the myth of the right wing extremist. Faced with increasing violence from immigrants and ethnic minorities, interested parties in government, the media, and academia have been forced to heighten the level of distortion still further, in order to maintain the pretense that a greater threat emanates from the Right.

In recent weeks, Spencer-free Britain has had its introjected morality triggered continually by wave upon wave of engineered ‘news.’ The Guardian, a bastion of Left-liberal smugness, has been at the forefront in provoking a falsehood-fuelled social panic about the Right. In late November it led with a piece claiming that “a top counter-terrorism officer has said police fear the threat of far-right violence is growing and poses a similar danger to communities as other forms of extremism.” In actual fact, the officer in question responded to loaded questions in the wake of the death of murdered MP Jo Cox with only cautious and non-committal statements on the Right, and stated that “currently just under 10% of all Prevent [a government ‘anti-extremism’ education program] referrals relate to the extreme right wing.” It is understood that these involved teenagers engaging in stickering and handing out pamphlets. Far from posing a “similar danger to communities as other forms of extremism,” the officer further elaborated that “the overriding threat remains from Daesh-inspired groups,” that is to say, groups derived predominantly from the Guardian’s much-cherished immigrant populations.

Faced with a White identity movement that remains, frustratingly for its opponents, law-abiding and peaceful, we can expect an elaboration on existing tactics. The meaning and definition of words like ‘terrorism’ and ‘extremism’ will themselves be expanded to encompass non-violent entities and individuals in an effort to drag them into hastily constructed spheres of illegality and, thus, deeper social opprobrium. The banning of Richard Spencer from the UK as an ‘extremist’ is an excellent case in this regard. Another is the prison sentence given to Joshua Bonehill for harassing a Jewish MP on social media.

The phenomena outlined above should be sufficient for us to dispense with any lingering hopes that the political and cultural contest we are engaged in is governed by ‘fairness.’ In this Great Game, the rules are constantly changing, the goal always elusive. I often feel that our victory will not be in the form of a majestic sweep to power, but will instead resemble the achievement of a victor marked by his powers of will and endurance. In this scenario, we drag ourselves over the finish line with bloodied fingertips. Despite the purity of our intentions, the merit of our cause, and the honor in our motivations, I fear that there will be sacrifices along the way. There will be more smears, more falsehoods, more libels, and more oppressions. Glory will come to he who can shoulder them and move ever forward. I opened with Milton. I’ll close with him:

Awake, Arise, or for ever be fallen


(1) Herbert Marcuse, ‘Essay on Liberation,’ 1969.

No Comments on The Myth of the Right Wing Extremist

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