Radix Journal

Radix Journal

A radical journal

Tag: Essay

Edward Abbey and the Other America

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

Under Review
Wrenched (2013)
Directed by HL Lincoln

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Desert Solitaire

By Edward Abbey

6 Comments on Edward Abbey and the Other America

The New Class

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical superiority trumps ideology

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

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

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

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

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

Technology renders the underclass superfluous

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

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

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

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

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

Technology can avoid, subvert, or replace the existing System

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

No Comments on The New Class

The Dobermans of Political Correctness

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

Originally published at NPI October 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6 Comments on The Dobermans of Political Correctness

Muslim immigration and the dumbing down of the Western world

An increasingly Muslim world will be, ipso facto, most likely, an increasingly less enlightening world. No matter what Orwellian chicanery is spoon fed to the Western populace via propaganda, when building a bridge, or calculating the logistics of commodity distribution, 2 + 2 must always equal 4 and whilst words might be deliberately obfuscated in the mirk of moral and cultural relativism, mathematics will always retain its power.

An increasingly Muslim world will be, ipso facto, most likely, an increasingly less enlightening world. No matter what Orwellian chicanery is spoon fed to the Western populace via propaganda, when building a bridge, or calculating the logistics of commodity distribution, 2 + 2 must always equal 4 and whilst words might be deliberately obfuscated in the mirk of moral and cultural relativism, mathematics will always retain its power. An examination of the table below, showing the top countries in terms of scientific documents published in 2012, shouldn’t hold any surprises…

As we expected, all large, developed and industrialised economies.

However total output is hardly a fair comparison for the less populous nations, who may well be punching above their per capita weight in scientific contribution. So perhaps a better table is the one beneath, where we look at countries ranked by “Documents per capita”.

Now prodigious the output of the average Swiss citizen and/or scientist may be, we’ll pre-empt the egalitarian’s seemingly ubiquitous, copy + pasted response by agreeing that yes, these are relatively speaking, wealthy nations with per capita GDPs > $40,000 US per year and postulate that scientific output per capita does in fact rise with per Capita GDP.

This is where things do get interesting, because if we are trying to find the most efficient nation, in terms of possessing the cultural requisites for un-impeded scientific research, and deliberately side stepping any comment regarding correlation vs causation (in this case, Ayn-Randistic arguments stating that throwing cash at these nations won’t up their research budgets one iota) your humble author will happy go on record to concede that, of course there is a correlation between GDP per capita and published scientific documents per capita.
For the sake of mathematical simplicity we’ll assume a linear regression line (when in fact a logarithmic function shows a better fit) we can prove that on average, a country’s “Documents per Capita” does increase as the more wealthy a country relatively becomes – about 2 documents per 10,000 citizens for each additional increase of $10,000 in per Capita GDP by the world mean.
Ideally, despite the fact that it is usually a practical impossibility to achieve, we should never be happy with any error between a calculated result, and the data that reality provides us. We must be tenacious and ask ourselves if there are any additional quantifiable factors that will assist us to get those data points on top of the regression line and nail down the observed effect to the austere beauty of a single equation.
And looking at the scatter graph below, sadly, we can see our formula needs lots of work. As there are some quite large discrepancies between the expected Documents per capita / GDP and the actual in many cases.

Even an individual with little experience of these graphs can see that there appears to be a large variance in the data points, one of “Performers”, efficient at turning per capita GDP into scientific knowledge, and the “B” team in red: Dawdling along with very low outputs, despite rather fabulous per capita GDP wealth in some cases…

Hmmm, let’s manually fill in some of the country names occupying points of high variance to see if we can discern a pattern, eh?

It is observed that the “Performers” consist of mainly European nations and the world mean is being dragged down by a few dunces, such as Qatar, such as Canada (?) Kuwait and other Middle Eastern Cohorts.
Now, before we start adding another column to our data, namely “Degrees Latitude from Equator” or similar, which would no doubt show a correlation – no-one, not even a libtard, would seriously consider that geographical position affects human cognitive output. Moreover, there is another factor that is being proposed that can account for a proportion of this error. One that would give a cast a cultural caul over the nobility of science…
Islam: Or quantifiably, the percentage of a country’s population identified as being Islamic.
Below is a graph showing the vertical distance from the calculated regression line (expressed as a percentage from the regression line) versus the percentage of Islamic inhabitants against the total inhabitants.

Ding… ding… ding!
Whilst there are some under-performing “Western” nations, only 2 countries with an Islamic proportion over 60% makes a fair share to the world scientific knowledge pool on a GDP per capita + Documents per capita basis.

Whilst article will cause no shortage of estrogenic fury from the Cultural Relativists and Equalists, who will cling desperately to the fact there are also underperforming nations with an observed 0% Islamic population propofrtion and follow up that there isn’t an absolute, 1:1 match between Islamic demographics and increase in scientific output, the overall figures show another story based on probability and likelyhood. Aside: It is noted for the sheer comedic value that those who usually espouse cultural relativism often demand absolutes in arguments, when they also often state that their doctrine encompasses a more nebulous, holistic view of the world. Do they even realise this blatant contradiction?

*Summary: * This analysis merely relies on a quantitative argument and no discernment is made for the relative value of each document published. The further thought occurs that since most European nations seem hell bent on self-immolation via the flame of Islam, as derivative of their immigration programs, many of these published scientific documents may simply be submissions from leftist sociologists stating that cultural value judgements are only based on a confabulated reality, hence arbitrary in nature… to continue the self-flagellation of the West. They can say what they want, but… if there were a market based on future scientific documents with tradable liquidity, given the global trend for Islamification, this office suggests : Go short.


Scientific document data

Country GDP data

Religions by country on Wikipedia

4 Comments on Muslim immigration and the dumbing down of the Western world

The State Inverted

Like many on the dissident Right, I viewed the news out of the Ukraine with anger. Once I removed the media’s distorted lens from what has happened in that part of the world, I realized the root- the radix- of the clashes speak to the natural truths we have been saying all along. That is that different people cannot live under the same government forever, and that forcing them together leads to crisis after crisis.

In late February 2014, the world looked on with jubilation or shock, depending on their region or political point of view, at the fleeing of the Ukraine’s embattled President Yanukovych from Kiev. Only days following a deal brokered between the government and opposition, steps toward stability after months of protests centered in the capitol deteriorated into a power vacuum quickly filled by the president’s opponents.

Western media hailed this as a victory of “the people,” that ever so nebulous platitude that propels useful idiots towards their martyrdom in hails of government gunfire. Russia and its sympathizers, along with those on the dissident Right, saw this is as the victory of the mob over the rule of law and an elected government. Both are mistaken, however. The state has, in fact, triumphed. The reasons for this lie in what a state is, and how it acts (or does not).

Famed German sociologist Max Weber defined the state as “a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” Recall the weeks and months leading to the recent change in Kiev. “Protesters”, protected by shields, gas masks, and that false label, and armed with Molotov cocktails, clubs, petrol bombs, bulldozers, and guns attacked police in a manner that warranted deadly force in response. Not only was deadly force not met with deadly force, but in most cases riot police simply stood their ground and acted as punching bags for their tormentors. Force would have been legitimate, but it was not applied.

A “peaceful protester”  

A “peaceful protester”  

Perhaps President Yanukovych was listening too closely to his opponents’ chief enabler. “We hold the Ukrainian government primarily responsible in making sure it is dealing with peaceful protesters in an appropriate way,” Obama told his media. Condemnation of the opposition’s actions is practically nonexistent, while every swing of a police baton in response was considered a human rights violation. It was one thing to put up with the propaganda of the opposition, but to allow it to use force for so long and to contest it so little was to invite legitimacy into the ranks of those who wanted the president gone or dead. Had Max Weber came to life in the tent camps of the opposition, he would look at the Ministry of the Interior troops as rebels against the regime in power.

Outside the Ukraine, the opposition was busy at work. International relations were established with the US, the EU, and several of its member states including Poland, Germany, France, and the UK. It did not matter to them that the opposition had associations with groups they themselves consider unsavory, such as neo-Nazis. After all, a sovereign often has to work with such people in order to achieve its ends. Examples abound, such as the US support of the contras, cannibalizing al Qaeda-linked rebels in Syria, and the mujahedeen of 1980s Afghanistan. Were the opposition truly a protest movement and not a state-in-waiting, associating with neo-Nazis would have led to their assets being frozen by Western powers, not those of the President and his staff.

The state in-waiting meets its future collegues  

The state in-waiting meets its future collegues  

Offices of the government throughout Kiev and western Ukraine were taken by an actual Occupy movement, whose agents could travel wherever they please. This new state had complete freedom of movement in its own territory, and was going to show this to its opponents just as Germany demonstrated to Britain and France that it could place the Wehrmacht in the Rhineland. As that government and every other before or since has shown, it can break its own laws and agreements as the Ukrainian opposition did. The truce reached shortly before the opposition’s power went from de facto to de jure is now gone and will not be remembered outside Russia or our circles. “Sovereign is he who decides on the exception.”

Throughout the conflict, President Yanukovych’s government showed the world it was not a true state, as his opponents did the opposite. When I watch footage of an opposition bulldozer pushing against police barricades, I am reminded of the NYPD removing Occupy Wall Street protesters from Zuccotti Park in Lower Manhattan. Though all deaths in this chapter of the Ukraine’s history are unfortunate, the force used so far by the opposition has been proportionate for what their real aim was: the overthrow of the government and its replacement with their own.

How a real state handles insurrection  

How a real state handles insurrection  

What do we as whites take away from this?

Like many on the dissident Right, I viewed the news out of the Ukraine with anger. Once I removed the media’s distorted lens from what has happened in that part of the world, I realized the root- the radix- of the clashes speak to the natural truths we have been saying all along. That is that different people cannot live under the same government forever, and that forcing them together leads to crisis after crisis.

As the opposition and now the government in the Ukraine has accomplished, so should we emulate. Before we can have a state, we must have a state-in-waiting. Established leadership and alliances abroad are necessary, and luckily we are in the mature stages of this step. What we lack are the heartlands out of which a demos can grow into a state. It has been said that we are the ultimate cosmopolitans, jetting around the world to attend conferences and drink champagne with other elites as we talk politics, science, and culture. This however is exactly what our leadership should be doing as elites, though it is not enough. We must have that connection to folk and soil should we ever hope not just to lead, but to govern.

Do not fret then over this crisis. The short-term gain by Washington and the short-term loss by Moscow are of little concern to men of archaic virtues with eyes on the cosmos. What we have witnessed is a reaffirmation written in blood of our eternal principles. Hearken close, listen well, and when it comes time for us to push the pretenders aside, remember the lessons taught here.

No Comments on The State Inverted

The Tragicomedy of the UN

If you thought the “pigeon posture” was the latest dance fad amongst ironic hipsters, you’re mistaken. In reality, it’s one of the many mindboggling tortures inflicted upon the hapless inmates of North Korea’s gulag system.


If you thought the “pigeon posture” was the latest dance fad amongst ironic hipsters, you’re mistaken. In reality, it’s one of the many mindboggling tortures inflicted upon the hapless inmates of North Korea’s gulag system.

Crude illustrations reveal the horrors of the torture and are the cornerstone of the UN’s report on North Korea’s extensive human rights violations.

The Commission on the Inquiry of Human Rights condemned the abuse and said that this was the worse case since…wait for it…the Nazis!!

Yes, the ultimate evil has been invoked and is out of the bag. The Smithsonian even had a headline that made it seem like the ultimate putdown.

“The United Nations Just Compared North Korea to the Nazis.”

Take that Kim Jong-Un!

Considering we’ve all been taught that if the West had invaded Germany before 1939, we could’ve averted the Holocaust, you kinda wonder what response the UN has in mind for North Korea.

Nuclear strike? Joint US-China Invasion? A Google Doodle denouncing the state?

Well, Kim Jong-Un must be shaking in his booties because he’s getting referred to the United Nations International Criminal Court. That’s a punishment any kindergartener might fear.

What’s the likelihood anything might happen to North Korea? About the same chance any of the prisoners might start enjoying the “pigeon posture.”

China has already denounced the report and is expected to ensure that it doesn’t go any further than being merely a piece of paper.

Here’s Forbes on the matter:

That’s because, contrary to the report’s recommendation, neither the report nor the evidence presented within its 372 pages will ever be presented to the UN’s International Court of Justice or the International Criminal Court, both in the Hague, or any other judicial body.

China, North Korea’s ally, the source of most of its fuel and half its food, emphatically refused to endorse the report on the grounds that “issues concerning human rights should be solved through a constructive dialogue on an equal footing.” As one of five nations, along with the U.S., Britain, Russia and France, holding veto power in the UN Security Council, China can block the report from going anywhere.

Well that blows, but maybe we can still hope something will be done because the Nazi menace has been invoked:

A central issue is the need to act against North Korea as soon as possible. Kirby likened the DPRK’s transgressions to the slaughter of millions of people in Nazi Germany’s concentration camps during World War II. Although conditions had become known well before the war ended, Germany’s foes did nothing about them until Germany’s surrender. Kirby stopped short of saying that foreign forces should free the prisoners rather than wait for the regime to collapse, but the inference was plain: something must be done, hopefully by legal action.

It’s quite laughable that a body that was created to prevent so-called human atrocities, proves a nation commits those atrocities beyond a reasonable doubt, and then can’t do a tangible thing about it.

In the words of Bashar al-Assad: “Who said that the United Nations is a credible institution?”

No Comments on The Tragicomedy of the UN

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

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


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

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

Mr. Millman says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mencken wrote in his Notes on Democracy:

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

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

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

4 Comments on Is H.H. Hoppe’s Idea Of Monarchy Spreading?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The European Alibi

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

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

The EU is run by the States

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Could the EU become a White Superstate?

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

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

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

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

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

This article was originally published at AlternativeRight.Com.

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

The Intellectual Vacuity of the Old Right

“The Right has been the great vanquished of history. It has virtually lost every struggle it has engaged in. The history of the last two centuries for the Right has been one of continuous defeat. Such a succession of failures suggests that the superiority of its adversaries is merely based on the Right’s own weaknesses.”

This article first appeared at AlternativeRight.com. It was translated from French into English by Roman Bernard, with edits by Colin Liddell. It is a selection from Alain de Benoist’s responses to an interview on the French Right that appeared in the quarterly review Éléments at the end of 2005 (#118).The failure of the mainstream Right is well-known, and often commented on. But the failure of the “real Right” is more difficult to deal with, as the men concerned (one thinks of Enoch Powell in Britain) were most of the time well-meaning, courageous men, yet they failed. Most of the references to French history were removed so as to make this text understandable to a Pan-Western audience. This text, thanks to a remarkable psychological analysis of the “right-wing mind,” is first and foremost a way for us to question our own way of thinking, thus making us more “fit and brisk” for the battle of ideas. It is the ideal complement to William Pierce’s “Why conservatives can’t win.”


The Right has never been fond of intellectuals. Little wonder then that the phrase “left-wing intellectual” has for a long time been a tautology. For many right-wing people, intellectuals are just unbearable. They visualize them sitting on a chaise longue, of course, and view them as “sanctimonious types” who sodomize flies, split hairs and publish books invariably described as “indigestible” and “boring.”

This idea is to be found in very different backgrounds. For libertarians, intellectuals are inevitably “disconnected from reality.” For activists, intellectuals quibble while we face a “state of emergency” demanding action.

I have heard things like this my entire life. Granted, there’s a positive side to this attitude. Right-wingers show a real concern for concrete facts, a genuine wariness of useless abstractions or pure intellect, a desire to assert the precedence of the soul over the spirit, of the organic over theoretical “dryness,” the hope (always disillusioned) to go back to a simpler life, etc.

The Right is more sensitive to human qualities than to intellectual capacities. It likes to admire more than to understand. It asks for examples more than for lessons. It likes style, gesture, and panache. And it is not wrong in doing so. A society entirely made up of intellectuals would be unbearable.

But the problem is that when this attitude is systematized, it leads to the avoidance of any doctrine, to the rejection of any work of the mind.

The intellectual can be defined as the person who tries to understand and make others understand. The Right, very often, doesn’t try to understand anymore. It ignores what the work of the mind can accomplish. The result is that right-wing culture has today almost entirely vanished. It only survives in restricted circles, marginal publishing houses, and newspapers that only rightists believe are actual newspapers. The ostracism that it has suffered is not the only factor in this.

One can only be struck by the way the Right lost the habit of intervening in intellectual debates. If one takes the hundred books that have been discussed the most over the last half-century, one realizes that the Right hasn’t published a single review of these. It doesn’t interest the Right or concern it. The Right is uninterested in any author outside its landmarks. It doesn’t discuss or refute any of them.

On the dialectic of modernity, the evolution of the social dimension, the forces behind mercantile logic, and symbolic Imaginary, the Right has nothing to say. Why wonder, then, that it has been unable to formulate a critique of technoscience, a theory of localism or of social connection, a philosophy of ecology, or an anthropology of its own? It is simply unable to do that anymore. There have always been hundreds of theoretical debates on the Left, some insignificant, others very deep. Who can cite one single intellectual debate that has marked the history of the Right in the last half a century? On the Right, as far as thought is concerned, it resembles the Tartar Steppes or a flat-lining encephalogram signal.

Most right-wing people substitute convictions for ideas. Ideas can of course engender convictions, and convictions stem from ideas, but the two terms are different. Convictions are things in which one believes and which, because they are the objects of a belief, cannot undergo any critical examination. Convictions are an existential substitute for faith. They help living without the need for one to question their logical structure, their value relative to various contexts, or their limitations. Right-wing people make it a point of honor to defend their convictions in the manner of bible study.

The Right likes answers more than questions, especially if these are pat answers that abnegate the need for a philosophical outlook, as one cannot philosophize when the answer is preconceived. The work of the mind requires the learning of one’s mistakes. The right-wing attitude is rather to avoid considering its mistakes, and thus it never tries to correct these so as to go further; hence the absence of self-criticism and debate. Self-criticism is seen as a weakness, a useless concession, if not a betrayal. Right-wing people flatter themselves that they “regret nothing,” including the errors they have made. Debate, because it implies a contradiction, an exchange of arguments, is generally seen as an aggression, as something that one does not do.

The right-wing man proceeds with enthusiasm or indignation, with admiration or disgust, but not with reflection. Instead he is reactive; hence his almost always emotional reaction to events. What is striking is his naïve, if not puerile way of reacting, of always contenting himself with the upper layer of things, with the news anecdote, of taking a narrow point of view on everything, without ever going deeply to the causes. When you show them the Moon, many right-wing people look at the finger. History then becomes incomprehensible — what on Earth is Providence doing? — even if right-wing people constantly refer to it. Hence simplistic conspiracy theories, which can lead to real lunacies, abound. Social problems are always explained by shady manipulations of an “invisible conspiracy,” a “dark alliance,” etc.

As the Right is very little interested in ideas, it tends to bring everything back to people. Right-wing political movements are first and foremost associated with their founders, and rarely survive them. Right-wing quarrels are chiefly quarrels of individuals, with basically the same gossip, and the same slanderous accusations. In the same way, its enemies are never systems or even genuine ideas, but human categories presented as scapegoats (Jews, “metics,” “bankers,” freemasons, foreigners, “Trotskyites,” immigrants, etc.). The Right has a hard time apprehending a system devoid of a subject: the systemic effects of the logic of Capital, the constraints of structure, the genesis of individualism, the vital importance of the environmental threats, the forces unleashed by technology, etc. The Right doesn’t understand that men have to be fought, not for what they are, but in so far as they embody and defend harmful systems of thought or values. By preferring to take it out on individuals, disliked for what they are, the Right veers towards xenophobia or something even worse.

he Right has been the great vanquished of history. It has virtually lost every struggle it has engaged in. The history of the last two centuries for the Right has been one of continuous defeat. Such a succession of failures suggests that the superiority of its adversaries is merely based on the Right’s own weaknesses.

In the beginning, what was the best that the Right had to offer? I would briefly say: an anti-individualist and anti-utilitarian system of thought, together with an ethic of honor, inherited from the Ancient Regime. Thus it was opposing head-on the ideology of the Enlightenment, whose driving forces were individualism, rationalism, self-evident individual interests, and the belief in progress. The values that the Right claimed were aristocratic and popular at the same time. Its historic mission was to fulfill the natural union of the aristocracy and the people against their common enemy: the bourgeoisie, whose class values were precisely legitimized by Enlightenment thought. But this union was fulfilled only during very brief periods.

For the Right, Man is naturally social. However, it never forged its own consistent theory to explain community or social connectedness. Nor did it seriously explore opposition to the ideal liberal types, the autonomous individual and the “social man.” It has never been able to formulate a genuinely alternative economic doctrine to the mercantile system, either.

Instead of supporting the workers’ movement and nascent socialism, which represented a healthy reaction against individualism that the Right was also criticizing, it all too often defended the most dreadful human exploitation and the most unjustifiable political inequalities. It sided with the wealthy, objectively participating in the class struggle of the bourgeoisie against the would-be “redistributors” and the “dangerous classes.”

There were exceptions, though rare ones. The Right’s theoreticians were more often led by their audience than leading it. Defending the nation, the Right rarely understood that the nation is above all else the people. It forgot the natural complementariness of aristocratic and popular values. When the workers’ right to an annual holiday break was passed into law, the Right railed against the “vacation culture.” It always preferred order to justice, without understanding that injustice is a supreme form of disorder, and that order itself is very often nothing but an established disorder.

The Right could have developed a philosophy of history founded on cultural diversity and the need to acknowledge its universal value, which would have led it to support the struggles in favor of autonomy and liberty in the Third World, whose peoples were prime victims of the ideology of progress. Instead of that, the Right ended up defending the colonialism that it had once condemned, while complaining about being colonized in turn.

The Right forgot that its only true enemy is Money. It should have considered everything opposing the system of money as its objective ally. Instead it gradually joined the other side. The Right was better equipped than any other force to reframe the anti-utilitarian values of generosity and selflessness, and to defend them. But, little by little, the Right acceded to the logic of interest and the defense of the market. At the same time, it fell in line with militarism and nationalism, which is nothing but collective individualism, something that the first counter-revolutionaries had condemned as such.

Nationalism led the Right to the metaphysics of subjectivity, this illness of the spirit, systematized by the Moderns. This estranged the Right from the notion of truth. It should have been the party of generosity, of “common decency [1],” of organic communities; but it all too often became the party of exclusion, of collective selfishness, and resentment. In short, the Right betrayed itself when it began accepting individualism, bourgeois lifestyles, the logic of money, and the model of the market.

Christian Socialism occasionally played a useful role, but it chiefly fell under paternalism. The social achievements of the “fascisms” were discredited by their authoritarianism, their militarism, and their aggressive nationalism. Corporatism led to nothing. Revolutionary syndicalism was killed by the “Fordist compromise,” which resulted in the integration of larger and larger parts of the working class into the bourgeois middle class. Most importantly, this kind of concern was never associated with a deep analysis of Capital. The condemnation of “Big Money” is insignificant when it refrains from analyzing the very nature of money and the anthropological impact of a generalized market system, with its reification of social relations and its effects of alienation.

As for the “Real Right,” it hasn’t ceased marginalizing itself and wasting away. More and more oblivious of its own past, all of its implicit system of thought can be summed up in a single phrase: “It was better before” — whether this “before” refers to the thirties, the Ancient Regime, the Renaissance, the Middle Ages or Ancient History.

This conviction, even when it is occasionally correct, nurtures an attitude that is either restorationist, which condemns it to failure, or purely nostalgic. In each case, the “Real Right” contents itself with opposing the real world with an idealized and fantasized past: the fantasy of the origin, the fantasy of a bygone age, and the irrepressible nostalgia of an original matrix revealing the incapacity to reach adulthood.

The aim is to try to conserve, preserve, slow, or hold back the course of events, with no clear consciousness of the inevitable historical sequence of events. The great hope is to reproduce the past, to go backward to the time when everything was so much better. But, as it is quite obviously impossible, the “Real Right” settles for an ethical attitude in order to make a statement. Politically, this “Real Right” has no more telos of its own to fulfill, as all its models belong to the past. It has reached a point where it doesn’t even know clearly the type of political regime that it would like to establish.

History becomes a shelter: idealized, reconstructed in a selective way, and more or less fantastical. History provides the reassuring feeling of having a stable “heritage,” of bearing significant examples that the Right can oppose to the horrors of present times. History is supposed to give “lessons,” although one never really knows what they are. The Right has not understood that History, which it reveres so much, can also be crippling. When Nietzsche says that “The future belongs to those with the longest memory,” what he means is that Modernity will be so overburdened by memory that it will become impotent. That’s why he calls for the “innocence” of a new beginning, which partly entails oblivion. People never have a greater hunger for history than when they are incapable of making it, and when history is happening without them or against them.

Hostile to innovation, the “Real Right” is unable to analyze the unseen situations of the future with its obsolete conceptual tools. It judges everything according to the world it once knew, which was familiar and thus reassuring, and confuses the end of this world with the end of the actual world. It faces the future with its eye in the rear-view mirror. The Right is unable to analyze historic events, to step back from the consequences and examine distant causes. It cannot establish the genealogy of the phenomena it deplores, nor detect the fault lines of post-modernity. It cannot understand anything in the current world any longer, the evolution of which it dismisses as an endless “decadence.”

The fact that it has constantly been vanquished often elicits a peculiar mix of meticulous irony, emphatic derision, bitterness, and con
niving snicker, so typical of the long reactionary lament. It also presents the mediocre apocalyptic motto “We are doomed!” With such a vision, we are always in “a state of emergency,” it’s always “one minute to midnight.” Before the “catastrophes” which face us, we are waiting for a “surge,” an “awakening.” The “silent majority”, the “real country” is being summoned. But all of this had already been said in 1895. During all this time, history has nevertheless kept going.

The most distinctive feature of the “Real Right” is a political and moral narcissism, founded on an immutable worldview, with two sides (us the good, them the evil), which is a simple projection of a fault line inside any of us. This dichotomy of “Us vs. the Others,” given as the explaining factor for everything, comes actually under this metaphysics of subjectivity that I have already mentioned, which legitimizes all forms of selfishness and exclusion. The Right talks a great deal about defending its “identity,” but it generally has a hard time defining this. Most of the time, its identity is about not being what it condemns. It is the existence of its enemies that defines the Right’s own existence, a negative existence, a contrario. The Right’s marginalization nurtures an obsidional mentality, which in turn sharpens its rejection of the Other. There’s something Cathar-like in this obsidionalism: the world is bad, let’s close the ranks of the “last square.” The titles of the Right’s bedside books are also telling: by the accursed, the heretics, the reprobates, the nostalgics, The Camp of the Saints; in short, the Last of the Mohicans. In a world of tribes, for which it has no sympathy, the “Real Right” is nothing more than a tribe of survivors, which lives in connivance and isolation. It has rites and passwords of its own, slogans and resentment, and every day sees itself being more and more isolated from an “outside” world that it rejects and demonizes, with no possibility of changing the course of events. What is left for it is to commemorate its own defeats, which it does with such perseverance that one is forced to wonder whether it secretly cherishes these defeats, as defeats are always more “heroic” than victories.

The Right has never prioritized the struggle against the system of money, which was its main enemy. First it fought against the Republic at a time when it had become obvious that a monarchy of divine right would never come back. After 1871, the Right devoted itself to the condemnation of the “Boches” (and even the “Judeo-Boches”), which led it, in the name of the “Sacred Union,” to legitimize the atrocious carnage of 1914-18, which engendered all the horrors of the 20th century. In the aftermath of the First World War, it committed itself to the fight against Communism and its “pagan savagery” (as Marshall Pétain expressed it). At the time of the Cold War, for fear of this same Communism, which it should have considered as a rival rather than as an enemy, the Right sided with the “free world,” thus giving its blessing to the American hegemony, the power of the bourgeoisie and the worldwide supremacy of predatory liberalism — as if the horrors of the Gulag justified the abominations of the mercantile system. This led the Right to support “Atlanticism,” to approve of the slaughter of the Vietnamese people, to show solidarity with the most pathetic dictatorships, from the Greek colonels and the Argentinean generals to Pinochet and his “Chicago Boys” [2], not to mention the torturers of Operation Condor, specializing in the assassinations of “subversivos” who were mostly only asking for more social justice. When the Soviet system collapsed, making globalization possible, immigrants providentially took over the statutory role of the “threat.” Conflating immigrants with Islam, then Islam with Islamism, eventually Islamism with terrorism, it now does that again with Islamophobia, a truly suicidal approach, and, what is more, absolutely inconsistent from a geopolitical perspective.

The “Real Right,” at the end of the day, is fundamentally unpolitical. The very essence of politics is foreign to it. In fact it confuses politics with ethics, the same way the Left conflates politics with morals. The Right believes that politics is a matter of honor, of courage, of sacrificial virtues, of heroism, that is to say, in the best case, of military qualities. It sees politics as the continuation of war by other means, which totally reverses Clausewitz’s aphorism. It doesn’t understand that politics is only an occupation, an art, something that aims to carefully define the best but not the ideal way of serving the common good — a good, by the way, that can’t simply be shared out. It doesn’t understand that politics is a way to arbitrate between contradictory aspirations stemming from human nature, to arbitrate between the needs of civic coexistence and the necessities of self-interest.

As for me, it has been more than a quarter of a century since I stopped considering myself belonging to any family of the Right, and since I stopped showing solidarity with it. There’s no mystery here: I have said it and written it many times. But for all that, I don’t consider that the Right is an uninteresting subject. Nor do I think that it is a despicable subject. When I criticize it — and I always hesitate before criticizing it, both because it is not fitting to shoot at such an easy target and because I don’t want to get involved with the mob — I am forced to generalize, and when one generalizes, one always risks being unfair. But I don’t ignore its merits. In the same way that its qualities have shortcomings, its shortcomings also have qualities. On many occasions, the Right was (and remains) admirable for its courage, its persistence, and its spirit of sacrifice. All these qualities, yet they have achieved such meager results!

I’ll add that I don’t recognize myself as belonging to any family of the current Left, which spares me the desire of wanting to be “admitted.” One can undoubtedly define me as a “left-wing right-winger,” or a man who has left-wing ideas and right-wing values. It allows me to agree equally well with left-wing men and with right-wing men every time they assert ideas that I consider fair. But, actually, I haven’t cared about labels for a long time.

I care all the less, since the Left-Right duo gets more and more ineffective as an analytic tool. What is the “right-wing position” on the American occupation of Iraq, and what is the “left-wing position?” There is simply none: on the Right as on the Left, this occupation has opponents and supporters. It is the same for all the problems of our times: European integration, geopolitics, ecology, the coming oil crisis, etc. The only thing that matters is what people think of a precise question, no matter how they position themselves (or refuse to) on the traditional political spectrum.


[1] In English in the original text

[2] In English in the original text

8 Comments on The Intellectual Vacuity of the Old Right

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