Radix Journal

Radix Journal

A radical journal

Tag: Essay

Modest Proposals

With the election of Donald Trump to the presidency of the United States of America, we must all admit that we underestimated what was within the realm of possibility. If a reality-TV billionaire can take on the entire liberal-internationalist politico-media establishment campaigning on a national-populist platform, *and win*, then none but God know what else is possible.

With the election of Donald Trump to the presidency of the United States of America, we must all admit that we underestimated what was within the realm of possibility. If a reality-TV billionaire can take on the entire liberal-internationalist politico-media establishment campaigning on a national-populist platform, and win, then none but God know what else is possible.

Our people have been in steady demographic decline since the first half of the twentieth century. Our politics and culture has only further degenerated since the catastrophic Second World War. And yet, now, over the past five years or so, we have witnessed stunning cultural and political gains for nationalists across the Western world, especially in America. If the politics continue to improve at this rate, I dare say we will touch salvation well within our lifetimes.

In this spirit, I make the following modest proposals which the Trump Administration, and any other patriotic Western governments, could pursue immediately to save both Western civilization and the people who produced that civilization. These proposals are all technically feasible, even if political feasibility may require some more time. They are:

  1. The creation of a “Greater-European League” including all Western and European countries, with regular summits of leaders and affirmation of their common interests and identity as one great family of nations.
  2. Systematic support for European governments in shutting down all Third World immigration, including support for existing patriotic European governments (notably the Visegrád countries).
  3. The shunning and undermining of all Western and European governments that violate patriots’ political rights and free expression. This refers especially to the criminal Merkel regime in Germany, that has, in cold blood, adopted policies which will lead to untold rape and terrorism against European men, women, and children.
  4. The abolition of NATO and its replacement by a defensive military alliance of all Western and European nations, including North America, Europe, and Russia. Such an alliance could include the creation of a ‘European Legion’ featuring the best recruits from the entire Western and European world, as a military organization to defend our people wherever they may live.
  5. The cooperation of Western and European nations in multilateral great projects so as to promote their common interests and collective sovereignty. Such projects could include the construction of high-tech walls along the southern European border, space exploration, and genetic research. To the extent possible, Western and European nations shouldpool and leverage their cognitive resources in this manner, thus maximizing our innovative potential (something particularly necessary given that China alone has a high IQ and a larger population than the entire Western and European world).
  6. The cooperation of Western and European nations to promote European consciousness and awareness of the primacy of shared ethnic-genetic interests among all our peoples. This could be achieved through educational and student exchange programs, the promotion of patriotic film and television shows, and a common lingua franca.
  7. The creation of a vast European-American Market, from Vancouver to Vladivostok, to foster economic prosperity, collective sovereignty relative to other economic and civilizational blocs, and interdependence among our own nations to lessen the likelihood of conflict and foster a community of interests.
  8. An official objective of raising the birth rates of indigenous Europeans and the European diaspora. All European and Western governments should regularly meet to monitor progress and share best practices to reach this objective. Given the scientific reality of heredity, the intellectually and physically best members of our people, in particular, should become conscious of their duty to perpetuate their line.

Many may question whether such objectives are feasible. I will only say: they are, technically-speaking, perfectly feasible. They not instituted only because our people and political leaders do not know that they are desirable. I say, to instill moral confidence: the fact is, many of our greatest thinkers and statesmen have argued for the basic solidarity of our nations on grounds of shared blood and civilization.

Over two millennia ago, the great philosopher Plato wrote in The Republic:

Greeks are bonded to one another by internal ties of blood and kinship, but interact with non-Greeks as people who are foreign and live outside their domain. [. . .] When Greeks and non-Greeks fight, then, we’ll describe this as warfare, and claim that they are natural enemies and that the term “war” should refer to this type of hostility. But when Greeks get involved in this kind of thing with other Greeks, we’ll claim that they are natural friends, and that in a situation like this Greece is diseased and in conflict, and we’ll maintain that the term “conflict” should refer to this type of hostility.

Are we Europeans – especially in the face of Africans and Asians – no less “bonded to one another by internal ties of blood and kinship”? If twentieth century Europeans had adhered to Plato’s advice might we not have avoided fratricidal wars and civilizational suicide?

Over a thousand years after Plato, Charlemagne united Western Europeans under the Catholic faith, thus ensuring with Orthodoxy that almost all Europeans shared in Christianity. Whatever one’s opinion of that religion, one great advantage of Charlemagne’s work was in giving most of Europe the same religion and the same elite language. He invited intellectuals from across the European world into the cultural center of his project, from Peter of Pisa to Alcuin of York, getting the critical mass of brains needed for the Carolingian Renaissance. Christendom enabled the aristocracies of all European nations to intermarry, all the while maintaining a de facto racial boundary with the Semitic world.

In the modern era, interactions with Native Americans, Africans, and Asians, led to the rise of racial consciousness among Europeans, a consciousness that was only further strengthened by scientific discoveries concerning genetics and heredity. A century and a half ago, long before the catastrophic world wars, the famous French writer Victor Hugo said of Germany and France: “There is between these peoples an intimate connection, an undeniable consanguinity. They stem from the same sources; they fought together against the Romans; they are brothers in the past, brothers in the present, brothers in the future.”

Hugo saw further still however. Speaking in the French National Assembly in 1849, he foresaw not only a European federation but economic union with the American republic: “A day will come when these two immense groups, the United States of America, the United States of Europe, placed one beside the other, extending their hand across the seas, trading their products, their commerce, their industry, their arts, their geniuses.” With similar far-sightedness, Russian President Vladimir Putin has spoken of the need for “a harmonious economic community stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok.”

After the world wars, in which he had taken part in and despite the excesses of National Socialism, General Charles de Gaulle continued to assert the primacy of race as grounds for political cooperation:

For my part, I have, since always, but today more than ever, felt that which is common to the nations which inhabit [Europe]. All being of the same white race, of the same Christian origin, of the same way of life, bound between each other since always by countless relations of thought, art, science, politics, commerce, it is in line with their nature that they come to form a whole, having in the world its character and its organization.

But might not diaspora Europeans reply: Does European blood halt at mere geographical boundaries? Or does it not extend beyond the Urals, beyond the seas, spilling to all continents, the fruit of our explosive will and dynamism?

Today, President-Elect Trump – while more of an American populist than anything else – has frequently given expression to the European identity which he also shares in. He has asserted that it should be easier for Europeans to immigrate to the United States. He has professed a belief in genetics and good breeding, and shown pride in his “German blood” (“great stuff!”). He has denounced in no uncertain terms the slow death of Europe. Following an umpteenth rampage by murderous Muslims, Trump could only lament, in his inimitably unabashed and straightforward way: “France is no longer France.” The France Trump might have imagined growing up, is gone, increasingly Africanized and Islamized – leading only to the dismay one feels when a wrong you could not even conceive of is occurring. As of today, Trump’s Twitter account (that rival to the New York Times) has “liked” only 45 tweets. One of them is the following:

We have every reason to hope and to fight.

A final thought.

Despite the fratricidal butchery of the First World War, many of our forefathers retained an optimistic faith in their race and civilization. In 1927, the American pilot Charles Lindbergh crossed the Atlantic by plane in a single flight for the first time, causing a global sensation. Lindbergh’s spectacular feats then inspired the following futuristic vision in the Christian preacher Reverend S. Parkes Cadman:

We can be certain that what man shall accomplish in the future will dwarf anything he has done in the past. This little disk on my desk puts us in communication with half a continent. Who dare say what man will achieve by Christmas, 1977? It is permissible to speculate that five centuries hence Raphael’s Madonna will be surpassed; the theatre, God’s instrument for saving grace; the governments of the white race a federal unity resembling our own republic and free from its friction and provincialism

Can you imagine? That is how a Christian used to think! That is what the New York Times [sic!] could publish! The dream of a United States of Hyperborea! What a sight! How low we have a sunk! How he would weep if he saw the White race in 1977! Let alone 2016! How far we are from the mark! We, proud men of the West, seeing ourselves steadily reduced to minority status in our own lands, unconscious of our identity, ignorant of the good, which is indistinguishable from the true and the heroic. But we are Awakening! And by that alone, there are many centuries of work ahead of us.

No Comments on Modest Proposals


Donald Trump is President-elect, but the Crisis of Legitimacy has arrived anyway. The Washington Post and The New York Times are screeching that “the Russians” delivered Trump the presidency. One out of three Clinton voters think Trump’s win is fraudulent. The Fourth Estate is cheerleading an attempt by so-called “Hamilton electors” to launch a kind of coup to deny Trump the presidency. President Obama is even urging American soldiers to protest their new Commander-in-Chief once he takes power, though Trump doesn’t seem to have anything to worry about when it comes to his popularity among the officer corps.

Donald Trump is President-elect, but the Crisis of Legitimacy has arrived anyway. The Washington Post and The New York Times are screeching that “the Russians” delivered Trump the presidency. One out of three Clinton voters think Trump’s win is fraudulent. The Fourth Estate is cheerleading an attempt by so-called “Hamilton electors” to launch a kind of coup to deny Trump the presidency. President Obama is even urging American soldiers to protest their new Commander-in-Chief once he takes power, though Trump doesn’t seem to have anything to worry about when it comes to his popularity among the officer corps.

In Year One of the Aeon of Kek, all that is hidden will be revealed. So we know none of this kvetching about “protecting democracy” or respecting the rule of law can be taken seriously. For weeks before that fateful night in November, Trump was besieged by demands to respect the result of the election, no matter what happened. Clinton used the Left’s favorite scare term, “horrifying,” to describe Trump’s supposed reluctance to do so.

Now, that venerable constitutional order the progressives were defending only weeks ago is “the absolute worst,” though their narrative is further confused by wishful thinking about “Hamilton electors” defying Trump in supposed adherence to the Founding Father’s vision. Actually, if Alexander Hamilton did return, he’d probably be wondering why women, slaves and non-property owners are allowed to vote, why so many foreigners are being admitted, and how anyone could disagree with Trump’s America First trade policies.

Any appeal by the American Left to the traditions of the Republic, to America’s patriotic heritage, or to national sovereignty can be dismissed out of hand. For decades, we’ve heard the Constitution is racist, the Founding Fathers were genocidal slavers, and that America doesn’t show sufficient deference to foreigners, who should be allowed to vote and who should replace this country’s White majority. Such creatures are in no position to speak of what is or is not American.

One of the many glorious ironies of The Current Year is that Leftists lost because they gaslit themselves. So committed are these supposed egalitarians to snark, they interpreted any evidence Donald Trump could win the election the same way as they would a study on racial differences on IQ. They simply blocked it out of their minds, pretending it didn’t exist.

Thus, there wasn’t that sense of urgency which could have driven progressives to the polls to frustrate Trump. In Austria, where the anti-White forces had a real fear of defeat, they were able to stop a nationalist victory and so make the head of state a man who thinks his own country is shit.

Here, progressives simply assumed Clinton would win because it was preordained. As (((Lena Dunham))) aptly summarized it, the presidency was “her job.” It was “her turn.” We were “ready for Hillary.” It was time.

Trump’s victory was thus an inversion of a sacred moral order, or what passes for such among deracinated “global citizens.” When your entire self-image is built about status and signaling and the guy you’ve been mocking as “Cheeto Jesus” and “F—kface Von Clownstick” just kicked your ass in the most remarkable political victory in American history, what do you do? The answer is what we are seeing now, where any excuse and any line of attack is being used against Trump, even ones which contradict each other.

Trump has no military experience, but he’s also creating a “military government.”

Trump is part of a backlash against global capitalism, and a traitor to the free market legacy of Reagan, but he’s also a tool of international finance and corporate donors.

Trump will never build The Wall and will betray his supporters on immigration, but he will also unleash a reign of terror on immigrants fearful they will be deported.

And so on.

He’s an extreme nationalist and a tool of foreign powers. He’s a militarist and a fascist, but also someone not willing to use force abroad. He hates workers, but he’s also threatening companies into remaining in the country.
The arguments don’t matter. They are so incoherent they are not even worth listening to. All that can be understood through the chaos is the incoherent scream of hatred from the Lying Press and the Parasite Class it speaks for; a cry of loathing and fury against European-Americans, who finally made themselves heard.

Andrew O’Heir mourns Trump as America’s “First White President,” or more accurately, the first president whose racial identity took on primary importance after America had been deconstructed as a White nation.

He sneers:

So now they have Donald Trump, the avatar of white grievance and white resentment. He is the 44th white president, but the First White President to stand for whiteness as a special category, a downtrodden identity group of Dockers and Callaway golf caps and NCAA warmup jackets worn a full size too snug. Unsurprisingly, Trump seems likely to betray that demographic and hand over the keys of government to rapacious zillionaires and right-wing ideologues, like other white-centric Republican presidents before him.

We will all suffer the consequences of that. And the sad, secret meaning behind our First White President and the dawn of white identity politics is that there is no way back to the days of white certainty and white innocence. There will always have been a President Barack Obama; that Kenyan birth certificate never panned out and he will never be erased from the history books. It seems increasingly likely that Hillary Clinton will be viewed in retrospect as the true winner of a fluke election that exposed how dysfunctional our system has become. She isn’t running a child-sex ring out of a pizza parlor, and won’t be locked up or executed by Trump or anyone else.

A fluke election? Trump’s victory was far more certain and secure than that of, say, George W. Bush, who won in 2000 because of one state and a Supreme Court decision determined by one vote. Some studies suggest if recounts continued, and had been conducted in a certain way, Gore would have won.

Before that, there was Bill Clinton, who won in 1992 with only 43% of the popular vote in an election which featured the independent candidacy of Ross Perot. Jill Stein could scam another $6 million out of her donors and have as many recounts as she wants – it wouldn’t change the results.

And if Trump really is going to betray the White working class, and not pursue the policies he ran on, why is O’Heir upset? A plutocratic, anti-White agenda is exactly what we would have gotten under Hillary Clinton.

O’Heir continues:

Of all the lies Donald Trump told to get elected, perhaps the biggest and worst was something he never quite said aloud but became the primary text of his campaign: White male hegemony could be restored, and all racial and sexual doubt and anxiety erased, because on some deep level that was the natural order of things. Isn’t that a correct translation of “Make America Great Again”? But electing our First White President is a dead giveaway that none of that is possible. If the republic survives this particular white president, we may have others in the future. But we will never again have an automatic white president, an invisible white president or a white president that nobody notices is white.

This is ‘fact-checking’ at a new level, as Trump is now being accused of lying for something he never actually said. This reading seems more like projection on O’Heir’s part, rather than anything coming from Trump, his campaign, or even the Alt Right. It’s the Left which sees “the natural order of things” as multiracialism, hypocritical egalitarianism, and an explicit anti-white policy agenda. And a vast infrastructure is required to subsidize, browbeat, persecute, and incite all the necessary elements to keep this artificial system in place. The only thing “white male hegemony,” aka normal White society, would need to be restored is the boot taken off it’s neck for a split second.

O’Heir has a point when he identifies Trump as a “white” president in an age when this is no longer automatic. Identity politics has, as I predicted, been forced on European-Americans. O’Heir simply believes Whites shouldn’t be allowed to practice it, and should succumb meekly to extinction.

But O’Heir gives the game away when he suggests White identity was, in the past, the default mode for American identity. If this is true, why shouldn’t European-Americans have the exclusive right to the entire American heritage? Why should explicitly anti-White writers and activists have any claim to the flag or to the Republic? To Make America Great Again isn’t some revolutionary step; it is, by the Left’s own logic, simply to Make America America Again.

The excitable cries for coups, for Obama to refuse to step down, for war with Russia or for protests in the streets are a reflection that the Left’s project to remake the country demographically has instead deconstructed it entirely. The American state isn’t a loci of identity, but simply a weapon; an arsenal to be warred over by differing tribes who happen to reside in the Hollow Empire. Trump, as a civic nationalist and The Last American, is the last chance to keep the whole project limping along. And the Left won’t even let him do that.

We should be grateful for this. The real danger for the American Right is that we will be drafted into an effort to prop up this ramshackle project. If left to its own devices, there is no doubt the Republican Party, even with Trump at the head, will make things much worse. The likes of Paul Ryan will slash programs which benefit Whites, supposedly to keep them sustainable for the Third World future. White Americans will fight and die against Russia in the name of our “fellow countrymen” like the BLM protesters of Chicago and Baltimore, and the hysterical mestizos in the foreign colony of Los Angeles. And Trump has no problem denouncing the Alt Right (albeit in a perfunctory, pro-forma way) while gushing over Blacks, Hispanics, and homosexuals as collective groups. Like the ethnic Germans in collapsing Austria-Hungary, a civic nationalism in the current context would simply lead to us being drafted in someone else’s fight.

Luckily, the hysterical Left is preparing the battlefield for us. With their refusal to accept Trump, sabotage of American institutions, and wild charges of treason, all but the most pathetic cuckservatives are being forced into a zero-sum struggle of peoples being waged on the North American continent. The main strategic objective of the Alt Right at this moment is, as Lawrence Murray brilliantly defined it, to build a nationalist “deep state” and use whatever power we can take as a weapon of “unrelenting ideological opportunism.”

After all, the Left has long since viewed the state in this way. In the Current Year, you pay taxes to support a government that makes your country less safe, your country less attractive, and your society more degraded. A progressive movement defined entirely by their hatred of European-Americans is telling us we don’t have anything in common with them; why not take them at their word?

Of course, a “deep state” is only one strategy among many. From secessionist movements to artistic subcultures, from building financial networks to self-sufficient tribes, a variety of strategies will be needed to survive what’s coming, some of which may even appear contradictory. What is clear is that Trump’s civic nationalist project is doomed before it even began, besieged from the Left by anti-White radicalism and from the supposed “Right” by Conservative Inc. functionaries devoid of racial or even national identity.

No one can predict exactly how this conflict will play out. But unless European-Americans cave entirely, the center will not hold. The System has already been stripped of legitimacy for both sides. And as Stephen Junger wrote in Tribe, “People who speak with contempt for one another will probably not remain united for long.”

No Comments on Illegitimate

Strauss and Identitarianism

Leo Strauss is an important thinker in the 20th century on the American Right, particularly the neoconservative movement. He had a very strong Jewish identity, and viewed his philosophy as a means of ensuring Jewish survival in the Diaspora. Strauss believed that liberalism was good for Jews because the illiberal alternatives on the left (Communism) and the right (Nazism) became extremely hostile towards Jews. However, Strauss believed that liberalism was not ideal because liberal societies tended to break down group loyalties and group distinctiveness – both which are essential for the survival of Jews.1 As an identitarian, I too am concerned about the preservation of my White, that is to say European, identity within a liberal society. As we have seen with liberalism, it has led to the deracination of our people through globalism, immigration, and multiculturalism. With the ascendancy of Donald J. Trump, we now find ourselves with a unique opportunity to combat the forces that ultimately aim to destroy us.

Leo Strauss is an important 20th century thinker on the American Right, particularly the neoconservative movement. He had a very strong Jewish identity, and viewed his philosophy as a means of ensuring Jewish survival in the Diaspora. Strauss believed that liberalism was good for Jews because the illiberal alternatives on the left (Communism) and the right (Nazism) became extremely hostile towards Jews. However, Strauss believed that liberalism was not ideal because liberal societies tended to break down group loyalties and group distinctiveness – both which are essential for the survival of Jews.(1) As an identitarian, I too am concerned about the preservation of my White, that is to say European, identity within a liberal society. As we have seen with liberalism, it has led to the deracination of our people through globalism, immigration, and multiculturalism. With the ascendancy of Donald J. Trump, we now find ourselves with a unique opportunity to combat the forces that ultimately aim to destroy us.

The Rise of Trump

Donald Trump’s ascendancy all the way to the White House has opened an opportunity for the alt-right movement to finally move into the world of actual politics. Firstly, Donald Trump and his brand of civic nationalism, Trumpism, has done away with conservatism, which is nothing more than a strand of liberalism. To be fair, civic nationalism is also entirely congruent with liberalism since it posits that anyone can technically become an American as long as they follow the proper channels to immigrate here legally.

However, civic nationalism is a step towards ethno-nationalism, which ceases to be liberal. Secondly, Trumpism has tapped into the heart and mind of White America and unleashed a massive wave of populism. We in the alt-right have already benefited from this wave of populism. In particular, we have grown in size and popularity over the course of the past year. Finally, not only has Trumpism ‘activated’ White America, but it has also proven itself to be a winning strategy as Trump has broken through blue state strongholds to achieve electoral victory. I propose we ride this wave of Trumpism as far as it can possibly take us. However, we must be smart about it.

Having gotten to interact with many Trump supporters over the course of the past year, particularly those in real life who are not self-proclaimed members of the alt-right, I can tell you that these people are not prepared for White Nationalism. In fact, most of them will probably never become full-blown identitarians. While the overwhelming majority of Trump supporters are White, there were a substantial number of non-Whites who came out to support Trump this past election (more than Romney for both Blacks and Hispanics in fact).

Unfortunately, and in addition, many of the Whites who do support Trump often display cucky behaviors (trans-racial adoption, miscegenation, DemsRRealRacists, etc). However, this coalition of people all rallied behind the politics of Donald Trump. This is quite spectacular because he was compared to Hitler on a daily basis, accused him of having ties to the alt-right, and was even called a racist by members of his own party.

These Trump supporters have not deconstructed racism like we have and they will often go out of their way to signal how ‘anti-racist’ they are because they view ‘being racist’ as a very bad thing. Yet we in the alt-right find ourselves within this Trumpist coalition of decent people despite being the most deplorable of them all! It really was quite the phenomenon, seeing normal everyday American conservatives interacting with the alt-right (who had all but given up mainstream politics up until Trump). There were even instances where the lines had been blurred between the normies and the alt-right and you couldn’t tell what camp the people fell in. This is our entry point to the world of politics and exercising power.

The Alt Right and Strauss

Strauss was ultimately not a liberal. He held the belief that inequalities exist amongst people and were inevitable, and he advocated rule by an aristocratic elite who pay lip service to the masses while not actually sharing their beliefs. Given that Strauss was very concerned about Jewish survival, it is reasonable to assume that Strauss believed that this aristocracy would serve Jewish interests. I think we can all agree that it is time for an aristocracy that serves our interests.

In 1952 Strauss published Persecution and the Art of Writing where he talks about exoteric and esoteric language. External exoteric language is directed at outsiders and an internal esoteric language is directed at in-group members. Exoteric language is often expressed in the language of moral universalism to appeal to the masses. Universalist rhetoric to mask particularist causes is the hallmark of many Jewish intellectual and political movements (this should sound familiar to any of those who have read the work of Kevin MacDonald). This is where the alt-right can learn from Strauss.

The rhetoric of Trumpism is exoteric in that is morally universalistic. ‘American’ has become such a diluted nationality that it really doesn’t mean anything to be an American Nationalist, since technically anyone can become an American. This is the language that the coalition of Trump voters rallied around because it is a nationalism for all Americans. It is not explicitly White American Nationalism. As I stated earlier, your average Trump supporter is never going to become an identitarian or White Nationalist. However, they will rally behind Trumpism. They will support White Nationalist policies such as deporting illegal immigrants, building a wall, banning Muslims, and introducing a moratorium on immigration.

Strauss espoused moral universalism as a veneer for his vision of a hierarchical society where the masses were ruled by elites. I am advocating that the alt-right become the elites and philosopher kings that speak exoterically to the White American masses to mask our own particularist cause – the preservation of White Americans. Now go forth dear reader, and infiltrate the institutions. Stoke the flames of Trumpism to keep it alive, and in doing so we can ride this wave of populism to victory.

1. MacDonald, Kevin. Understanding Jewish Influence: A Study In Ethnic Activism. 2004. Washington Summit Publishers.

No Comments on Strauss and Identitarianism

Long Live the Emperor!

Editor’s Note: This is the text version of a speech recently given by National Policy Institute President and Radix editor Richard B. Spencer at NPI’s Become Who We Are 2016…

Editor’s Note: This is the text version of a speech recently given by National Policy Institute President and Radix editor Richard B. Spencer at NPI’s Become Who We Are 2016 conference

I don’t think I’m alone in thinking how surreal this all is.

Of course, those of us on the Alt Right always took President-elect Donald J. Trump and his chances seriously. Unlike everyone else, we weren’t surprised, or at least not that surprised. We knew he could win. Many of us thought all along he would win. The mainstream media, or perhaps we should refer to them in the original German—Lugenpresse—never did.

This was the year when random shitlords on Twitter, anonymous podcast hosts, and dissidents working deep within the Beltway Right proved they objectively understood politics better than the “Republican strategists” and “political consultants” snarking at us every night on MSNBC. It’s not just that they are leftists or cucks. It’s not just that many are genuinely stupid. Indeed, one wonders if those people are people at all, or instead soulless Golems, animated by some dark power to repeat whatever talking points John Oliver said the night before.

But even though we always took Trump seriously, there was still a moment of unreality – or perhaps too painfully intense reality – when the state of Pennsylvania was called for Donald Trump, the moment when we knew Kek had smiled upon us, that meme magic was real. And though these terms are used half-jokingly, they represent something truly important–the victory of will. We willed Donald Trump into office, made this dream into reality. If you will it, it is no dream, a quote I’m sure our friends at the Anti-Defamation League know well. And this is only the beginning.

After all, what does it mean, to bring your dreams into reality? Dreams are chaotic and hard to understand. They can be self-contradictory and confusing. But at some level, they represent our deepest yearning, our desire to make the impossible real. As TE Lawrence wrote, we’re aren’t the dreamers of the Night, whose dreams are mere vanity. We are the “Dreamers of the Day,” those who do not want our visions or even our fantasies to be escapes from reality. We want them to be the reality.

In a culture which offers video games, endless entertainment, drugs, alcohol, porn, sports, and a thousand other distractions to convince us of another reality, we want to cut all of that away. We demand to live in the world we imagine.

Today, there is an effort by the humiliated mainstream, those commissars who are lashing out against us and who are whipping up the mobs outside this very building, to push back against us. Despite winning the election fairly, despite winning in the face of near unanimous opposition from the mainstream media, despite destroying both the Republican and Democratic establishments, there is a concerted push to deny the new president-elect legitimacy. It’s especially amusing considering the indignant whining we heard only two weeks ago about how unconscionable it was that Donald Trump was supposedly going to refuse to accept the election results and how he was going to unleash his supporters into the streets. Really, who can take these people seriously ever again?

In the later part of the campaign, Peter Thiel, one of the few people of wealth and status who endorsed Trump, talked about America as a “normal” country, a country with a functional government not constantly at war with the rest of the world. This was the promise of Trump to many of his supporters. And yet, for the cultural Left and its propagandists in the controlled media, then main argument we here today, if you can call it an argument, is that Trump should not be “normalized.” This of course begs the question–what is normal today?

In the Current Year, late-night comedians don’t tell jokes, but give us lectures on what we should not be allowed to laugh at. Worn-out celebrities like Madonna, who have based their entire lives into transforming themselves into clumsy symbols of sexuality and materialism, claim to be offended by the “indecency” of Donald Trump. Journalists don’t fight for free speech, but lead the charge to restrict it. In the Current Year, the state wars against the nation, rather than protecting it.

What is the state of the world? What is this status quo that our “normal” President, Barack Hussein Obama, the community organizer from Chicago, is now shilling for on his last foreign tour?

Let’s look at what our government does. The bulk of the threats we face, especially the Islamic State or Muslim terrorists operating within our own societies, have been enabled by our own government. Massive armies, huge navies, terrifying weapons which could destroy the whole world over and are subsidized at ruinous cost, are actually used to further policies which make all of us less safe.

In the Europe defended by American armies, refugees who commit horrific crimes are set free, but citizens who criticize them are arrested. Meanwhile, at home, the protection of the borders, the primary–and to some libertarians, the only national security responsibility of the government–is ignored.

Indeed, Western governments go out of their way to seek out the most dysfunctional immigrants possible and relocate them at taxpayer expense. The “non-government” organizations who support this colonization effort are given huge amounts of money to make their own communities worse. Is this “normal?” Would the Founding Fathers who created those “American ideals” we hear so much about think this is ok?

Let’s look at the culture.

In the Current Year, one’s career can be ruined and life destroyed if you express anything other than admiration for a man who wants to cut off his genitals and say he’s a woman.

In the Current Year, we are told the great threat to our democracy is “fake news” – and then hear breathless accounts, backed little no evidence, that Breitbart.com is “White Nationalist.”

In the Current Year, a white who takes pride in his ancestors’ accomplishments is evil, but a white who refuses to accept guilt for his ancestors’ sins is also evil.

In the Current Year, white families work their whole lives to send their children to universities where they will be told how despicable they are.

In the Current Year, the powerful lecture the powerless about how they don’t recognize their own “privilege.”

In the Current Year, a wealthy Jewish celebrity bragging about the “end of white men” is “speaking truth to power.’

In the Current Year, if you are physically strong, you are fragile. Black is beautiful, but whiteness is toxic. Government doesn’t stop crime, but subsidizes it. “White Privilege” is real but race and sex are just constructs. And if facts are too disturbing, you can always retreat into the ‘safe space’ of box juice, teddy bears, and endless empathy where realty doesn’t matter anymore.

Today, neurotics and degenerates are presented to us as heroes. Beauty is openly denigrated as an offense against equality. And we are ruled by a government which, despite confiscating an outrageous amount of our wealth, can’t fulfill its basic responsibilities defending a people and territory.

This is a basic-bitch argument, but the pre-made signs of those leading the protests against Trump, probably some of those outside this building, come from some of the most extreme Communist groups in the country, the most murderous ideological force in history. It feels almost embarrassing to make this argument, because we know no one will take it seriously. Yet this very day breathless editorials screech that random Internet comments on websites the mainstream media don’t like mean Donald Trump shouldn’t appoint this or that person to his staff.

We need to remind ourselves of these things. None of this is natural. None of this is “normal.” This is a sick, disgusting, society, run by the corrupt, defended by hysterics, drunk on self-hatred and degeneracy. We invade the world and frantically invite entire populations who despise us. We subsidize people and institutions who make our lives worse just by the sheer fact of their existence. We run up deficits and pretend the laws of history simply don’t apply to us because of “American Exceptionalism.”

This cannot go on any longer. And it won’t.

At some level, we demand the impossible. Even those half-joking memes about Donald Trump as God-Emperor or as the progenitor of some glorious Imperium testify to the yearning for something more. Yes, we should insist on our dreams – on the conquest of space, on the development of revolutionary technology, for a humanity that is greater than we are today, for a race that travels forever on the upward path.

But at another level, what we want is something normal, something almost prosaic maybe even boring.

Why is something as simple as starting a family, owning a house, and leaving a legacy to your children seen as an almost impossible dream for so many Americans? Why must there be two incomes for a family simply to break even? Why is it impossible to build a real civic society because the whim of a federal bureaucrat or a Social Justice Warrior can impose Section 8 housing, refugee resettlement, or some other population transfer scheme deliberately designed to break apart functional white communities?

Why do institutions of higher learning turn out graduates who are personally and emotionally broken, as well as ignorant? Even those who can build something in this environment spend the money they earn to isolate themselves from all that vibrancy they feel the need to defend publicly.

It’s not just that this society makes it impossible for us collectively to accomplish great things. It’s that collectively, we can’t even accomplish small things anymore. We take for granted our culture is filth, that the mass transit won’t work, that the cities are rotted out from within, that the great art and architecture of the West has all essentially been made. We collectively know that our country’s best days are behind it.

That was the ur-myth that animated the Trump campaign. To say “Make America Great Again” is both radically pessimistic and boyishly optimistic at the same time. It is an admission America is not what it once was, that it is no longer that nation capable of achieving what it once did. Even liberals at some level know this, as they occasionally pay wistful tributes to the early 1960s America of the moon race and the middle class lifestyle, while conveniently forgetting that American society was 90% white at the time.

Yet MAGA is also forward looking. This idea that we can do this, that America can be what it was, that this idealized past can be restored. More than that, that it can reach new heights, be “greater than ever before,” as President-elect Trump put it. We’re going to win so much, we’re going to get tired of it. This is the new “normal” we are promised, an America of greatness, but also of functional communities and the possibility of a satisfying life for ordinary people.

Contrast MAGA with Marco Rubio’s “For a New American Century,” literally cribbed from the neocon think tank that planned the Iraq war. Contrast this with Hillary Clinton’s poll-tested “Stronger Together.” What does this even mean? Her coalition was made up of mutually hostile tribes, only united because of their hatred for what Peter Brimelow called the “historic American nation,” which is to say, us.

In the last week of the campaign, Trump was hosting several rallies a day, including one near here in Northern Virginia. A friend who was there told me he was several hours late but no one wanted to leave. But it became so late that small children – there were many families at these rallies – started falling asleep. Parents actually put coats on the ground to form a kind of bed for the children to sleep, and surrounded them to guard the sleeping youngsters. There was this kind of effortless high-trust environment you saw at these rallies, an entire people awakening to their own existence – and realizing not just that they exist and have an identity, but that they are strong.

Contrast that to the Hillary constituency. The black political machines and the guilt ridden liberal suburbanites who work their entire lives to move away from them. The left wing activists who think they are fighting the System by working for the federal government. The multinational CEO’s and the Latinos they’ve imported to clean their houses and cut their lawns. “Stronger together?” There are no two parts of this coalition who could even be in the same room together for any length of time.

And this contradiction goes to the heart of the Left. The Left couldn’t decide this year whether America was already great or whether it was never great. Is America some noble multiracial experiment that belongs to everyone and to no one, or is it the product of conquest and settlement by mean ol’ racist Europeans?

Is it a beacon of hope to the rest of the world or an enemy to be destroyed? Because, as the outgoing President would say, let’s be “clear” – despite these supposedly egalitarian “values,” America was, until this past generation, a White country, designed for ourselves and our posterity.

It is our creation, it is our inheritance, and it belongs to us.

The Alt Right is not just an alternative to the moribund “conservative movement,” that Beltway Right of direct mail scam artists and shills whose eternal “values” constantly trail the Left’s vanguard by a dozen years. It’s an alternative to a whole system of lies.

What are we fighting for is a “new normal,” a moral consensus we insist upon.

Donald Trump is a step towards this new normal. But even he is deeply compromised by the perversions that define this decadent society. Donald Trump warred against segregated establishments. He supports affirmative action, or put more bluntly, state-sponsored discrimination against whites. He will be perhaps the most pro-Zionist president ever put into office, turning a blind eye to continued Jewish settlement in the Palestinian territories. He opposes the Iran nuclear deal, which, we should admit, isn’t exactly that bad. He has, let us remember, left the door open for some kind of amnesty at some future date, talking about keeping “the good ones” in the country.

The hysteria surrounding his election doesn’t show that he is extreme, but it shows how unhinged the press and the chattering classes have become. We are told of a massive rush of hate crimes against nonwhites by evil racists emboldened by Trump’s victory. Amazingly, these crimes never seen to be captured on video. That violence which does exist seems to consist of direct physical attacks against Trump supporters. And even when this is captured on video, CNN political commentator and former press secretary for Bernie Sanders can smirk, “oh my goodness, poor white people.”

What we see is that the liberal hegemony which governs this society will not permit any reform, even the kinds of moderate reforms which could salvage the whole System. The undercurrent of almost all press coverage in the days since Trump’s ascendency is that white people should not be permitted to vote. What’s more, the news should be censored to ensure that people are only given the “correct” viewpoints.

Far from reflecting on why they lost or extending even a modicum of empathy towards European-Americans, the press has clearly decided to double down and wage war against both the legitimacy of Trump and the continued existence of White America.

But they are really opening the door for us.

You can imagine, hypothetically, some situation where a President Trump or whoever slaps some ramshackle America together and it limps along for a few more decades . . . where the boot is lifted off the neck of white America just long enough to keep the whole thing going. Yet the Left can’t permit that. Environmentalism, workers’ rights, income inequality, mass transit, whatever stated values it supposedly has are thrown out in order to pursue a remarkably crude and simplistic anti-white hatred that is driving it all.

And even more than during the election itself, the mask has been ripped off since Trump’s election. SJW’s always project and the American Left is driven by anti-white hatred – full stop. It has no other goals, no aspirations, nothing to look to. It is a nullity. And we have nothing in common with these people.

It is different for us. Race is real … but in some sense, whiteness really is a social construct. Think of the concepts that are now designated “problematic” and associated with whiteness — power, strength, beauty, agency, accomplishment. Whites do and other groups don’t. In the banality of normal life and in our most outlandish dreams, in both our Narrative and theirs, to be white is to be a striver, a crusader, an explorer and a conqueror. We build, we produce, we go upward.

And we recognize the central lie of American race relations. We don’t exploit other groups. We don’t gain anything from their presence. They need us, and not the other way around.

Whiteness, or, rather, identity, is being forced on the deracinated, consumerist Last Man that was the European-American. No one is going to be permitted to escape this process. Great historical changes are imminent when people are forced into a binary choice – fight or flee, join or die, resist … or cuck.

That is the position of white people. Two weeks ago, I might the have said the election of Donald Trump would actually lessen the pressure on white Americans. But today it’s clear his election is only intensifying the storm of hatred and hysteria being directed against us.

As Europeans, we are, uniquely, at the center of history. We are, as Hegel recognized, the concept of world history. No one will honor us for losing gracefully. No one mourns the great crimes committed against us. For us, it is conquer or die. This is a unique burden for the white man, that our fate is entirely in our hands. And it is appropriate because within us, within the very blood in our veins as children of the sun lies the potential for greatness.

That is the great struggle we are called to. We were not meant to live in shame and weakness and disgrace. We were not meant to beg for moral validation from some of the most despicable creatures to pollute the soil of this planet. We were meant to overcome–overcome all of it. Because that’s natural for us.

Because for us, as Europeans, it’s only normal again, when we are great again.

Hail Trump. Hail our people. Hail victory.

7 Comments on Long Live the Emperor!

The Napoleon of the Current Year

We should all be grateful to Donald J. Trump. For he saved us from the tedious inevitability of an electoral season. 

He saved us from a year of Republican electioneering, featuring candidates seemingly chosen for their repulsive, annoying, or sleep-inducing qualities.

He saved us from another six months of “Hillary v Jeb,” and commentators pretending that it’s all so important and exciting . . . pretending that we’re not just watching two oligarchic families duke it out to see who’ll remain on top the longest before the coming election of President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho. 

Against all of this stood Trump.

We should all be grateful to Donald J. Trump. For he saved us from the tedious inevitability of an electoral season.

He saved us from a year of Republican electioneering, featuring candidates seemingly chosen for their repulsive, annoying, or sleep-inducing qualities.

He saved us from another six months of “Hillary v Jeb,” and commentators pretending that it’s all so important and exciting . . . pretending that we’re not just watching two oligarchic families duke it out to see who’ll remain on top the longest before the coming election of President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho.

Against all of this stood Trump.

Donald Trump, of course, does not challenge the oligarchic nature of American politics and elite rule. In a way, Trump’s “self-funded” campaign has made a mockery of the democratic process.

In the minds of Trump haters, Trump has turned the presidency into the bauble of an eccentric, narcissistic billionaire . . . an asshole of wealth and privilege . . . a man who delights in demeaning women and appealing to the basest instincts of the “poorly educated”, whom he loves . . . a man who aims to transform the American Republic into a surreal, horrifying Wrestlemania . . . a gold-plated fascism, with torchlight parades for the Great Leader, female journalists burned at the steak . . . all the while an appeased Vladimir Putin marches his armies across Europe.

What’s most remarkable, perhaps, about the fever dream of all the Trump haters—which I’ve exaggerated, but only slightly—is its schizoid nature.

For months, we were told, by people from the mainstream Left and Right, Donald Trump is not real: he’s not serious . . . he’s about to drop out . . . his numbers are fake . . . the whole thing’s a vanity project . . . don’t be a sucker.

Then, we were told that Trump is, in fact, all too real: he became a screen upon which his haters projected all their nightmares: White nationalism . . . a resurgent Russia . . . fascism . . . a Big Man who doesn’t listen to the “experts,” “policy wonks” and “neocons” for his ideas, and who would probably dispense with such people if given the chance.

This schizoid reaction—that Trump isn’t real and all too real—is the reaction of someone repressing something, repressing a deep and dark truth.

Trump—the phenomenon, not just the man—has been a very long time coming. For something has been rotten in the state of America for a very long time.

And Trump haters are right about one thing: the phenomenon can only be understood as an expression of White Americans’ growing awareness of their demographic displacement . . . the erosion of their security, power, and influence . . . and the cutting off of their future.

In other words, the Trump phenomenon derives from what could be the called The Great Erasure: former White countries being transformed, humiliated, and ultimately invaded and raped. This is what is happening right now, and it might be the most important historical development of the last 500 years.

The System, you could say, is looking into that place where it dares not look. And it finds Trump there, staring back at it. When or how this phenomenon would arise, as well as who would lead it, nobody knew. But that it would come was inevitable.

A Crack in the System

Trump was the most powerful potential challenge to the status quo in my lifetime—the most powerful potential challenge to “The System,” and by that I don’t just mean the government. I mean the entire corporate and economic structure . . . the media, entertainment, and culture industries . . . hegemonic discourse . . . the way we talk and think and breathe and dream.

Perhaps the most dominating component of “The System” is not its bombs or bureaucrats or police or taxes but its Narrative and Paradigm.

The System is most powerful when it cuts off that something else, that dream of another world and the will to bring it into being. The System, in other words, presents itself as “inevitable,” as everything you could ever want. Far from being brutal or unfeeling, The System has “thought of everything”—it has even thought of the ways in which you will oppose The System.

If you’re a White man filled with angst at your declining income and foreclosed home . . . and the fact that you don’t know your children anymore . . . never fear! You can vote for the greasy televangelist from Texas, named Ted or Jeb or Dubya, and make the “The Constitution” and “freedom” a cozy substitute for your existence.

Or if you’re a young White liberal with 100k in student-loan debt . . . so big can’t even think about getting married and having kids . . . never fear! You can support Bernie (and settle for Hillary) and signal that you’re one of those cool, virtuous, post-White White people . . . one of those who, you know, will get a place at the table in the minority America of 2050 . . . pretty please . . .

The System is its own opposition, its own problem and solution, its own critique and its own redemption. The System endlessly satisfies us . . . and we are endlessly unhappy, always feeling empty. (Even leftists don’t really get what they want.)

The System is, in other words, inevitable.

But something else was always inevitable: Sooner or later, there was going to be a “crack in system” . . . a deep fracture . . . and this wound would not be inflicted on The System from an outside power. It would come from within.

This contradiction would eventually undermine The System . . . would make new things possible . . . things The System’s policemen and high priests were always guarding against and which they believed were no longer imaginable.

Trump was this contradiction . . . that thing that none of us could have predicted . . . but which now seems inevitable.

Some of us might have day-dreamed of some foreign intervention that would save us from The System—as if America might be invaded and liberated by Putin’s Red Army or Marion Le-Pen of Arc. Red Dawn, Part II: The Good Guys Win This Time!

But that would have been too easy.

The Contradiction of The System—the figure that brings about its breakdown—must be part of The System. He must be something vain, sometime absurd . . . a gambling and real-estate tycoon . . . and star of a “reality show.” He must be something real and unreal at the same time.

In The Current Year, the Contradiction could never be someone like Joan of Arc; it must be someone like Donald Trump.

For Trump isn’t just part of The System; he’s an undisputed maestro of the vulgar and stupid.

So much about Trump offends us, maybe even appalls us. But then we don’t get to choose. We don’t get to decide the way in which The System will crack and turn on itself. . . and we don’t get to choose which man will embody and bear something far bigger than himself, something far bigger than he recognizes.

Today, the word “Napoleon” has such a glow that it needs no qualifier, surname, or historical context. Napoleon embodies that upwards striving in our souls . . . that will, not merely to increase the glory of France, but to build a Grand Empire for all Europe. He’s a man who could only be expressed through a symphony.

But that’s now.

There’s no doubt that so many conservatives of his time viewed Napoleon as a “vulgar” Corsican . . . some military upstart . . . someone far too tainted by the times and The Revolution. Conservatives, no doubt, would have preferred an ancient King or priest or troubadour as their leader. But Napoleon was Napoleon; and only Napoleon could be Napoleon.

Trump might be, in his vulgar and stupid way, the Napoleon of The Current Year.

Trump might have “gone to the greatest schools,” but he never passed through The System’s cursus honorum, its “path of honor, to become a political leader: first, law school and low-level officialdom, then up the latter of media talking points, focus groups, ass-kissing, and selling one’s soul.

Trump never went through the gauntlet, which impresses the “right opinions” upon potential leaders and weeds out those who actually care about their people and civilization . . . or who are simply interesting.

The Republican and Democratic parties are tools of the American oligarchy, of Super Pacs and the donor class. Trump, on the other hand, led a populist movement not in spite of the fact that he’s an oligarch but because of it. Trump has, indeed turned oligarchy into a kind of populism.

Other candidates might talk about being the son of a mailman or bartender, and relish getting themselves photographed wearing plaid or eating a slice of pizza. Trump, on the other hand, has never hidden the fact that he’s rich guy (and that he’s the kind of man who eats pizza with a fork . . . which is weird).

But in this way, Trump is the only candidate who can legitimately say he could never be bought.

Trump has also been the most radically transparent candidate about the current political dispensation. Forget the idiotic demand that he release his back taxes. When Trump says that he “got along with lots of politicians,” he is effectively bragging that he bought them at auction. Such honesty is only offensive to those who are hopelessly delusional about the nature of American democracy, or who benefit by keeping the racket going.

In turn, Trump is a serious politician not in spite of the fact that he’s a narcissist and reality show star—but because of it.

Trump is not a celebrity like Tom Cruise or George Clooney or Elizabeth Tailer: distant, isolated, unapproachable, and strange.

Trump has, through the television set, been in people’s homes, eaten dinner with them, gone to bed with them, you could say, for three decades. He’s been a kind of friend to admire and envy, even a source of authority. He’s been a one-man “reality show”—a real person, who’s larger than life. This kind of power, whatever we might think of it, is its own political campaigns and “ground game.”

True Lies

Trump is the man who boasts that his opponents come to him on their hands and knees . . . while sweating profusely . . . the only women who can resist him are those menstruating through their eyeballs.

All of that is bullshit, of course—“truthful hyperbole.” But then to understand it as mere bullshit is to understand nothing.

“Public relations”—and postmodern “image production”—is, as Baudrillard observed, all about signs without references . . . words without meaning . . . sound and fury signifying nothing . . . bullshit within bullshit.

But Trump’s genius is to embed truth within his vulgar and stupid bullshit: deep truths, sometimes hard or harsh truths . . . dangerous truths.

One can see this, first and foremost, in his slogan “Make America Great Again”—the most memorable one-liner of the year.

Eight years ago, Barack Obama’s “Hope We Can Believe In” revealed, early on, the vacuous and entirely non-revolutionary nature of his presidency. In turn, Marco Rubio’s “A New American Century” is, quite literally, a name adopted from a neoconservative think-tank that planned the Iraq War.

On the surface, you could say that “Make America Great Again” is just a big patriotic foam-hand announcing “We’re #1!” On a deeper level, Turmp’s slogan implies directly that America is not great . . . that America power might be an illusion . . . that we’re coasting on the fumes of the 20th century . . . and that it’s time to rethink everything. Trump has thus, amazingly, brought a awareness of The Great Erasure and American Decline into public consciousness, in a way that we never could. In other words, “Make America Great Again” is a true lie, as opposed to the lying lies we’ve become inured to.

After September 11, George W. Bush had a real opportunity (maybe the last one) to re-found White America: he could have shut down immigration entirely, or at least immigration from non-European countries, and gotten away with it politically.

Instead, “Dubya-style” nationalism became the ultimate expression of patriotic bullshit. Let’s attach a flag to our SUVs, y’all . . . fight the Muslims by going shopping and taking out mortgages . . . Why question any of this? Why seriously examine the direction our civilization has taken—that would be letting the terrorists win!

The Dubya years represented the ultimate bullshit Clash of Civilizations: consumerism, democracy, and “human rights” will destroy the extremists . . . or seduce them into becoming the same passive nihilists we are!

Trump’s Wall, on the other hand—along with his demand to cease Muslim immigration—becomes something else entirely: it becomes existential . . . a declaration of difference . . . a symbol of our will to survive.

Trump, whether he knows it or not, is announcing the return of Grand Politics . . . politics on the greatest scale . . . politics as the struggle between races and civilizations.

And Trump’s so-called “Bromance” with Vladimir Putin is just as radical as The Wall, perhaps even more so.

The history of the 20th century has been a history of a long civil war, a Brothers War. Trump and Putin—this is the image of two of the three great blocks of the White Race—North America and Russia—finally reaching an understanding. It is a cancellation of the the 20th century. A sign of hope that Europeans can finally stop fighting each other, and losing the whole world in the process.

TRUMP—the name itself—is a true lie—something combining bullshit and greatness, something stupid and primal.

For Trump is a billionaire not just because of buildings and casinos but because of TRUMP, because of the brand and all that it implies. TRUMP isn’t associated with any one product or real-estate development or beauty pageant or mouth-watering steak. TRUMP is all of it and more. TRUMP is a thing in itself—intangible, inexpressible, invaluable. TRUMP represents that golden longing for success . . . for power . . . for winning . . . and for indulging in just enough decadence, sex, and arrogance. TRUMP represents that will to power . . . to be great . . . and to be something more than a man.

The Alt and the Right

Perhaps my least favorite opinion about Trump is that he is the “last chance” or the “last hope” of White America. There’s something reactionary and weak about getting excited about “last chances,” as it implies propping up something that deserves to die. Trump is powerful as something new, as a first stand of European identity politics.

Seven year ago, when I first started using this term “Alternative Right,” it was my own passionate plea for that something else— something outside The System and the thought-prison of “conservatism.”

The Alt Right was, at its beginning, a kind of “rebellion without a cause” or, you could say, conservatism for when there’s nothing to conserve.

And to be honest, I became a bit disenchanted with the term “Alt Right.” After a while, I wanted to get beyond Left and Right and assert European Identity—identitarianism—as the foundation and sine qua non of my ideology. I didn’t want to just be an “alternative.”

But “Alt Right” took on a life of its own, outside my control. And it’s much bigger than me or any single individual. (Ramzpaul mentioned to me that while he was abroad, he was approached by a Romanian fan in a bar, who announced to him, “Paul, Ramzpaul. Greetings! I am Alt Right shitlord.”)

“Alt Right” has taken a journey but remained remarkably true to my original conception. And it is all these Shitlords—with all their Trumpean vulgarity and “take no prisoners” attitude—who are doing much more than any establishment journalist to uncover what really matters in the world.

As I look back on it now, there seems to be a wonderful contradiction between the words “alternative” and “Right”: something new and frenetic and uncontrollable (“alternative”), and something old and traditional and eternal (“the Right”).

Our movement must itself be a contradiction: alternative Right . . . conservative revolution . . . radical traditionalist . . . archeo-futurist . . . anarcho-fascist. All of these seem to implicitly recognize that we might need to unleash a little chaos . . . some hashtags and dank memes . . . some Trumpean vulragiry . . . before we put society back together again. Trump is, in this way, an authentic hero of our movement.

He is expressing deep contradictions within The System . . . deep unrest among White people that has been boiling for decades . . . and has revealed the utter uselessness of self-styled “conservatives.”

Trump has done this, to an extent we shouldn’t underestimate, unknowingly. In Donald Trump’s brain, the Trump phenomenon probably is all about Donald Trump.

But for us, and the world, the Trump phenomenon is much bigger than the man. He is a vehicle, unwittingly, bringing forth ideas and emotions that are terrifying to The System.

In turn, we project on him our hopes and dreams. We Photoshop Trump, not as a casino magnate, but as what he could or should be—as a Roman . . . an imperial general . . . or great conqueror in some Dune-like archeo-future.

Not too long ago, the Brietbart writer Milo Yanisagreeklastname, spoke at a college and was, predictably, disrupted and harassed by Black Live Matters groupies. When the Whites in the crowd actually stood up and started to fight back, they chanted “Trump . . . Trump . . . TRUMP!”

This was not mere election-year cheerleading. For we must remember that before the Trump phenomenon, these White people had nothing to chant; they had no call or word that expressed their spirit and soul.

TRUMP has become a killing word. And Trump, maybe despite himself, has become the Napoleon of the Current Year.

But then let’s take a step back.

Over the past months, there have been many nonsensical calls by journalists for Trump to “distance” himself from “racism” and the phantom menace of the Ku Klux Klan. (Trump, being Trump, has mostly refused to cower to political correctness.)

But in a way, it’s more important for us to distance ourselves from Trump. (And I don’t just say that in the sense that identitarians are not really helping Trump much when we endorse him or wax enthusiastic about him.)

I say this in the sense that our movement should never be defined by one single man. We should never put all our eggs in one basket. For the revival of European identity must last much longer than the Trump phenomenon, longer than my life or that of anyone here.

Our movement is, on one hand, about Yesterday, about our ancestors and the bedrock of who we are. And on the other, our movement is about Tomorrow, and the Day After Tomorrow.

It is not about Today, for the Current Year belongs to the whores and politicians. Tomorrow belongs to us!

7 Comments on The Napoleon of the Current Year

Time for Heroes

It was never supposed to happen like this. 

Political theorists from James Madison to Hans-Hermann Hoppe already proved that pure democracy was doomed to failure. The masses’ appetites for more and more favors and subsidies would never end. They would only become more ravenous as politicians realized that the path to more power was to promise more free stuff than the competition. Thus, we were doomed to live in a society sliding ever onward toward ruin, incapable of saving itself. This was an iron law of history and nothing we could do could change it. 

It was never supposed to happen like this.

Political theorists from James Madison to Hans-Hermann Hoppe already proved that pure democracy was doomed to failure. The masses’ appetites for more and more favors and subsidies would never end. They would only become more ravenous as politicians realized that the path to power was to promise more free stuff than the competition. Thus, we were doomed to live in a society sliding ever onward toward ruin, incapable of saving itself. This was an iron law of history and nothing we could do could change it.

Or so we thought. For the first time perhaps in all of US history, we have a democratic referendum that could actually begin to roll back the decline. While the West drowns in a sea of alien migrants from incompatible cultures that openly hate white civilization, we have an opportunity to wall out the invaders and put our nation first.

While the Left tries mightily to rekindle the old Cold War against a “homophobic” Russia, we have the opportunity to reach out in brotherhood and understanding with the other White superpower. While our former middle class devolves into a jobless, heroin-addled proletariat, we have the opportunity to reject the globalist managerial trade regime and fight for the interests of our own people. And while our entire culture ruthlessly suppresses dissent from the very forces that are destroying it, we have the opportunity to begin to speak freely again.

In short, the presidential election offers us a referendum on the single most important issue for our civilization: whether to choose health, vitality, and life or to slide onward toward decay and death.

But what is most astounding of all is that we have gotten to this point not through any natural process, but rather through the will of one man deciding to challenge the iron laws of history.

No theory of democracy would have accounted for Donald Trump. All the theories we had could only predict continued decline. And they were all correct—to a point. Yes, democracy creates bad incentives and, yes, we can generally expect people to follow the incentives they are given. But what about a man who simply ignores the systems and incentive structures that society has in place? A man who is motivated by his own convictions of right and wrong, even if doing what is right comes at a great price, and therefore should, by all rational economic calculation, do what is wrong?

Such are the great men who truly make history. We can never anticipate their emergence, because they emerge only by their own free will. As Thomas Carlyle, the great exponent of the so-called “great man theory” put it:

[N]o Time need have gone to ruin, could it have found a man great enough, a man wise and good enough: wisdom to discern truly what the Time wanted, valor to lead it on the right road thither; these are the salvation of any Time. But I liken common languid Times, with their unbelief, distress, perplexity, with their languid doubting characters and embarrassed circumstances, impotently crumbling down into ever worse distress towards final ruin;—all this I liken to dry dead fuel, waiting for the lightning out of Heaven that shall kindle it. The great man, with his free force direct out of God’s own hand, is the lightning. His word is the wise healing word which all can believe in. All blazes around him now, when he has once struck on it, into fire like his own.

Oh, how those fires are spreading.

Half a world away, Serbian protesters against American imperialism parade through the streets in Donald Trump t-shirts, while their Slovenian counterparts chant “You’re fired!” at a rally against the Muslim invasion of Europe. Julian Assange, once a hero to “open-government” liberals, now claims the distinction of being the Left’s second most hated person, who their own presidential candidate wistfully dreamed of murdering in a drone strike..

The former libertarian Stefan Molyneux has turned his back on the old jeremiads about “universally preferable behavior” and now claims, in a recent podcast, that the entirety of his life’s work culminates in Donald Trump’s election. And intellectualized alt-right millenials, who would previously spend their time debating the respective merits of Evola and Heidegger, now tweet into the dead of night on behalf of a man most famous in their own lifetimes as the star of a reality show none of them ever watched.

The one thing our Time wants most is a hero. Accustomed as we are to the Age of the Last Man, we are used to everything being narrow, vulgar, and small. Nothing captures the spirit of our age better than the recent news report that the tower of Germany’s Gothic Ulm Cathedral—the tallest in the world—is now being eroded by urine and vomit.

The gutter morality foisted on us from kindergarten through graduate school reviles Christopher Columbus—who crossed uncharted seas and laid the foundation for civilization to arise out of the fetid swampland of the New World—but praises the bravery of “Caitlin” Jenner and Black Lives Matter looters. Popular TV shows like Game of Thrones depict worlds where the few people of honor and principle meet grisly deaths at the hands of Machiavellian social climbers who practice incest and other sexual perversions. Sports stars take steroids and disrespect the flag, Hollywood celebrities donate millions to charities aimed at dispossessing the toiling masses in who watch their movies, and corporations train their employees to be “sensitive,” “inclusive” poodles who never allow interesting or controversial thoughts to get in the way of the company’s bottom line.

Meanwhile, the approved opposition offers no alternative better than a bland economism. For the perfect example, look to libertarian Jeffrey Tucker, who attacks Carlyle and Great Men in a girlish screed at the Foundation for Economic Education. (His article is most notable for its total indifference to addressing any of its ostensible subject’s actual arguments, instead trying to prove at length that this Victorian Scotsman was Literally Hitler.) According to Tucker, it is not “great men” but “the small lives of the bourgeoisie” toiling away in “Adam Smith’s pin factory” who make the world turn. Rather than put our faith in superior individuals (did I mention Hitler did that?), we should praise the factory workers whose labor allows us to buy smartphones at 7% less than before. But while someone needs to make consumer goods, why should economic consumption be valued more highly than nobility?

Against the ubiquitous drabness and mediocrity of modern life, Donald Trump represents greatness and strength. In a time when victimhood is considered noble, Trump brags about his wealth and success. While once great and thriving cities—the Detroit of Henry Ford, the Baltimore of Mencken and Poe—degenerate into hollow husks ravaged by tribal gang warfare, we have a man who rose to wealth and fame on the dream of building the most beautiful skyscrapers in the world. While everyone around us celebrates the low, Trump Tower reaches up to touch the heavens. His vision evokes Ayn Rand at her most Nietzschean:

I would give the greatest sunset in the world for one sight of New York’s skyline. Particularly when one can’t see the details. Just the shapes. The shapes and the thought that made them. The sky over New York and the will of man made visible. What other religion do we need? And then people tell me about pilgrimages to some dank pesthole in a jungle where they go to do homage to a crumbling temple, to a leering stone monster with a pot belly, created by some leprous savage. Is it beauty and genius they want to see? Do they seek a sense of the sublime? Let them come to New York, stand on the shore of the Hudson, look and kneel.

Despite the mewling protestations of “individualists” like Jeffrey Tucker, the visions of Great Men is the real triumphs of the individual. It is only through the act of individual will that Donald Trump made his mark upon the world, from electrifying the New York skyline to horrifying the smug bien pensants of K Street and Rockefeller Center. It is through that same individual will that Trump chose to defy everything we knew about history and society and prove that the crises of our times really can be held at bay if only we can find a hero with the will to do so.

Of course, the outcome is far from certain. We all know the forces arrayed against us—in the end, they may prove too powerful. If they are, Trump might pay mightily for daring to challenge the powers that be. Others have already commented on the damage he has inflicted on his own brand, which he previously marketed toward the same elites who now hate him most. Even worse, our managerial elite has created such a Byzantine legal code of economic regulations compounded with criminal penalties that the average businessman is estimated to unknowingly commit three felonies in a single day. With laws like these, it would not necessarily be difficult for a Clinton administration to dredge up some violation of the criminal code and, in a reversal of Trump’s recent promises, throw him in prison.

But martyrdom is its own form of heroism. In his willingness to risk it all, Trump encapsulates the Faustian spirit—the soul of the West—which pushes past our limits to grasp for greatness even against the threat of damnation. And in doing so, through the strength of his will, he has opened up a future where defeat remains possible, but is no longer preordained.

Those of us who, in Jeffrey Tucker’s phrase, live “the small lives of the bourgeoisie” did not make this happen. Instead, we may be witnessing a remarkable feat rarely seen in history: a decaying civilization that saves itself through the courage and direction of a single man. If Trump wins, we may Make America Great Again. But the message his victory will send will have repercussions far beyond that. It can begin the process of making ourselves great again, making Europe great again, making western civilization and the White men who built it great again . . . And then, with the renewed vigor of a people finally shaking off our self-imposed mediocrity, we may find greatness beyond the bounds of earth, among the stars, and in unknown galaxies not yet conquered.

No Comments on Time for Heroes

The Rigged System

It’s amazing what liberals find “horrifying.” More men than women working in science and engineering fields is “horrifying.” Bernie Sanders supporters not voting for Hillary is “horrifying.” John Oliver thinks making fun of Anita Sarkeesian is “horrifying.” Making jokes about Leslie Jones (of affirmative action Ghostbusters fame) and leaking her nude photos is horrifying (all right, I’ll agree with that last one, albeit for different reasons than the journalists). 


It’s amazing what liberals find “horrifying.” More men than women working in science and engineering fields is “horrifying.” Bernie Sanders supporters not voting for Hillary is “horrifying.” John Oliver thinks making fun of Anita Sarkeesian is “horrifying.” Making jokes about Leslie Jones (of affirmative action Ghostbusters fame) and leaking her nude photos is horrifying (all right, I’ll agree with that last one, albeit for different reasons than the journalists).

But the most “horrifying” thing to leftists today is Trump. Vox has a new “horrifying” article about The Donald every week. And the thing that’s really scaring them is the idea that Trump won’t concede if he loses.

Trump has been hammering what he calls, the Rigged System, promising to “Drain the Swamp.” If you’re a supporter, you’ll say it’s because it’s time to highlight Crooked Hillary’s corruption. If you’re not, you’ll say he’s making excuses because the polls show he’s losing. The latter crowd is mostly made up of people who are constantly telling us we need to deconstruct masculinity and show more empathy, but, like a feminist in an Internet argument they go straight after your nuts when it’s time to criticize. Thus, President Obama accuses Trump of whining and essentially being a wimp.

As even some neoconservatives are pointing out, Democrats have also been fond of denouncing a supposed “rigged” government in the past. Just like the phrase “Take Back America” went from standard political rhetoric to “racist extremism” once Republicans started using it, we are supposed to believe that when Trump says it’s a “Rigged System” it’s an existential threat to democracy itself.

Yet even when you get past the wrist flapping and hyperbole, Trump really is saying something different this time. In his recent speech in Florida condemning the media, Trump described journalists as enforcers of a plutocratic agenda and dismissed political correctness as simply a weapon of elite control. He’s called Republicans “naïve” if they don’t believe in voter fraud. Throughout the campaign, but with increasing frequency in recent days, Trump has suggested this election is the last time actual Americans will have some say in how their country is run, or even if they get to have a country.

Quoth the God-Emperor: “This election is our last chance to secure the border, stop illegal immigration, and reform our laws to make your life better. This is it. We won’t get another opportunity — it will be too late.”

As Trump has explicitly stated in the past, this is a reference to how Third World immigration ensures conservatives will never again be able to win another election. And it’s this tactical insight – that conservatism cannot win again, that to even imagine it is to indulge in fantasy– which has forced the radical rethinking process at the core of the Alt Right.

The core of this rethinking, even if Trump himself does not recognize it, is racial. It’s not just that non-whites vote differently. It’s that their presence imposes an entirely new culture, one entirely incompatible with the institutions and way of life European-Americans expect in a First World country.

Obviously, despite the Lügenpresse’s attempts at denialism, voter fraud is widespread in this country. As James O’Keefe’s recent videos have shown, besides openly inciting violence (which journalists then blame on Trump supporters) leftists are fairly open about their intention to get illegal aliens voting. The dead are voting in Colorado and Virginia; there’s a huge investigation off fraudulent mail-in voting in Texas. And Jeff Bezos’s blog is wow just wowing about how immoral it is that anyone could believe there is voter fraud in such bastions of responsible government as Philadelphia, Chicago, and St. Louis.

Whatever their moral posturing, kosher conservatives and political consultants know Republicans lose if there is high minority turnout. Progressives are right when they accuse Republicans of effectively “disenfranchising” blacks and Hispanics with calls for voter ID laws. What they miss is that “true conservatives” really do have the protective stupidity necessary which prevents them from recognizing the incompatibility of minimum standards for voting and racial equality.

Naturally, there’s nothing explicitly racist about linking voting (which is, after all, an exercise of force) to at least the same standard of responsibility demanded to buy liquor or rent a car. On paper, the case is obvious. But any kind of standard is going to have the practical impact of suppressing the massive and monolithic black vote Democrats need to stay in power. And as all politics is identity politics, requiring ID to vote becomes morally problematic in The Current Year. Conservatives may advocate some kind of minimum standard, but they will do so half-heartedly and apologetically.

In the same way, “true conservatives” briefly floated the idea of a civics test requirement in order to prevent Trump supporters from voting, but shut up once it was clear it would mostly affect non-whites. Protective stupidity is thus united with masochistic moral cowardice. True conservatives feel free to attack Whites as a group, but will back down if leftists accuse them of being racist against non-whites.

The result is the worst political combination possible. Conservatives are dependent on European-Americans, but refuse to represent them and indeed, actively work against their interests when they can get away with it. They appeal to non-white voters rhetorically but don’t offer them anything in substance, instead vainly pretending if they can find a token black or light skinned Hispanic to prattle about upper-class tax cuts or opposing Russia that the hoods and barrios will start rallying to the banner of Paul Ryan’s “Better Way.”

No one is disputing conservative impotence any longer. “True conservative” principles matter to European-Americans and only European-Americans. After all, what future does “constitutional conservatism” have when the Constitution itself is held to be offensive because it was the product of a time when only white, property-owning males (i.e. people who had a stake in the future of the polity) had the vote?

Despite the hatred between the two camps, both “true conservatism” and White identity politics are driven by the same strategic imperative.

In a multicultural country with no common identity, political victory depends on maximizing the White vote share and limiting minority votes.

The leftist counter to this strategy is also obvious. Import as many non-white voters as possible, with the less they have to contribute to the society, the better. Each non-white vote imported serves to disenfranchise existing European-Americans and with each hour Americans lose more and more of the country their ancestors created.

At the same time, as Trump pointed out, a media concentrated within just a few hands launches coordinated and overwhelming hate campaigns against any patriotic figure who resists a demographic transformation demanded by the wealthiest and most powerful. This makes status conscious Whites leery of championing any kind of collective racial interest.

The push for economic, social, and (in Europe today, America tomorrow) political punishments against dissenters ensures there is no overt resistance to this unprecedented transformation of every First World nation. And it is impossible not to notice the leading role of Jews, members of the most outrageously privileged group in the West, demanding the moral disarmament of Whites in the name of combatting “privilege.”

At no point in any nation did Whites vote to abolish themselves, and in many cases (as with Prop 187 in California) they explicitly voted against what is happening. Yet it continues regardless. Of course, the system is rigged. That’s precisely why mass immigration is taking place to begin with.

That’s why Univision chairman (and Israeli citizen) (((Haim Saban))) is screaming for Hillary to push for more immigration to guarantee future victories. That’s why the political career of a Richard Nixon or a Ronald Reagan could never get off the ground in the one party state of California. Even kosher cons admit the only reason Al Franken is in the Senate (and thus, the only reason Obamacare passed) was because of voter fraud. Europeans, worldwide, will be a hated, despised, powerless minority, lacking even the vocabulary to express a defense of their own identity or interests. “Conservative principles” and the Constitution will similarly face extinction. Out of sheer self-interest, conservatives would be suicidal to urge continued fidelity to a broken system which is destroying the very people who created and sustain the polity.

Yet this is precisely the role conservatives are hastening to play today. Useless child Paul Ryan condemns Trump and defends “our democracy.” Marco Rubio and Pat Toomey blithely tell us everyone must respect the outcome of the election because confidence is needed to “pull us all together.” And National Review is doing its best to assure us about how reliable our election system and denouncing “propaganda outlets” like Infowars and Breitbart.

Such collaboration can no longer be excused. Everyone, even the “true conservatives,” know exactly how this movie is going to end. And if we want to discuss something truly horrific, we only have to glimpse at today’s headlines for a sneak preview.

Thousands of English girls systematically exploited, raped, and sexually abused by Muslim invaders, with the de facto cooperation of the local Labour government. Boer farmers in South Africa subjected to the most gruesome torture even as their “democratic” government denies them the right to defend themselves. The ancient capitals of Europe systematically transformed into Third World wastelands, with the violent threat of terrorism and the grinding reality of occupation ever present.

This is a horror beyond anything our ancestors could even conceive. And America is not so “exceptional” that we will somehow be magically spared. The horror that denies me sleep, that makes me sick with fear for my children’s future, that fuels the terrible anger behind each word here, is the thought that this filth will be allowed to endure.

If this is not a Rigged System, if this is not tyranny, then such a thing does not exist. European-Americans are a colonized population being deliberately ground into extinction. To speak of America as a “self-governing” nation is an obscenity. And what is at stake is beyond the victory or defeat of some abstract political philosophy. What is at stake is the bare possibility of survival for our people anywhere in the world. If we are to live, this System must die. It has long since been bereft of legitimacy.

In the end, as happened with Whites in South Africa, current demographic trends ensure that political victory, effective representation or even a guarantee of basic physical safety will soon become impossible. When such a pattern becomes irreversible, those Whites who go along with defending the existing System, no matter how “respectable” or “conservative” their rationale, are something worse than fools. They are collaborators and traitors. And nothing can more horrific than rule by people like that.

No Comments on The Rigged System

Found Out

A few years ago, I wrote: “If I tell you that there are powerful people who are oppressing you to defend their own interests, you’ll call me a progressive, a liberal, and a reformer. If I tell you who those people are, you’ll call me a Nazi.”

A few years ago, I wrote: “If I tell you that there are powerful people who are oppressing you to defend their own interests, you’ll call me a progressive, a liberal, and a reformer. If I tell you who those people are, you’ll call me a Nazi.”

Turns out I was wrong. Those people will tell us who they are themselves.

Donald Trump, not willing to cringe before the utterly ludicrous attempt to smear him with charges of sexual assault weeks before a presidential election, unleashed on the mainstream media in a speech last Thursday.

Accurately identifying political correctness as a tool of plutocratic control, Trump thundered:

The establishment and their media enablers will maintain control over this nation through means that are very well known. Anyone who challenges their control is deemed a sexist, a racist, a xenophobe, and morally deformed.

They will attack you, they will slander you, they will seek to destroy your career and your family, they will seek to destroy everything about you, including your reputation. They will lie, lie, lie, and then again they will do worse than that, they will do whatever is necessary.

Those of us who must live under the Eye of Sauron on the Alt Right felt this deep within their bones. The goal of every journalist is to destroy you. They despise you, they want to hurt you, and the hateful malice they hold within themselves must be considered every time one of these creatures is encountered. None of the journalists now whining about being booed at a rally by the Americans they despise could handle what each one of us encounters every day. And the frothing, shrieking, hysterical malevolence Donald Trump has faced from the crawling chaos that is the press defies imagination.

Some say All Cops Are Bastards or that police are “political soldiers” enforcing a certain social order. Nonsense. Journalists are the political soldiers. More than that, they are commissars. Their job is to hunt down dissidents and suppress opposition.

As this election cycle has shown, they will fight fiercely to defend the power structure and lash out against alternatives which undermine the System they are a part of. A soldier or policeman bears far less moral responsibility for the policies he enforces than the journalist who knowingly works to implement those policies.

At least in theory (though rarely in practice in our post-Anglo society), the law will protect you whatever your political views or wealth. But journalists always act with a political end in mind.

But whose end? In this critical speech, Trump identified that as well. After denying the accusations against him, he stated:

Our great civilization, here in America and across the civilized world has come upon a moment of reckoning. We’ve seen it in the United Kingdom, where they voted to liberate themselves from global government and global trade deal, and global immigration deals that have destroyed their sovereignty and have destroyed many of those nations. But, the central base of world political power is right here in America, and it is our corrupt political establishment that is the greatest power behind the efforts at radical globalization and the disenfranchisement of working people. Their financial resources are virtually unlimited, their political resources are unlimited, their media resources are unmatched, and most importantly, the depths of their immorality is absolutely unlimited.

Here, Trump is identifying the globalists and international plutocrats who support open borders, the destruction of national sovereignty, the dispossession of working people, and the abolition of traditional identity and morality. They are deliberately harming the people of this country. And who can deny it?

Interestingly, no one really is. Instead, the media is accusing Trump of giving an “anti-Semitic speech dripping with hatred.”

The words “Jew” or “Jewish” were never used in Trump’s speech. Instead, Trump was identifying the corrupt political class which he believes, accurately, has sold out the American people. Nor was this a “dog whistle.” As with most of Trump’s best speeches this election season, the speech in Florida bears the heavy influence of Stephen Miller, Jeff Sessions’s former senior policy advisor and one of the few civic nationalists on Capitol Hill. Despite being memed as the reincarnation of Joseph Goebbels, he’s Jewish.

Nonetheless, as with the parentheses meme, Jewish reporters and media figures essentially outed themselves, announcing to the world that yes, they are behind globalism, outsourcing, mass immigration, and the deliberate destruction of the country. Furthermore, while they can identify themselves in this way, it is inherently anti-Semitic for others to do so. And certain provable facts, like Hillary Clinton explicitly praising open borders in private speeches to international banks, are ipso facto banned from discussion.

Trump essentially said there is a small group of people who are deliberately destroying our country for their own gain. And many Jews screamed, “Hey, you can’t say that, because you’re referring to us and what we are doing.” I don’t think Trump is the “anti-Semitic” one in this equation.

What about Mr. Miller? The important thing to remember about Stephen Miller is that his attitudes should be typical of all Americans in government. This includes Jews if we really are supposed to believe they’re just like everyone else.

It shouldn’t be controversial that our government tries to protect our own national interest, guard our sovereignty, and ensure the continued existence of our people. It shouldn’t even be up for debate. Even considering other ends for government is essentially proof of treason. “America First” shouldn’t be provocative, but obvious.

It’s good that Miller doesn’t hate the United States. But it’s perverted that this is seen as a notable exception, rather than something Americans have the right to expect and demand. One Stephen Miller doesn’t change the reality that just about every other Jewish journalist, political figure, and media organization (on both “Left” and “Right”) has been brought to the point of frothing madness simply because a presidential candidate believes his own country should be put first.

A System defined by hypocrisy can only function if the iron fist of oppression is concealed behind the velvet glove of multicultural happy talk. And the lying press is being forced to reveal the true nature of the System which rules us and who it benefits. The astonishingly crude hatred directed against European-Americans is daily made more explicit.

Who, after all, can take this artificial, top-down driven campaign against Trump seriously? We have (((Bill Mahrer,))) whose entire career has been defined by crude boasts about his sexual immorality, earnestly furrowing his brow and asking if Republicans can be good “human beings” because they support Trump. We have the same American Left which endlessly crusaded against the Iraq War and who told us “dissent is patriotic” accusing the Republican nominee and his supporters of being agents of a foreign government. We now have proof Hillary Clinton is essentially the willing puppet of Wall Street bankers in a way that defies caricature, and yet we have the President of the United States worrying the corporate media doesn’t have enough control over the public debate. The ruling class is revealing itself as a ruling class which offers us nothing but hatred. And rather than at least offering us a compromise, they’re just demanding we submit and die quietly.

And of course, there are those who are urging us to do just that. Preposterous cuck David French moans:

As the Pew Foundation has amply documented, Americans are polarized in the worst possible way — two tribes not so much united by love for their own as hatred for the other.

America is strong enough to withstand bad policy, but no nation can long endure public panic. The stakes in 2016 are not high enough to burn anything down, nor to sacrifice any element of your character or moral convictions.

Take a deep breath, America. We should be better than this.

What do you mean we, you ridiculous traitor? The American nation-state has been successfully deconstructed and politics today is a zero-sum game of identity politics, not a genteel debate over policy. Contra Hillary’s slogan of “Stronger Together,” every day brings more proof that European-Americans are suffering under the yoke of this poisonous occupying government which regards us as an enemy to be destroyed.

And what twisted version of morality celebrates remaining submissive to criminals? The scribblings of French and other nauseating collaborators is a desperate attempt to keep our people enslaved. Stupidity and cowardice are the most charitable explanations for such conduct.

It’s not that Donald Trump is a “White nationalist,” a fascist, or even particularly right wing. As a civic nationalist, a supporter of affirmative action, and a passionate Zionist, Trump should be well within the mainstream of Weimerican politics. And yet, he and his supporters are being attacked as existential threats to the Republic.

This tells us the System can only tolerate our continued existence when we are utterly degraded and on our knees, that we are only to be permitted to exist when the purpose of our very lives is to fuel a System pursuing our genocide. And the most privileged members of this system, rather than shrinking back, are comfortable telling us exactly who they are and what they are doing.

No Comments on Found Out

Weaponized Morality

Morality is a weapon. Hierarchy is a constant. And the will to power can never be removed, only expressed in different ways. 

Thus it is that in the Current Year, facing what is (for once) actually The Most Important Election In Our Lifetime, we aren’t discussing issues like immigration, health care, or foreign policy. Instead, the critical issues of our time are whether Donald Trump was rude to a sociopathic whore decades ago or whether he engaged in lewd talk about women in a private conversation. 

Morality is a weapon. Hierarchy is a constant. And the will to power can never be removed, only expressed in different ways.

Thus it is that in the Current Year, facing what is (for once) The Most Important Election In Our Lifetime, we aren’t discussing issues like immigration, health care, or foreign policy. Instead, the critical issues of our time are whether Donald Trump was rude to a sociopathic whore decades ago or whether he engaged in lewd talk about women in a private conversation.

Like most of the smear campaigns against the Republican nominee, the first story is nonsense. Alicia Machado, a former beauty pageant winner, put on 60 pounds after her victory and apparently Donald Trump criticized her. In anything resembling a real nation, rather than a crumbling shopping mall writ large, the person who even brings up this trivia would be stripped of the franchise.

But the decline is in the details and there’s something revealing about all this. Like most of those who are held up as heroes today, Alicia Machado is being blessed by the priests of weakness in the media because of her worst qualities. We know she cheated on her fiancé (on television), was involved with a Mexican drug lord and probably had his daughter, and may have been involved in a murder. Yet this is the person Hillary Clinton is holding up as a hero and a new valuable addition to our national family. All because she violated a contract and couldn’t restrain from gorging herself like an animal.

Eldritch abomination Lindy West, who with each fetid breath proves Spengler was right and that the West is already dead, called for fat people to “rise up,” not to get exercise, but to join with nonwhites and defeat Trump.

While nonwhites are born members of the Coalition of the Oppressed, Whites become part of the Rising American Electorate only when they define themselves through some form of degeneracy. Not surprisingly, if they can’t just switch races entirely, they simply come up with increasingly outlandish faux-identities.

Even as we are lectured that we as Whites have no culture, have no identity aside from oppression, and did not create the (former) greatness of Western nations, we are still held responsible for every failing of nonwhite people throughout the entire world. Many of the worst atrocities such as newly invented genders, redefining yourself as some kind of animal or whatever other form of psychopathy will be tomorrow’s civil rights crusade is a kind of cry for help. Weak Whites are desperately trying to break away from being considered part of the officially hated group.

But there’s another form of escape, which is the retreat into some kind of “principled” morality which is designed not to hold people to their duty, but to allow them to escape from it. Which brings us to the second “scandal,” Donald Trump talking about hitting on women in a private conversation.

Like the useless and despicable cucks that they are, the likes of Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, and Jeb Bush have fallen all over themselves to virtue signal. The lying press is openly pressuring Donald Trump to drop out of the race. And the feminists are claiming this conversation itself constitutes “assault.”

This is impossible to take seriously. All of this faux outrage is being ginned up to help Hillary Clinton, whom we know exists only because she latched on to the coattails of her lecherous husband and helped conceal his crimes. Bill Clinton’s career was only saved because his defenders during the impeachment trial convinced the public the scandal was about sex with an intern, an act which, even if consensual, would get your average middle manager somewhere brought up on charges of sexual harassment or simply fired (if he’s lucky.)

We’re told that we must always “listen and believe,” even by Hillary herself, even though Juanita Broaddrick has maintained for years she was raped by the former president. As Joe Eszterhas noted in American Rhapsody, a poll taken soon after Broaddrick was interviewed with Lisa Myers showed over 80 percent of Americans thought the president of the United States was a rapist – but his approval ratings remained high.

With Bill Clinton’s scandals, the excuse was “everybody lies about sex.” This isn’t really true. It only seems that way in the cesspool on the Potomac, which really should be renamed so as to stop disgracing the Father of Our Country. But in most of the country, not everyone is an adulterer, a rake, or some kind of a pervert.

That said, there is not a single adult man or woman alive, no matter how Christian, sheltered, or principled, who has not had a conversation or bull session about sex and relationships he or she wouldn’t want made public. Every single person claiming to be outraged by this is arguing in bad faith.

Indeed, the wildly disproportionate reaction about this conversation is a society-wide case of “doth protest too much.” These swine are feigning shock because they are all guilty. Find me one DC journalist whose relationship would survive a significant other seeing his or her browser history, let alone transcripts of all conversations.

The fact Donald Trump is being crucified because of a taped private conversation more than a decade old is a condemnation of our entire contemptible society. To use the parlance of our time, he dindu nuffin. He is being convicted for thoughtcrime.

Weimerica is in no position to be moralizing about this. In a media-saturated culture, the dominant public “morality” is simply what our press tells us to be outraged about. Our celebrities, America’s closest equivalent to aristocracy, are slightly less subtle versions of prostitutes, marketed to children. Our institutions of higher learning turn out hapless and incompetent graduates with carefully cultivated neuroses to be used as weapons against their fellow citizens in a culture and economy based on weakness and artificial victimhood. We’re on the brink of war with Russia, which the press tells us is an enemy because the Orthodox masses aren’t properly enthusiastic enough about America’s highest national value of sodomy. And the party of Bill Clinton and Anthony Weiner is now being hailed as the stern guardian of public morality. To use Paul Ryan’s phrase, that is “who we are” as a nation in the Current Year.

Morality is a tool to be used to destroy foes. Just as aristocrats of the past were carefully trained in sophisticated etiquette to keep down their social inferiors and compete against their equals, so our elite uses the rhetoric of egalitarianism to defend their position. Every society is hypocritical, but it was left to the modern post-Western world to be completely defined by duplicity.

Consider the case of (((Mark Cuban))). His family name was changed from Chabenisky to Cuban after his family fled Russia to inflict us with their presence. Cuban made the bulk of his money by cashing out of Yahoo at the right time near the end of the tech boom. In terms of style, Cuban adopted the kind of “dudebro” lifestyle condemned as inherently immoral by the Left. Despite being a billionaire, he dresses in t-shirts. He’s a pornographer and publicly claimed: “Girls Gone Wild” did not objectivity women, something which is rationally more “sexist” than anything Trump did. He taunts Trump not for being too right wing, but for not being rich enough.

Yet Cuban is spared from the outrage culture and is now a trusted surrogate for the Hillary Clinton campaign. Cuban initially praised Trump’s run for office and even expressed openness to being Trump’s running mate. But Cuban switched sides, ostensibly because he didn’t think Trump understood nuclear deterrence.

It’s hard to take this seriously. More likely, Cuban took a hard look at the financial blowback Trump suffered after condemning illegal immigration and made a cynical decision. Indeed, he now smirks that Trump has destroyed his brand and will be bankrupt within a few years if he does not win. He might be right. If Trump does lose, he will have to bend the knee in some form to save the family business for his children.

Like in the Roman civil wars at the fall of the Republic, today it’s all about making sure you are on the right side. And because Cuban chose to align with the president Weimerica deserves, he is held up as a business expert, a respected political pundit and even some kind of a moral leader.

There’s a great deal of debate about what does and does not constitute the Alt Right and who properly belongs in or out of the movement. I’d add one essential characteristic that makes the Alt Right distinct from paleoconservativism, White nationalism, or National Socialism – a dominant sense of cynicism. No one who is on the Alt Right can honestly say he or she is fighting to save a System and a power structure which is basically healthy. The Alt Right is a culture of critique against the hegemonic liberal and anti-White Narrative and the institutions which perpetuate it. Even George Lincoln Rockwell had more faith in the American government than any anonymous shitposter.

Whatever you were first “redpilled” on – sex, race, Jewish privilege, American foreign policy, the conservative movement – all of it begins with the same terrible realization. They are lying to us. They are lying to us not because they actually believe this nonsense, but because it allows them to expand their own power. Since they only benefit if we believe what they are telling us, we should instinctively distrust them.

This is why so much of chan culture, which was such an important influence on the Alt Right, was built upon laughing at the “moralfags.” It was a recognition their bromides were a scam. Indeed, the only people who actually do seem to believe the ideals underlying liberal democracy on their own terms are American conservatives, who are eternal losers that can serve only as gullible fools or controlled opposition.

This is not to say we are without idealism. We have a vision of hierarchy, of glory, of the upward path. But in what used to be our country, what should be sacred is cast in the dirt and what belongs in the gutter is trumpeted as an ideal. Our idealism is fueled by this terrible sense of betrayal, the raging fury that the institutions and figures who were supposed to secure our future have abandoned their responsibility and betrayed their duty.

Donald Trump, for all his faults, is a better man than anyone in the political class. Our own supposed leaders proudly boast they are plotting our deliberate destruction. The people who talk the most about “propriety” and “tone” are the same people who have unleashed death and chaos in pointless wars around the world.

“Morality?” Today, it’s just a shit test on a global scale, a public relations campaign, a marketing scam. To see a “Republican strategist” or a Beltway journalist pontificate about decorum is self-discrediting. To see the same people who celebrate the Folsom Street Fair suddenly clutch their pearls is revolting. It’s not about being “beyond good and evil” or denying standards. It’s about not falling for this same old con anymore.

No Comments on Weaponized Morality

Discovering the European Mind

From the 19th century through the 1960s and 70s, World History books were quite fair in their assessments of the varying accomplishments of all civilizations, but most authors and teachers paid more attention to the achievements of European civilization in the making of modernity and in the shaping of global politics, particularly after the European discovery of the Americas, the consolidation of Newtonian science, and the spread of Western-created industrial technology. This fairly realistic assessment was increasingly rejected from the 1960s on by historians who felt that all the peoples of the earth deserved equal attention and that it was “ethnocentric” to elevate European achievements above others. How can Europeans be portrayed as the primary players in modern world history if all the races of the world are equal and the task of liberal-minded academics is to nurture cultural harmony, overcome the belligerence exemplified in World War II, and produce “global citizens” in an increasingly interconnected world? But an obvious difficulty confronted this feeling: how can a new history of all humans—“universal” in this respect—be constructed in light of the clear pre-eminence of Europeans in so many fields?

From the 19th century through the 1960s and 70s, World History books were quite fair in their assessments of the varying accomplishments of all civilizations, but most authors and teachers paid more attention to the achievements of European civilization in the making of modernity and in the shaping of global politics, particularly after the European discovery of the Americas, the consolidation of Newtonian science, and the spread of Western-created industrial technology. This fairly realistic assessment was increasingly rejected from the 1960s on by historians who felt that all the peoples of the earth deserved equal attention and that it was “ethnocentric” to elevate European achievements above others. How can Europeans be portrayed as the primary players in modern world history if all the races of the world are equal and the task of liberal-minded academics is to nurture cultural harmony, overcome the belligerence exemplified in World War II, and produce “global citizens” in an increasingly interconnected world? But an obvious difficulty confronted this feeling: how can a new history of all humans—“universal” in this respect—be constructed in light of the clear pre-eminence of Europeans in so many fields?

It soon became apparent that the key was to do away with the idea of “progress,” which had become almost synonymous with the achievements of the West. In the political climate in the mid- to late ’60s, the West was at the center of everything that seemed wrong in the world: the threat of nuclear destruction, the prolonged Vietnam War, the pollution inflicted by European consumers; and the West was opposed to the brave new world taking shape: pan-Arabic and pan-African identities, the “liberation movements” in Latin America, the Black civil rights riots, the feminist struggle against patriarchy, etc.[1]

Not to be underestimated, this was the time when a highly influential school of thought, Dependency Theory, emerged, arguing that the reason Europeans modernized, in the first place, was that they stole the resources of other civilizations, enslaved their inhabitants, and enriched themselves unfairly. The once backward West had managed to surpass other cultures, starting in the late 15th century, by positioning itself, through dishonesty, duplicity, and violence, at the center of the world economy. The “progression” of the West was predicated on the systematic exploitation of the rest of the world. Millions of students were taught that the capitalist West, in the words of Karl Marx, had progressed to become master of the world “dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt.”[2] Old dead white males[3] should no longer be praised for launching the modern world, but should instead be held guilty for holding back the development of other civilizations and creating a world capitalist system in the “core” Western world that held down the “peripheral” Third World.

Accordingly, the idea of “progress,” articulated since the Enlightenment in close association with the history of Europeans, was rejected by the late 1970s,[4] soon to be replaced by the idea of “world history connected.”[5] Students would now have to learn that all humans were alike as Homo sapiens, similarly capable members of the same planet, creators of different but equally worthwhile cultures. We all had a common origin in the “first” humans who evolved in Africa, migrating to the rest of the world, occupying different ecological settings and creating “richly diverse” cultures, yet interacting with each other through trade, wars, empires, and migrations, and thus making world history together. There were no separate civilizations; the history of the world had been made together by all humans in the same “mother earth.”[6] But the aim of these equalizers was hardly that Europeans were creatively involved in the creation of Chinese, Mesopotamian, or Mayan civilization; it was that they were morally and economically responsible for the “underdevelopment” of civilizations that were once more developed than the Germanic Barbarians of the Dark Ages—while insisting simultaneously that non-Europeans were the ultimate originators or co-participators of every great epoch in Europe’s history.

But before this great fabrication was imposed on unsuspecting White students, a preparatory, though by no means identical, idea had been articulated by a German named Karl Jaspers: the notion that in ancient times, roughly between 800 and 200 BC, the major civilizations of the Old World experienced, more or less at the same time, a “spiritual process” characterized by a common set of religious, psychological, and philosophical inquiries about what it means to be “specifically human.”[7] The argument was that humanity, at this point in history, together, came to pose universal questions about the meaning of life with similar answers. The ideological aim behind this idea was that Europeans were not exceptional, did not carve out a unique historical path beginning with the achievements of the Greeks. Rather, all humans had developed a common cultural outlook at more or less the same time, an outlook that was to shape their histories along similar trajectories, with the West only “rising” in recent times due to a combination of “unusual circumstances.” This idea of an “Axial Age” was a boon to the ideological drive after World War II to envision the history of all cultures as a “collective” undertaking between “connected” peoples. The behavior of Germany during Second War was testimony, apparently, of what happens when an otherwise modern culture decides to defend its ethnic integrity rather than join with the world of cosmopolitanism. Germany had strayed from the course of “human history” by envisioning itself as “special people” with a unique destiny for greatness. The Europeans who had defeated Germany must abandon any notion of exceptionalism and envision themselves as members of a common history.

When Karl Jaspers first articulated this idea in 1949, he saw it as an exceptional age in which the major civilizations of the world accomplished similar intellectual and spiritual breakthroughs between 800 and 200 BC. He saw this age as an example of how relatively isolated cultures had shown a common humanity in producing rather similar moral ideas and rules with universal intent. But while Jaspers believed that the civilizations of the world diverged greatly after the Axial Age, and agreed with the then general consensus that Western history was characterized by a “special quality” in the generation of far more cultural novelties, historians in subsequent decades gradually came to the view that axial-age thinking was the product of the “common” and “connected” nature of the entire history of “humanity” and that its thinking “spread and shaped thoughts and feelings in every clime and continent.”[8]

I believe, to the contrary, that there was no Axial Age, but that instead this epoch witnessed a dramatic contrast between the revolution in thought in ancient Greece and in the other civilizations combined. This argument can be made successfully even if we restrict ourselves to the Presocratic thinkers of the sixth and fifth centuries BC and leave out the amazing intellectual and artistic originalities of the classical Greeks. The Presocratics, I will argue, were the originators of the uniquely Western idea that there is a logos in the universe, a pattern, a structure in the way all things are. This idea teaches us that humans have a faculty within their soul, or natural constitution, that can be identified as “rational,” which allows them to offer arguments about the logos of the world and “to speak” or use words in a reasoned way about the way the world and humans are structured and the way humans should live in accordance with this order. This paper will also examine the way Western scholars came to extend the Axial Age to the entire history of the world in an effort to dilute the uniqueness of Europeans generally, in the name of a “world history connected” that would suit the expectations of egalitarianism and the promotion of diversity.[9] Finally, I will contrast the Chinese “embedded” way of seeing things to the “analytical,” and ultimately far more creative, worldly, and universal way of seeing things of Europeans.


Jaspers, to this day a highly respected German philosopher, argued in The Origin and Goal of History, published in 1949 in German, a few years after the end of World War II, that Western culture was not uniquely gifted with ideas that bespoke of mankind generally and the course of history universally; other major civilizations, too, had espoused outlooks about humanity together with moral precepts with universal content.

Jaspers believed that this ability was “empirically” made possible by the occurrence of a fundamental “spiritual” change between 800 and 200 BC, which gave “rise to a common frame of historical self-comprehension for all peoples—for the West, for Asia, and for all men on earth, without regard to particular articles of faith.”[10] Believing that these spiritual changes occurred simultaneously across the world, Jaspers called it the “Axial Period.” It is worth quoting in full Jasper’s identification of the main protagonists of this period:

The most extraordinary events are concentrated in this period. Confucius and Lao-tse were living in China, all the schools of Chinese philosophy came into being, including those of Mo-ti, Chuang-tse, Lieh-tsu and a host of others; India produced the Upanishads and Buddha and, like China, ran the whole gamut of philosophical possibilities down to skepticism, to materialism, sophism and nihilism; in Iran Zarathustra taught a challenging view of the world as a struggle between good and evil; in Palestine the prophets made their appearance, from Elijah, by way of Isaiah and Jeremiah to Deutero-Isaiah; Greece witnessed the appearance of Homer, of the Philosophers — Parmenides, Heraclitus and Plato — of the tragedians, Thucydides and Archimedes. Everything implied by these names developed during these few centuries almost simultaneously in China, India, and the West, without any one of these regions knowing of the others.[11]

Jaspers used certain amorphous philosophical phrases to bring out what was novel spiritually about this Axial age: “man becomes conscious of Being as a whole… He asks radical questions… By consciously recognizing the limits he sets himself the highest goals. He experiences absoluteness in the face of self hood.”[12] But in some instances, Jaspers offered more concrete sentences: “hitherto unconsciously accepted ideas, customs and conditions were subjected to examination, questioned and liquidated.”[13] Essentially, in this Axial Age, the age of myths came to “an end.”

The Greek, Indian and Chinese philosophers were unmythical in their decisive insights, as were the prophets [of the Bible] in their ideas of God.[14]

A number of religious figures, philosophers and prophets came to rely more on their own judgments, visions, and reasoning powers: logos was set “against mythos.”[15] Humans were now willing to rely on their rationality to make sense of the cosmos, to draw a clearer contrast between the inner world of consciousness, reflection, and the outer of accepted norms and beliefs, subject and object, spirit and matter. Combined with this spiritual awakening, came the idea of a transcendental One God as the basis of a new ethics against unreal demons and as the locus for thinking what was morally right for all.

It is not that the philosophical outlooks of these civilizations were identical, but that they exhibited similar breakthroughs in posing universal questions about the “human condition”: What is the ultimate source of all things? What is our relation to the universe? What is the Good? What are human beings?

Prior cultures were more particularized, tribal, polytheistic, and devoid of self-awareness regarding the universal characteristics of human existence. From the Axial Age onward, “world history receives the only structure and unity that has endured—at least until our own time.”[16]

The central aim of Jasper’s book was to drive home the notion that the different faiths and races of the world were once running along “parallel lines” of spiritual development, and that we should draw on this “common” spiritual source to avoid the calamity of another World War. The fact that these civilizations had reached a common spiritual point of development, without any direct influences between them, was likely, in his view, the “manifestation of some profound common element, the one primal source of humanity.”[17] We humans have much in common, despite our differences.


This notion of an Axial Age, with which Jaspers came to be identified, and which has been accepted by many established world historians, historical sociologists and philosophers,[18] is also a claim he felt in a personal way (as a German) in the aftermath of the Second World War. According to Jaspers, after the end of the Axial Age around

200 BC, the major civilizations had ceased to follow “parallel movements close to each other” and instead began to “diverge” and “finally became deeply estranged from one another.”[19] The Nazi experience was, in his estimation, an extreme case of such divergence.

It should be noted, in this vein, that Jaspers, whose wife was Jewish, was the author of a much discussed book, The Question of German Guilt,[20] in which he extended culpability to Germany as a whole, indeed, to every German, even those who were not members of the Nazi party. A passage from this book, cited upfront in a BBC documentary, “The Nazis—A Warning from History,”[21] reads:

That which has happened is a warning. To forget it is guilt. It must be continually remembered. It was possible for this to happen, and it remains possible for it to happen again at any minute. Only in knowledge can it be prevented.

The intention behind the idea of an Axial Age was to induce in humans an awareness of themselves as beings with a profound spiritual unity, nurturing a sense of “human solidarity.” But this was only the beginning of what was soon to become a culture-wide effort on the part of Western elites to do away with any notion of Western uniqueness, by framing its history as part of a “common” historical narrative of interacting and mutually evolving civilizations. It was also the beginning of an effort to instill on European natives the belief that they were citizens of “proposition nations,” and since these propositions could be held in common by all humans, they were “citizens of the world”—and all inhabitants of the world were potential citizens of their nations. “Germanness,” in the words of Jürgen Habermas, would “no longer be based on ethnicity, but founded on citizenship.”[22] Habermas, a keen admirer of Jaspers, would be one of countless others embracing this civic/cosmopolitan notion of citizenship.


An interesting figure drawn to the idea of a common historical experience, in the early days after the Second World War, was Hannah Arendt, a student of Jaspers. She obtained a copy of The Origin and Goal of History as she was completing her widely acclaimed book The Origins of Totalitarianism. It is quite revealing that, in a short essay titled “Hannah Arendt’s Jewish Identity,”[23] Elisabeth Young-Bruehl traces the roots of Arendt’s cosmopolitanism to the role of the Jews of Palestine as one of the Axial Age peoples. Together with Jaspers, Arendt came to share

the project of thinking about what kind of history was needed for facing the events of the war and the Holocaust and for considering how the world might be after the war. They agreed that the needed history should not be national or for a national purpose, but for humankind. [24]

Arendt agreed with Jaspers, Young-Bruehl writes, that the way for Westerners to overcome “the ill effects of their own prejudices and technological progress, which had made the worldwide war possible,” was to open up to the world and think in a “cosmopolitan way about the future of humanity.” In light of her Jewish identity, as one of the Axial peoples victimized by German and European prejudices, Arendt further developed the arguments of Jaspers by invoking the cosmopolitanism exhibited by the Jews in the Axial Age, both as an “antidote to tribalist Jewish thinking” and to European ethno-nationalism. Young-Bruehl continues:

It is Arendt’s Jewish identity—not just the identity she asserted in defending herself as a Jew when attacked as one, but more deeply her connection to the Axial Age prophetic tradition—that made her the cosmopolitan she was.

But what kind of history writing does cosmopolitan thinking require, given that civilizations, according to Jasper, diverged in their cultural development after the Axial Age? For Arendt, this was beside the point, she was not a historian preoccupied with the actual documentation and diverging histories of civilizations and nations. Her goal was to create a new state of mind among Europeans in the way they viewed themselves in relation to the world. She thus called upon Europeans to:

  • “enlarge” their minds and include the experience and views of other cultures in their thinking;

  • overcome their Eurocentric prejudices and encompass the entire world in their historical reflections;

  • develop a sense of the “human condition” and learn how to talk about what is “common to all mankind”;

  • learn how they are culturally shaped both by their particular conditions and the conditions and experiences shared by all humans on the planet.[25]


This call by Arendt would coalesce with similar arguments about the “inventions of nations,”[26] the “social construction of races,” and the idea that we are all primordially alike as Homo sapiens. Jaspers, at least in his book The Origin and Goal of History, did not go this far, but in fact retracted, in later chapters, from the general statements he made in the Introduction about the Axial Age being a common spiritual experience across the planet, acknowledging the obvious:

it was not a universal occurrence… There were the great peoples of the ancient civilizations, who lived before and even concurrently with the [Axial] breakthrough, but had no part in it.[27]

He further noted that the Egyptian and Babylonian peoples “remained what they had been earlier … destitute of that quality of reflection which transformed mankind,” even though they interacted with the Axial cultures.[28] As it is, Jaspers admitted that after the Axial Age, the respective civilizations traversed very different spiritual pathways, which begs the question as to why they would cease to exhibit “parallel developments” despite increasing interaction. Perhaps even more important was his recognition that there was a “specific quality” to the West in the way it exhibited “far more dramatic fresh starts,”[29] whereas

in Asia, on the other hand, a constant situation persists; it modifies its manifestations, it founders in catastrophes and re-establishes itself on the one and only basis as that which is constantly the same.[30]

In the end, Jaspers could not avoid the ultimate historical question about why the

West followed such a diametrically different path:

[I]f science and technology were created in the West, we are faced with the question: Why did this happen in the West and not in the other two great cultural zones?[31]

The answer he offered was essentially the same as Hegel’s heavily Eurocentric perspective about the unique pre-occupation of Europeans with freedom and reason. He actually delimited the veracity of the Axial thesis with the observation that only the ancient Greeks came to know “political liberty,” in contrast to the “universal despotism” of the East; and that “in contrast to the East, Greek rationality contain[ed] a strain of consistency that laid the foundations of mathematics and perfected formal logic.”[32]

Here are more special qualities mentioned by Jaspers about the West:

  • “Tragedy is known only to the West.”
  • While other Axial cultures spoke of mankind in general, in the West this universal ambition regarding the place of man in the cosmos and the good life did not “coagulate into a dogmatic fixity.”[33]
  • “The West gives the exception room to move.”
  • In the West “human nature reaches a height that is certainly not shared by all and to which … hardly anyone ascends.”
  • “[T]he perpetual disquiet of the West, its continual dissatisfaction, its inability to be content with any sort of fulfillment.”[34]

This is the language of Spengler’s “Faustian Soul.”[35] Some in the New Right don’t like this perpetual restlessness about the West and would prefer to see the West become one more boring “traditional culture.” But this cannot be, for “in contrast to the uniformity and relative freedom from tension of all Oriental empires”:

the West is typified by resoluteness that takes things to extremes, elucidates them down to the last detail, places them before the either-or, and so brings awareness of the underlying principles and sets up battle-fronts in the inmost recesses of the mind.[36]

None of these substantial qualifications would matter in the end. The inquiries Jaspers started would mushroom way beyond his expectations, leading to the complete abolition of the teaching of “Western Civ” courses and the imposition of World Multicultural History. The Axial Age Jaspers had limited to the period 800–200 BC would come to be extended to the entire course of human history! A. G. Frank and Kenneth Pomeranz would announce in their best sellers, ReOrient (1998) and The Great Divergence (2000) that the cultural and economic trajectories of Europe and Asia were “surprisingly similar” up until a sudden “accidental” divergence occurred around 1750–1830. Humans are all the same, have always been connected through migrations, race mixing, trade, and cultural borrowings. We have always been part of one big family. Europeans who talk about their uniqueness and complain about mass immigration and the incredible gifts of Islamic culture[37] to the West are ignoramuses in need of replacement.

Yet there never was an Axial Age: the Presocratics were dramatically different in their inquiries, and far more universal and original in their reasoning, than the prophets of the Old Testament, the major schools of Confucianism, Taoism, and Legalism in China, and the Hindu religions of India. As far as I know, no one has explained this seemingly paradoxical combination of extreme Western uniqueness and extreme universalism.


The acceptance and popularization of the Axial Age has come in varying degrees and ways, but a good way to access its impact and general characteristics is to examine its incorporation in college textbooks. Many world history texts could have been chosen to show how far ahead the idea of an Axial Age was extended, but for our purposes the following two, very successful, texts, will suffice: The Heritage of World Civilizations (2003), by Albert M. Craig et. al. This 2003 publication is the sixth edition; the text was first published in 1990, and it is already in its 10th edition as of 2010. The other book I will examine briefly is the The World—A History (2007), by the internationally celebrated Fernandez-Armesto. This book was released with a huge splash, evaluated by more than a hundred reviewers from around the world and “class-tested” at 15 academic institutions in the United States. The third edition of this text came out in 2011, with another edition planned for 2015.

These two texts make for an interesting contrast between the initial phases in the acceptance of an Axial Age, as understood by Heritage, which is now seen as an outdated text written by old White men close to retirement, retired, or dead, still employing “unsound” terms like “civilizations,” and what is currently seen as a truly progressive version of the Axial Age, as understood by Armesto’s The World.

The authors of Heritage, Craig, William Graham, Donald Kagan, Steven Ozment, and Frank M. Turner, are known as relatively conservative historians in academia. Kagan has a reputation as a “neoconservative”,[38] and Turner, no longer alive, as a “historian of the ideas that shaped Western civilization.”[39] All in all, they are/were solid academics from a generation that has now been practically replaced by outright promoters of diversity. In the sixth edition of Heritage, they humbly write about improvements in the text, such as the consolidation of four chapters on European peoples into two chapters, thereby offering “a more balanced treatment of world history.”[40]

We should not be surprised at their efforts to march in step with the cultural Marxist expectations of the time. In fact, not only do they follow Jaspers, but they go further in solidifying and expanding historically Jasper’s rather moderate assessment, making the following key observations about this age:

There is more than an obvious similarity between the Jewish Messiah, the Chinese sage-king, and Plato’s philosopher-king… Each would reconnect ethics to history and restore order to a troubled society… The reason is not that humans’ creativity dried up after 300 BCE, but that subsequent breakthroughs and advances tended to occur within the original [Axial] traditions … Once a cultural pattern was set, it usually endured. Each major culture was resistant to the others and only rarely displaced [my emphasis].[41]

While they agree with Jaspers that in subsequent centuries, once each tradition was set, each culture tended to follow its own tradition, we are made to believe that they remained equally attached to the fundamental ideas of the Axial Age. Chinese thought had greater staying power than Greek thought,” as Greek thought was “submerged by Christianity,” becoming “the handmaiden of theology” until it “reemerge as an independent force in the Renaissance.”[42] So, overall, the West more or less continued the axial-age thinking of the Greeks, with the difference that it then brought in the tradition of “the Jewish Messiah,” submerging the Greek one under it, until Greek thought managed to reemerge again in the Renaissance, leading to the rise of modern science.

To its credit, Heritage examines each of the four traditions of the Axial Age separately, bringing out some key differences, backed by solid, old fashion sources. Yet the text cannot help playing up the idea that we are all homo sapiens, who have come together historically through “globalization” and that no citizen in the West can “escape the necessity of understanding the past in global terms.”[43] The current global course of history dictates the way we should see the past. We have always been moving towards the creation of cosmopolitan citizens, and this book hopes to contribute to this process.


Once we get to Fernandez-Armesto’s text, all these qualifications about divergent paths and Western dissimilarities are thrown out the window. I have already examined this text in The Uniqueness of Western Civilization and will not rehash the flagrant manner in which it deals with European history. Suffice it to say that he allocates a meager 40 pages or so to ancient Greece, Rome, the Middle Ages, and the Renaissance combined, but 23 pages to the Mongols alone, whom he praises as tolerant and liberal. He then goes on to claim, for the modern era, that there were “comparable” revolutions in science, industry, and in Enlightenment thought in China, India and in the Near East. The paramount message of the text is that the history of the peoples of the earth must be presented in a “unified” or in a “global context.” This is the message right from the opening chapters on the evolution of humans. What, then, is so different about the Axial Age?

After some cheerful chapters about how “all the people that we now recognize as human” evolved in Africa, the emphasis, leading up to a chapter titled “The Axial Age, from 500 BCE to 100 CE,” is about how humans moved “out of Africa” and ended up “peopling the earth.” We hear endearing stories about how “Eve’s children” migrated out of their native “homeland” in Africa to other continents. Did you get this students? We are all immigrants … except, of course, for Africans!

Armesto then goes on to say that most cultures across the world made similar transitions to herding and farming on their own initiative, everyone developing civilizations.[44] The old definition of “civilization” is now rightfully “discredited as a word,” for all cultures are civilizations, since any agrarian engagement with an environment is a form of civilization.[45] As Armesto puts it in Civilizations (2000),

In reality, civilization is an ordinary thing, an impulse so widespread it has transformed almost every habitable landscape.[46]

It became widespread through diffusion; there may have been more, but we know of only six civilizations originating on their own. Armesto imagines himself a provocateur in academia. He condemns the “crude perversion” of Kenneth Clark[47], who claimed “the Apollo embodies a higher state of civilization than the [African] mask.”[48] All civilizations are equally ordinary, or no better than foraging societies.

The importance of the Axial Age is simply that “the thinkers of the time anticipated and influenced the way we think now.”[49] Whereas Jaspers saw the Axial Age as a unique epoch, world historians nowadays see it as a continuation of past “connected” trends characterized by new intellectual trends. Whereas Jaspers observed divergent paths after this age, with the West following a “special” path, Armesto views the West as no different from the other civilizations; every place was similarly “anticipated and influenced” by “the common content of the minds” of the Axial thinkers. In the many centuries after this age, the West, just like the Rest, “added so little to it.”[50]

Armesto, however, adds that the Axial Age was not restricted to Eurasia, but was a “worldwide story” because of the way axial-age thinking later spread and shaped thoughts and feelings in every clime and continent.[51]

The other areas were co-participants as members of trade networks, as colonial areas, or plainly as members of the same species that migrated out of Africa, supporting the core regions in their endeavors while adding their own cultural motifs. World history is a wonderful tapestry of cultures working together.


But anyone with some knowledge of Ancient Greece would know that the number of thinkers coming from that world was vastly greater than the number coming from all the other civilizations combined, which were each large and heavily populated. Much as Armesto tries to portray the thinkers outside Greece as saintly, lofty and exalted sages, while ignoring most of the Greek thinkers—referring to Plato as a “member of an Athenian gang of rich aristocrats” who idealized “harsh, reactionary, and illiberal” states, “militarism,” “regimentation,” “rigid class structure,” and “selective breeding of superior human beings”[52]—the achievements of Asia cultures barely compare in originality to the Greek invention of tragedy as a literary form, dialogical reasoning, deductive method in geometry, prose, citizenship politics, the science of geography, cartography, historical writing, and other achievements.

First, the region of Persia, South West Asia, produced only one global thinker, known as Zoroaster, from the late seventh and early sixth centuries BC. In the case of India, we have Vardhamana Jnatrputra, also dated without precision to the sixth and early fifth century BC. He founded Jainism. We also have Gautuma Siddharta, who “probably” lived in the mid-sixth and early fourth centuries BC, associated with the foundation of Buddhism. Concerning the Israelites, we have “the monotheistic revolution” associated with the “Book of Deuteronomy,” the fifth book of the Hebrew Bible, dated from about the eighth to the fifth century BC. There are no clear names here other than prophets such as Hosea and Jeremiah, both roughly dated to this period. Some add Jesus to this group, Armesto for one, “as an independent-minded Jewish rabbi.”

What about the much talked about “Hundred Schools” in China? As far as we know, there were three major schools: Confucianism, Taoism, and Legalism, together with some other important figures known as “Logicians,” “Mohists,” “Cosmologists,” and “Rhetoricians.” The original great thinkers were: Confucius (born 551 BC), Mencius (370–290 BC), who offered an idealistic version of Confucian thought, Mo-tzu (470–391 BC), founder of Mohism, Lao-tzu (fifth or fourth century BC), founder of Taoism, and Sun-tzu (sixth-fifth century BC), author of The Art of War. This is an impressive list, with other less significant names.

To make the case that something very different transpire in the Western world, it will suffice to contrast China’s contribution to Greece’s contribution to Axial thinking. China is the only civilization that contributed thinkers that were actually not religiously oriented and, in this respect, China is closer to the criteria that Jaspers sets, according to which this age saw not only a brake with tribal gods and values but a new style of thinking emphasizing reason and argumentation—logos. Armesto confounds his students by placing the main ideas of the Axial thinkers under such generic terms as “Monotheism,” “New Political Thinking,” “Math,” “Reason,” and “Science.”

The number of great thinkers in the Presocratic era alone is greater than the number of all the thinkers of all the other civilizations combined. I am using primarily as my source for this list the very authoritative text, The Presocratic Philosophers, by Jonathan Barnes, backed by respected Encyclopedia links as well as Wikipedia entries.[53] These are not obscure or secondary names. I will leave out date of birth and death, except to say that they are essentially thinkers of the sixth and fifth centuries BC. We have a total of 17 great Presocratics:

  • Anaxagoras
  • Anaximander
  • Anaximenes
  • Democritus
  • Diogenes
  • Empedocles
  • Gorgias
  • Heraclitus
  • Leucippus
  • Melissus
  • Parmenides
  • Philolaus
  • Protagoras
  • Pythagoras
  • Xenophanes
  • Thales
  • Zeno.

I am leaving the great figures associated with Greece’s most creative period, the Classical period, which borders with the Presocratic era but extends into the fourth century BC. The Axial Age for Greece, in truth, extends through the Hellenistic period, usually accepted to begin in 323 BC and to end in 31 BC, which produced not just the major philosophical names of Epicurus, Cleanthes, Chrysippus, Ariston, Pyrrho, and Aristippus, but the first true scientists in human history, as argued by Lucio Russo in The Forgotten Revolution: How Science Was Born in 300 BC and Why It Had to Be Reborn.[54] What Russo argues in great detail, mind you, has long been known by classicists; for example, Marshall Clagett, in Greek Science in Antiquity (1955), calls the Hellenistic period “the great period of Greek science,”[55] correctly identifying the Presocratics as philosophers rather than scientists, and offering an overview of the original Hellenistic writings of Strato, Aristarchus, Eudoxos, Erastosthenes, Hipparchus, and Archimedes.

It can be argued, actually, that the Greek accomplishment, which can be extended beyond 31 BC to cover the ideas of Euclid, Ptolemy, and Galen in the first two centuries in mathematics, solid and fluid mechanics, optics, astronomy, and anatomy, found no parallel in ancient, medieval, and modern China. The reasons for this lack of a breakthrough in the cultivation of a proper scientific method has been much discussed recently. I will refer here to James McClellan and Harold Dorn’s Science and Technology in World History, which sums up some of the key differences:

  • Chinese society did not witness a distinct profession of scientists; there were many sciences but these were practical and there was “no notion of pure science pursued for its own sake.”
  • Despite producing great algebraists, Chinese mathematicians did not cultivate a formal geometry with logical proofs.
  • The Chinese style of thinking was correlative or associative, and strove to find analogies and relations between diverse things, rather than looking at nature as a separate entity working according to universal laws that could be understood in terms of cause-effect relations, self-evident definitions, and logical inferences.[56]

The Presocratics had already come to view nature as working according to rational laws explainable through the proper employment of rational arguments. This contrast was a key difference, among others, setting the West apart as a civilization driven by the movement of reason freed from external hindrances, arguments for or against, with a dynamic of its own, producing, through the process of proving arguments and receiving criticisms, refutations, new conjectures and new-proof-generated concepts, leading to the accumulation of knowledge.


To fully appreciate this immense contribution of the Presocratics, we need to go beyond the quantitative observation that Presocratic Greece produced more original thinkers than the rest of the Axial world combined; more important still is the qualitative fact that the Presocratics, and only they, invented a style of thinking capable of producing knowledge and truthfulness. Once this style was inaugurated, there was no end to the ideas Europeans could produce continuously beyond the Axial Age.

The faculty of reason is the generator of knowledge, and the more reason is freed from extra-rational constraints—and is able to rely on its own internally generated principles, axioms, and inferential dynamic—it will inevitably produce novel ideas about nature, man, and society, since there is an infinite number of things to be discovered and learned about. Novel facts engender empirical progress, corroborate existing ideas or call for new explanations. In philosophy generally, reliance on open debate, through reason’s own criteria, for and against, thesis and antithesis, in-through blind alleys and aimless meanderings, produces new ideas and ways of observing reality. This emphasis on reason has also taught Western man, through the dialogic of question and answer, that there are other forms of poetical and artistic knowledge.[57]

There is a key word, which is sometimes defined to mean “the word,” which captures the essence of the Presocratic Revolution—logos. There is much ambiguity about the meaning of this word due to successive appropriations, misappropriations and disputations, going back to ancient times,[58] but it seems to me that the core meaning of logos is that there is a ratio, a principle, a proportion, a measure in the world that can be accounted for by human reason through the use of words, explanations, and arguments. Humans can be cogitators of this logos, so long as they engage in reasoned, balanced, proportionate debate, in a way that is commensurate with the order of the world.

Armesto tries to sound profound and cosmopolitan by writing about how everyone in the Axial Age was asking ponderous questions about the nature of reality, the divine, the proper form of government; in reality, only the Greeks were rationally arguing about these questions, and only they managed to think universally about the nature of things and rise above ideas based on mere assertions, religious authority, feelings, or dogma. I will go over some of the arguments offered by the Presocratics to illustrate this point, comparing them to the diametrically different style of thinking of the Chinese sages.

Logos means to argue with words, not “word” as used in grammar, but in the sense of giving an account through speech, through discourse, that is, to offer reasons, engage in conversation through the use of arguments. Perhaps a key to understanding the European accomplishment in the Axial Age is to bring out standard definitions of the words “argue” or “arguing,” since these words capture what logos is about, and what non-Europeans are not about:

  • give reasons or cite evidence in support of an idea, action, or theory, typically with the aim of persuading others to share one’s view;
  • to present reasons for or against a thing;
  • to contend in oral disagreement, debate;
  • to persuade or influence (another), as by presenting reasons;
  • to engage in a quarrel, dispute;
  • to say or write things in order to change someone’s opinion about what is true, what should be done

The Presocratics were a group of men no longer satisfied with the taken-for-granted beliefs of their times, asking, for example, “why should we believe mythical stories about the origins of the universe.” “Do you have good reasons to believe them?” Thales offered reasons about the underlying nature of all things, arguing that water must be the primeval stuff, since water is essential for the nourishment of all things living and it is the only naturally occurring substance that can change from solid to liquid to gas. But Anaximander then went on to question Thales, countering that, if we are to find the original source of all things, there must be something that itself has no beginning, which he called the “infinite” or the “Boundless.” The Boundless “encompasses all things,” and “steers all things.” It is not water but the Boundless that is the ultimate source.

But how does the Boundless engender the many individual things we experience in the world? Anaximander offered an answer to this question, unsatisfied with simply stating, in Lao-Tzu’s fashion, “Tao is empty but inexhaustible, bottomless, the ancestor of all.”[59] Anaximander argued that the Boundless generates the many through its own vortex motion, which results in the lightest objects moving up and the heavy ones down, leading to the ordered arrangement we see around us of fiery stars, airy sky, watery clouds, and earthly objects.

Xenophanes explicitly challenged the notion that the gods had “revealed all things from the beginning to mortals,” and the poets’ claim to divine revelation; humans must look for themselves what is true “by seeking,” by asking questions: How much can we know? How can we know it? This is epistemology, a branch of philosophy uniquely European. It involves thinking about what distinguishes justified belief from mere opinion; it is the study of knowing, of what it means to have knowledge—logos.

Heraclitus in particular uses the term logos to refer to the in-built patterns of change he discerned in the world. He argued that things become through opposing forces and conflict; everything is in a state of continuous becoming; driven by a logos wherein everything that exists results from the opposition of forces, and this is the way things must be—justice—since all things presuppose their opposite; there can be no light without darkness. This endless movement is the basic principle, the logos, the ground of all things. Only the few can apprehend it:

This logos holds always but humans always prove unable to understand it, both before hearing it and when they have first heard it. For though all things come to be in accordance with this logos, humans are like the inexperienced when they experience such words and deeds as I set out, distinguishing each in accordance with its nature and saying how it is.[60]

Strife and opposition are not evil but part of the order of things. One can apprehend this pattern not with eyes and ears but by looking within oneself, within one’s mind, and discovering therein the logos, which is the truth, and which is common to all things. As Heraclitus once said: “I thought for myself.”

But Parmenides, known for his insistence that one must go wherever “reasoning” takes you, even if it contradicts the senses, came to the conclusion that there can be no becoming, no change, no beginnings or endings, since something that is, cannot cease to be, for that would mean that there is always a point at which it is passing into what it is not, and what is not cannot be thought, reasoned about, for it is nothing; therefore, all things that exist must be “all at once, one and continuous.” The ultimate is present in all things, and it is one, eternal, and indivisible. This led Zeno to propose his famous paradoxes revolving around the idea that motion is impossible because it contains the contradiction that something is and is not simultaneously.


Needless to say, these summations are oversimplifications, but my aim is to outline the Presocratic argumentative style rather than the particular theories of the Presocratics, in order thereby to contrast them to the Chinese style of thinking. My estimation is that Chinese civilization produced the greatest thinkers after the West, and so a comparison—albeit very brief—is quite useful in this respect, unlike a comparison, say, with Mayan thinkers.

Discussion on the differences between Western and Asian ways of thinking are not new; one popular account is Richard Nisbett’s The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently … and Why.[61] Nisbett observed that “East Asian thought tends to be more holistic,” that is, spread out in the way it takes account of the “entire field” without making categorical distinctions based on formal logic. East Asians take contradictions as part of the nature of things, and instead of trying to reach a precise definition, a point of certainty, they look for “multiple perspectives, searching for the ‘Middle Way’ between opposing propositions.” In contrast, “Westerners are more analytic,” using rules, including formal logic, to differentiate objects and thereby explain and “predict its behavior.”[62]

The academic world loves this stuff—how “holistic” non-European cultures are and how cold blooded and narrow minded Westerners are. The difference, as I see it, is that the Chinese are more embedded to their surroundings, the culture they are a part of, the natural world around them, the norms, rules, and habits of their society, which they follow without critical reflection, and so their reasoning has less autonomy from the “entire field.” It is not that the Chinese have, as Nisbett wishes us to believe, a broader, more comprehensive outlook. The “multiple perspectives” they express are merely an expression of the multiple norms, circumstances, and bodily impressions surrounding them and unconsciously coalesced with their reasoning. Their minds have remained lodged in the world, trapped to their surrounding and millennial customs. The East Asian self is determined by the flux and fusion of “inside” and “outside” forces. Their minds have remained undifferentiated from the world around them.

The Presocratics realized, or made evident in their philosophies, that the soul, as Plato then articulated in The Republic[63], consists of various parts, bodily appetites, emotions, and reasoning; and that the reasoning part can unify the self by self-consciously acting as the legislator and master of the pursuit of knowledge, and in this way, they were able to contrast the “inside” from the “outside” field of forces and disturbances. It is not that Westerners, as the inheritors and developers of the Presocratic discovery of reason, have been unable to see the “entire field,” incapable of appreciating others perspectives.

Searching for a fixed, supra-temporal ground, an objective method, a consciousness that is cleansed of any subjective disturbances, has been a singularly Western disposition, but it has not been the only one in its dialogical search for truth. There is a sense in which Westerners came to apprehend reason as the one faculty that can be self-conscious of its own actions and understand the nature and role of other forces and surrounding circumstances. There have been Western thinkers, to be sure, since ancient times, who have questioned the powers of reason, such as Sextus Empiricus (160–210 AD), who questioned the possibility of an ultimate ground by arguing that any first principle always requires a justification, which, in turn, requires a justification through or by means of another justification, ad infinitum. But this questioning itself testifies to the restless proving, self-examination, calibration, and objectivity of Western reason, in that it never takes anything for granted, dogmatically, but takes account of many possibilities, pitfalls, refuting claims, and new ways of thinking and improving.

It is said that Nisbett’s findings challenged the prevailing assumption among psychologists that the way the human mind works is universal. This is true, but it does not go far enough. The way the European mind works is very rare, but it is also the only way to achieve universal knowledge of the cosmos, human nature, and history. It is not surprising that Nisbett is a Westerner. It is always Westerners who tell other Westerners that they have a very limited understanding of other cultures, without realizing that, in so saying, they are exhibiting a Western tendency to show a deeper understanding of other cultures. Only Westerners have the peculiar attribute of apprehending things universally, of stepping outside their culture and seeing the other in its own terms—while at the same time claiming that they are the only ones who don’t have this attribute and implying that backward cultures devoid of a rich intellectual traditions do!

The promoters of a “common history” are doing the same in proposing world histories that apprehend the histories of everyone. But as cultural Marxists, even though they are Westerners, their goal is to downplay and do away with the unique tendency of Westerners to think in universal terms by merging their histories and culture with the ways of everyone and claiming that we are “all one” in our diversity. They thus fall into the trap of cultural relativism. Leftists believe that all cultures have to be seen in their particular contexts, and yet, in so thinking, they fail to recognize that they are presuming that all other cultures are also universally capable of seeing different cultures in their own terms.

The higher interest Europeans have shown in understanding other cultures is not an expression of their relativity but of their universalism. Since the Greek invention of ethnography,[64] through Julius Caesar’s account[65] of the Germanic tribal ways, Westerners have always been curious about the ways of others, writing extensive traveling accounts, from Marco Polo through Margaret Mead to Napoleon Chagnon, inventing “entire fields” of knowledge, proper methodologies for each subject matter, anthropology and cultural psychology. The claim that the Chinese mind has a broader perspective is a mirage of the Western academic mind; the Chinese have been geographically trapped in their surroundings, making circumscribed maps with China at the center of the world surrounded by their neighbors without any sense of the world beyond East Asia. On the other hand, the ancient Greeks were the progenitors of the science of geography, of offering explanations about the form and magnitude of the earth, the shape and size of lands and oceans, the nature and extent of human habitation of the earth. This science culminated, in the second century AD, in the Geography of Ptolemy, who also produced the first world map, Universalis Tabula, which offered a comprehensive view of the world way beyond Greek lands, a horizon that included Rome, India, China itself, South East Asia, the British Isles.[66]

Nisbett’s talk about the comprehensive outlook of the Chinese and the narrow specialism of the West is gibberish. But Westerners—instead of appreciating their development of the disciplinary techniques required to understand other cultures and have a comprehensive view of all peoples in the world—have turned against their unique universalism, without fully understanding it, and under the supposition that by intermixing it with the parochial ways of others they will achieve a higher form of universalism. We have a book exemplifying this tendency, dealing exactly with the subject at hand, contrasting the Chinese allusive way of thinking with the “direct” Greek/Western way, titled Detour and Access: Strategies of Meaning in China and Greece (2000). This book is authored by the French academic Francois Jullien, who lauds his immersion into Chinese thinking as

a case study through which to contemplate Western thought from the outside, and, in this way, to bring us out of our atavism.[67]

He condemns the “ethnocentric prejudices” based “on a colonial relationship” of past accounts of China’s culture.[68] He is voicing what hundreds of Westerners have been voicing for a long time without reflecting back on the way his own study exemplifies a uniquely Western disposition to study other cultures and then reflect back on one’s culture. Obviously, some Westerners have made judgments about other cultures without immersing themselves in them. Jullien is rather typical in wishing to relinquish his culture for the sake of others, learning about other ways while condemning his way as incomplete. Meanwhile, “the Other” is barely interested in engaging his culture, except to relish in Jullien’s submissive words that China is becoming “the greatest world power.”[69]

But the main point I want to conclude with is that Jullien does agree that there is a difference between what he calls the “allusive,” “oblique,” “circuitous,” “diffused” Chinese way, and the “straight,” “direct,” “frontal,” “antagonistic” Western way. He observes that the Greeks face-to-face style of infantry warfare found an equivalent in the

agonistic structure … in the organization of the theater [competition for prizes and tragic accounts of conflicts], the tribunal, and the assembly. Indeed, whether in the dramatic, the judicial, or the political realm, the debate manifested itself like a force or against something, in which the upper hand was gained only by the sheer strength and number of arguments either side amassed.[70]

Jullien does not like this antagonism, and would like Westerners to learn how to be more Chinese. He writes positively about the Chinese style for “detour,” “dodging,” “insinuating,” rather than directly stating their thoughts; we are made to think that this is a more sophisticated way, as it allows one to be “craftier,” avoiding an explicit delineation of one’s views, making it possible for one not to “exhaust” one’s views right away. There is apparently something deep in Chinese thought, latent, implicit, “endlessly” filled with alternative meanings, “Inexhaustible.” Many Westerners are, indeed, thrilled by such aphorisms as: “Tao does nothing, but leaves nothing undone.” Jullien thinks that the Western search for “essences,” for concepts that “represent” or “reproduce the real” is limited, narrow, and would stand to benefit by kneeling before the Chinese:

What if generalizations were not the goal of thought, or speech tended not to define (to build a universality of essences) but to modify itself—to reflect the circumstances? In short, what if consciousness did not strive to reproduce the real in order to ground it in transcendence (of being or of God)? And what if the purpose of speaking about the world, to make it intelligible, were not to arrive at Truth.[71]

These questions should be answered with a strong sense of the history of Western thinking. First, the West is the one civilization to have “endlessly” originated multiple philosophical outlooks, including styles of reasoning emphasizing the social and historical contents of the structures of the experience of consciousness in an anti-reductionist, anti- Cartesian way, at the same time that it developed an experimental and mathematical method of explaining things leading to continuous innovations and discoveries.

Second, when Westerners set out to propose contextual styles of thinking, such as phenomenological investigations, they did so in full awareness of the importance of the “broader” experiences of consciousness and the limited perspective of the scientific method. It was not that they were falling back to a pre-rational world, absorbed by the world surrounding them, lacking critical distance from it, as was (and is) the case with the Chinese. As Romantics in the early 1800s expressed—as well as the proponents of hermeneutics, most fully Hans-Georg Gadamer in his book, Truth and Method (1960)—there are many truths that pertain to the nature of human experience that cannot be adequately expressed through the methods of the natural sciences. Painting, poetry, and drama have truthfulness, and they are forms of knowing, and not merely aesthetic experiences. But their modes of knowing do not meet the exactitude of the sciences, for the reason that they are about other aspects of human experience beyond the powers of abstraction.

Third, and contrariwise, the Chinese style of not facing up to the claims at hand by directly contesting them, proving or disproving them, pushing relentlessly ahead wherever the argument takes you, rather than circumventing the views of others, repeating aphorisms, without judging their claims to veracity, remaining embedded to “circumstances” and not letting reason be the judge, explains why the basic ideas of Axial China remained in place right up until the West shook its world from its circuitous slumber. It is also testimony of a typically Oriental-Asian inclination to engage in deception, not be direct, sneak their way into things that serve their interest; ergo, deceive naïve academics like Jullien, who have ceased to have the mental toughness that produce so much originality in the West, but are terrified of getting spanked by the feminists that dominate their departments.

While the Axial Age was just the beginning of Western creativity, it was the apex of Oriental creativity. The “world historians” of the modern academia are, in their way, pathologically anti-Western. Their concern is not with “what happened in the past” but with teaching a history that justifies the political goal of transforming European nations into multicultural and multiracial societies. We must overcome them if we are to re-establish our connection with the logos the Presocratics handed to us.

RICARDO DUCHESNE is a professor in the department of social science at the University of New Brunswick Saint John. He completed a BA in History at McGill University and Concordia University, Montreal.

In 1987, he obtained an MA at Concordia, where he wrote his thesis on the origins of the French Revolution under the supervision of George Rudé, one of the founders of “history from below.” In 1994 he was awarded a doctorate in the renowned multidisciplinary program of Social & Political Thought at York University. His main fields of concentration were modern European history, political economy, and the philosophy of Hegel.

He studied with one of the foremost Hegelian scholars in the English language, H.S. Harris, and with Thomas T. Sekine, a Japanese economist considered to be one of the most important theorists on the field of Marx’s theory of value. His Dissertation, “All Contraries Confounded: Historical Materialism and the Transition-to-Capitalism Debate”, was awarded the “Doctoral Prize Award for Best Dissertation of the Year,” Faculty of Arts, 1995.

In 1995, Dr. Duchesne was appointed assistant professor in the department of social science at the University of New Brunswick, where he has remained since. Dr. Duchesne has published thirty-one articles and review essays.

His publications include one book, 45 refereed articles, one chapter, 13 encyclopedia entries, and 18 non-refereed articles. His book, The Uniqueness of Western Civilization, a major work of 528 pages, was released in February 2011. Currently he is doing research on multiculturalism and the identity crisis of the West.

  1. I evaluated the many schools of thought that intersected from the 1960s to the 1990s against Western exceptionalism and the idea of “progress” in a long first chapter in The Uniqueness of Western Civilization (Leiden: Brill, 2011). ↩︎

  2. This phrase can be easily located in any edition of Karl Marx’s Capital, Volume 1, in Chapter 31, “On the Genesis of the Industrial Capitalist.” Much attention has been directed at the role of the Frankfurt School, but a powerful case can be made that blaming Western countries for the impoverishment of the world, while simultaneously claiming that this impoverishment was the source of the West’s own prosperity, has been a really emotionally influential argument fueling much of “White guilt” to this day. The ultimate source of this idea lies in Marx, but the one person who formulated it into a highly accessible theory, capped by a very catchy phrase, “development of underdevelopment,” was the German-Jewish A. G. Frank. His books are still mandatory reading in “sociology of development” and “politics of developing societies.” Frank, the author of hundreds of publications in about 30 languages, is also known today as a “father” of multicultural world history, with the publication of his celebrated book ReOrient: Global Economy in the Asian Age (Californian University Press, 1998). Even more influential, however, has been the Jewish American Immanuel Wallerstein, whose multivolume books on the “modern world system,” penned in the 1970s, catapulted him onto the global academic stage, assiduously followed by numerous pupils in universities across the world. Wallerstein, too, is seen as a “founding father” of world history. ↩︎

  3. Bernard Knox, The Oldest Dead White Males (New York: Norton, 1994). ↩︎

  4. Robert Nisbet, History of the Idea of Progress. (Transaction Publishers, 1980). Nisbet does not pay much attention to Dependency theory or Wallerstein’s “world system theory,” but he does offer an excellent overview of the psychological climate in the United States against the idea of progress in the 1970s. ↩︎

  5. The teaching of Western civilization, never mind whether this teaching is positive or negative, has virtually disappeared from American colleges, with only two percent of them offering this course as a requirement. This abolition is detailed by Glenn Ricketts, Peter Wood, Stephen Balch, and Ashley Thorne, The Vanishing West: 1964–2010. The Disappearance of Western Civilization from the American Undergraduate Curriculum (New York: National Association of Scholars, May 2011). World History Connected (WHC) is actually the title of an online journal with its head office located in Hawaii Pacific University, committed to “the promotion of global learning and global citizenship.” There are numerous other associations, journals, and academic programs committed to multicultural world history across North America and Europe, as I outlined in “Multicultural Historians: The Assault on Western Civilization and Defilement of the Historical Profession, Part I: Patrick O’Brien on the Scientific Revolution,” The Occidental Quarterly 13.3 (Fall 2013): 53–72; and “Multicultural Historians: The Assault on Western Civilization and Defilement of the Historical Profession, Part II: The Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment,” The Occidental Quarterly 13.4 (Winter 2013–2014): 3–31. WHC is not an overtly scholarly journal but a very successful one, read across the world, intended for history teachers in high schools, colleges, and universities. I was very surprised on learning that WHC has an Alexa ranking of 922 in the United States, and roughly 2,250 in the world. This is very high; the foremost American history journal, The American History Review, has a ranking of 27, 209 in the U.S., and of 134, 524 in the world. The incredible success of multicultural historians is unparalleled in its global influence and its almost complete suppression of the teaching of Western civilization in the West itself. Non-Western academics take great pleasure reading about how mediocre and immoral Westerners have been, and how much they taught whites in the course of history. For the last 30 years they have been avidly trying to get into the Western academic world to replace the aging White males and accompany the White feminist academics. ↩︎

  6. Jerry Bentley, Old World Encounters: Cross-Cultural Contacts and Exchanges in Pre-Modern Times (Oxford University Press, 1993); David Christian, Maps of Time: An Introduction to Big History (California University Press, 2005). ↩︎

  7. Karl Jaspers, The Origin and Goal of History (New Haven: Yale University Press, [1949] 1965), 2. ↩︎

  8. Felipe Fernandez-Armesto, The World—A History (Pearson Prentice Hall, 2007), 185. ↩︎

  9. The connection between the promotion of multicultural world history and mass immigration is implicit in this essay, but explicitly made in “Multicultural Historians: e Assault on Western Civilization and De lement of the Historical Profession.” ↩︎

  10. Ibid., 1. ↩︎

  11. Ibid., 2. ↩︎

  12. Ibid., 2. ↩︎

  13. Ibid., 3. ↩︎

  14. Ibid., 3 ↩︎

  15. Ibid., 8. ↩︎

  16. Ibid., 12. ↩︎

  17. Ibid. ↩︎

  18. Robert Bellah and Hans Joas, eds., The Axial Age and Its Consequences (New York: Belknap Press, 2012). Karen Armstrong, former Catholic sister, now a lover of Mohammad, eulogizes about the axial age in The Great Transformation: The Beginning of our Religious Traditions (New York: Knopf, 2006). ↩︎

  19. The Origin and Goal of History, 51. ↩︎

  20. Karl Jaspers, The Question of German Guilt (New York: Fordham University Press, [1947] 2001). ↩︎

  21. “The Nazis—A Warning from History.” BBC TV Mini-Series (1997). ↩︎

  22. Ricardo Duchesne, “Germany Abolishes Itself,” Salisbury Review 33.3 (Spring 2015). ↩︎

  23. This essay is available online at the Hannah Arendt Center, Bard College: http://www. hannaharendtcenter.org/?page_id=3253, accessed March 1, 2016. ↩︎

  24. This passage, and subsequent quotes in this section on Arendt, are all taken from this short three- page article, “Hanna Arendt’s Jewish Identity.” ↩︎

  25. The Hannah Arendt Center is totally dedicated to the creation of “global citizens” and the promotion of “diversity”; the past and future speakers at the center announced in the current page are Jewish, with a few Blacks and European females. ↩︎

  26. The promotion of the idea that European nations were always meant to be “civic,” against any notion of ethnic national identity, was initiated and popularized by Jewish scholars; namely, Hans Kohn, Karl Deutsch, Ernest Gellner, and Eric Hobsbawm, as Azar Gat, a Jewish scholar residing in Israel, has observed. See my essay: “The Greek-Roman Invention of Civic Identity versus the Current Demotion of European Ethnicity,” The Occidental Quarterly 15.3 (Fall 2015), 37–71. ↩︎

  27. The Origin and Goal of History, 51. ↩︎

  28. Ibid., 52. ↩︎

  29. Ibid., 54. ↩︎

  30. Ibid., 53. ↩︎

  31. Ibid., 61–62. ↩︎

  32. Ibid., 63. ↩︎

  33. Ibid., 64. ↩︎

  34. Ibid. ↩︎

  35. Ricardo Duchesne, “Oswald Spengler and the Faustian Soul of the West,” The Occidental Quarterly 14.4 (Winter 2014–2015): 3–22. ↩︎

  36. The Origin and Goal of History, 65. ↩︎

  37. One of the most sinister and deceptive “educational programs” ever released is the “1001 Inventions That Changed the World,” a celebration of supposed Muslim inventions, hitherto attributed mainly to Westerners, but apparently Islamic in origin, by The Foundation for Science Technology and Civilization, a British “educational” organization “dedicated to exploring and promoting the cultural roots of science and inventions for social cohesion and inter-cultural appreciation” (http://fstc.org.uk/, accessed 1 March, 2016). Together with the Muslim Awareness Groups and other organizations, this Foundation, in the last few years, has been conducting multiple media and academic campaigns, in collaboration with National Geographic and even UNESCO, involving conferences in Europe and in the world, relentless visits to primary and secondary schools across Britain, documentaries narrated by well-known actors, such as Ben Kingsley and Omar Sharif, claiming that the Muslims were responsible for the birth of modern science and “1001 inventions,” which they gracefully gave to “barbaric medieval Europeans.”

    Google the phrase “1001 Inventions That Changed the World”; there are multiple versions, translated into different languages and adapted to different levels of education. The key words in this endeavor are “for social cohesion and intercultural appreciation.” For there is very little historical accuracy in this endeavor, and the aim is clearly to promote British (and European) coexistence with millions of Muslims by assuring them that Muslims were incredible scientific inventors who spearheaded modernity. For an excellent demolition of the whole concept that Muslims were the most inventive people throughout the medieval era, see Rodney Stark, How the West Won (ISI Books, 2014), chapter 14, “Exposing Muslim Illusions.”

    First, Stark establishes that very few scientific breakthroughs can be attributed to “Arabs” as such; many of the notorious inventors were Persians, Jewish, or non-Arab converts to Islam. The always mentioned Arabic “invention of zero” was really a Hindu invention; prior to the ninth century, all the learned scholars in the Islamic world were Nestorian Christians, and, more importantly, there is now an extensive literature showing that Muslim civilization had ceased to be creative after 1100, with Europeans pushing forward well beyond Muslims from the 11th century on. Stark even says that European creativity can be dated to the early medieval era, exemplified in their defeat of Muslim invaders in Tours in 732, the Viking volcanic eruption of the 800s, culminating in the Crusades, with Muslims on the receiving end of European military expansionism. The scholarship on European medieval inventions is abundant, and not based on wishful thinking: for a well-known account, see Jean Gimpel, The Medieval Machine: The Industrial Revolution of the Middle Ages (London: Pimlico, 2nd ed., 1992). It should also be noted that Western scholars were the ones who documented and wrote about the Islamic “golden age,” for many decades now, and that the promoters of “1001 Inventions” are not saying anything new but simply exaggerating and distorting what has long been documented by Western scholars.↩︎

  38. Philip Kennicott, “Yale Historian Donald Kagan, Mixing the Old and the Neo.” Washington Post (May 13, 2005). ↩︎

  39. “In Memoriam: Frank Turner.” Yale News (November 12, 2010). ↩︎

  40. Albert M. Craig, et. al., The Heritage of World Civilizations (Pearson Education, 2003), xxviii. ↩︎

  41. Ibid., 42. ↩︎

  42. Ibid. ↩︎

  43. Ibid., xxvi ↩︎

  44. Felipe Fernandez-Armesto, The World—A History, 5–68 ↩︎

  45. Ibid., 70. ↩︎

  46. Felipe Fernandez-Armesto, Civilizations (Macmillan, 2000), 214 ↩︎

  47. Kenneth Clark is best known for his TV series Civilisation, which he wrote and presented in BBC in 1969, and which he then published in a book version. This magnificent series, available in YouTube in 13 parts, would never be produced by BBC today, for Clark had an aristocratic temperament willing to make aesthetic judgements about the superiority of European art over anything produced elsewhere. Instead, it is Armesto who has been sought after by BBC with his arguments about the failings of the West and the intrinsic beauty of African art. ↩︎

  48. Ibid., 8 ↩︎

  49. Felipe Fernandez-Armesto, The World—A History, 159 ↩︎

  50. Ibid., 187. ↩︎

  51. Ibid., 185. ↩︎

  52. Ibid., 172. ↩︎

  53. Jonathan Barnes, The Presocratic Philosophers (Routledge, 1982). My assessment of the importance of these thinkers draws on Barnes, Presocratic Philosophers; G.S. Kirk and J.E. Raven, The Presocratic Philosophers (Cambridge University Press, 1957), as well as Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Encyclopadeia Britannica, Ancient History Encyclopedia, and Wikipedia. ↩︎

  54. Lucio Russo in The Forgotten Revolution: How Science Was Born in 300 BC and Why It Had to Be Reborn (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2004). ↩︎

  55. Marshall Clagett, Greek Science in Antiquity (New York : Abelard-Schuman, 1955), 34. ↩︎

  56. James McClellan, Harold Dorn, Science and Technology in World History (John Hopkins University Press, 1999), 121–149. ↩︎

  57. My understanding of the inherent dialogical character of Western reason is indebted to Hegel. ↩︎

  58. Edward Schiappa, Protagoras and Logos: A Study in Greek Philosophy and Rhetoric (University of South Carolina Press, 2003). Beyond Greek philosophy through Christianity, see Mirian Hillar, From Logos to Trinity: The Evolution of Religious Beliefs from Pythagoras to Tertullian (Cambridge University Press, 2012). ↩︎

  59. Tao Te Ching: A New Translation. Sam Hamill, Trans. (Shambhala Classics, 2005), 6. ↩︎

  60. Cited in Ronald C. Hoy, “Heraclitus and Parmenides,” in Heather Dyke and Adrian Bardon, eds., A Companion to the Philosophy of Time (John Wiley & Sons, 2013). ↩︎

  61. Richard Nisbett, The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently … and Why (Oxford University Press, 2004) ↩︎

  62. David Hall and Roger Ames’s book Thinking from the Han: Self, Truth and Transcendence in Chinese and Western Culture (New York: SUNY Press, 1998) argues that the qualities of “self ” and “person” as known in the West are not present in Chinese civilization. This book, I might add, traces the Western concept of “self ” back to the agonistic heroic culture of Homeric times, and points out that Hegel’s philosophy “rehearsed in the most complete form the means of coming to cultural self-consciousness” (p. 12). This general assessment, it is not a detailed analysis, is consistent with the argument I made in Uniqueness, though I was unaware of this book at the time. ↩︎

  63. The Republic of Plato. Translated with Introduction and Notes by Francis Conford (Oxford University Press, 1977), Book IV, 129–143. ↩︎

  64. Joseph E. Skinner, The Greek Invention of Ethnography: From Homer to Herodotus (Oxford University Press, 2012). ↩︎

  65. As is evident in Caesar’s account of his conquest of Gaul; see Jane P. Gardner (Editor, Introduction), and S.A Handford (Translator), The Conquest of Gaul (Penguin Books, 1982). One can also find online, B.M. Bell, “The Value of Julius Caesar as Ethnographer,” http://akroterion.journals.ac.za/pub/article/viewFile/533/599, accessed March 1, 2016. Tacitus’ Germania is also ethnographic; and yet the left has used these ethnographic studies to point out how Europeans were prejudiced against other peoples by finding certain expressions unsuitable for our politically correct times. In the case of Tacitus, since he overtly praised the Germans, this, too, has been found suspect, even held responsible for nurturing German pride in Nazi Germany! See: Christopher B. Krebs, A Most Dangerous Book: Tacitus’s Germania from the Roman Empire to the Third Reich (New York: W.W. Norton, 2012). ↩︎

  66. For more on the exploratory geographic mind of Europeans, see Ricardo Duchesne, “A Civilization of Explorers.” Academic Questions 25.2 (March 2012): 65–93. ↩︎

  67. Francois Jullien, Detour and Access: Strategies of Meaning in China and Greece (Zone Books, 2000), 9. ↩︎

  68. Ibid., 17. ↩︎

  69. http://mychinesebooks.com/frfranois-jullien/?lang=en ↩︎

  70. Ibid., 44. ↩︎

  71. Ibid., 8. ↩︎

1 Comment on Discovering the European Mind

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