Radix Journal

Radix Journal

A radical journal

Tag: Essay

Madison Grant and the American Nation

The critic Northop Fye wrote of Oswald Spengler’s magnum opus, “If _The Decline of the West_ were nothing else, it would still be one of the world’s great Romantic poems.” Much the same could be said Madison Grant’s Conquest of the Continent, or rather that it is, all at once, a great history and a great poem. The book is exhaustively researched, with some four years of preparatory work, and it announces itself, modestly and scholarly, as “an effort to make an estimate of the various elements, national and racial, existing in the present population of the United States and to trace their arrival and subsequent spread.” At the same time, Conquest is a grand vision of bio-cultural struggle and evolution, in which demography comes alive. 

The critic Northop Frye wrote of Oswald Spengler’s magnum opus, “If The Decline of the West were nothing else, it would still be one of the world’s great Romantic poems.”[1] Much the same could be said Madison Grant’s Conquest of the Continent, or rather that it is, all at once, a great history and a great poem. The book is exhaustively researched, with some four years of preparatory work[2], and it announces itself, modestly and scholarly, as “an effort to make an estimate of the various elements, national and racial, existing in the present population of the United States and to trace their arrival and subsequent spread.” At the same time, Conquest is a grand vision of bio-cultural struggle and evolution, in which demography comes alive.

Personages and historical actors are few and far between; personalities are entirely absent. With Conquest, as with his earlier Passing of the Great Race (1916), Grant creates a genre of his own—racial history. The 19th century had witnessed the flowering of biography—in-depth portraits of men and their individual minds. Grant writes “bio-graphy” in a new sense of the word—the story of the movements and developments of peoples across great swaths of earth. Much like the French Annales School[3], Grant gives the reader a vision of the longe durée: time ticks away in decades and centuries; familiar tropes like leaders, events, and intrigues, if they appear at all, are subordinated to the flow of peoples; geography becomes a kind of character in that it forges race through natural selection.

As Henry Fairfield Osborn, the President of the American Museum of Natural History, notes in the first sentence of his preface, “The character of a country depends upon the racial character of the men and women who dominate it.” Thus, Grant turns historiography on its head (almost in a way comparable to Marx): History is no longer to be understood merely in terms of the actions of “Great Men” or the “culture” bestowed on peoples by king, artists, and churches; to the contrary, what is called culture, morality, and society are the outward effects of millennia of evolution.

As demography is destiny, Conquest is the story of how America became, not just the White Man’s Country, but a Nordic country. Grant writes of his historical subject, circa 8,000 B.C.:

There is was, through the fogs and long winters of the north, that they developed in complete isolation their great stature and musculature, their fair or flaxen hair, and their blue eyes.

The race survived the Ice Age by means of its peculiar Geist, whose modern manifestations include individualism, Protestantism, uprightness, and the pioneer spirt. It was these hearty souls who crossed the Atlantic to the New World and, unlike Whites in South America, resisted intermixing with the natives. In Grant’s words, “It is probably accurate to say that there never has been a nation which was so completely and definitely Protestant as well as Nordic as was the United State just after the American Revolution.”

Conquest is certainly an act of patriotism, in a broad sense; however, it is important to remember that Grant was never enthralled with what is often called the “American Experiment” or “American Exceptionalism”—that is, the idea that the country traces its political tradition back to the Age of Enlightenment and that it is nation rooted on values, not blood. In Grant’s mind, the Nordic race made America. Ideals like “equality” might reflect Nordic self-regard; however, left free-floating and all-encompassing, they are temptations to race suicide and pointless crusades, for which Grant gives ample evidence in Conquest.

Perhaps the most remarkable thing about Grant’s demographic history is that it is so compelling and readable. Reacting, no doubt, to its propagandistic value more than anything, the Anti-Defamation League labelled the book “even more destructive than Mein Kampf” and urged U.S. and British not to review the volume, or even mention it.


Madison Grant in 1920 Madison Grant in 1920


While the text of Conquest speaks for itself, Madison Grant the man—who he was, what he accomplished, and what his ideals were—remains more elusive. This is only partly due to the passage of time. The Second World War, the dominance Boasian anthropology, the decline of Grant’s class, and the postwar “Conservative Movement” each in its way cloud our understanding of this colossus of prewar conservationism, eugenics, and the scientific study of race.[4]

Madison Grant (1865–1937) was “to the manor born” (as the modern doggerel goes); he hailed from an aristocratic family in what was still Anglo-Dutch Manhattan. Through his mother, Grant was descended from Walloon Huguenots who settled “New Netherlands” in the 1620s. His father’s side included a signer of the Declaration of Independence, recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor for valor on the battlefield, and various prominent and wealthy professionals. Grant was graduate of Yale and held a law degree from Columbia (though he never practiced with any seriousness.)

One cannot understand Grant, and The Conquest of a Continent, without understanding his place in this pre-war, East Coast, Protestant—simply put, “WASP”—Establishment. Grant was a “conservative” in the most basic and concrete sense of the word—he sought to defend and conserve his people, his class, and his way of life. He defended Nordic America because it was his own.

Grant’s life and work were animated, first and foremost, by naturalism—put simply, his love of the wild and what he viewed as the most excellent expressions of the human species. This awe led him to abandon his law training and dedicate himself to the new sciences of conservationism and eugenics.

One could say that Grant is an avatar of two great “Old Americas” (both of which are ceasing to exist). The first of these is the aforementioned WASP Establishment, increasingly displaced or absorbed by a global elite. While the contemporary “Conservative Movement” is comprised of a strange coalition of free-market apologists, advocates for military hegemony, and Biblical fundamentalists, Grant’s sensibilities were aristocratic and European in character, his pessimistic historical outlook closely resembling that of his analogues Henry and Brooks Adams.[5]

The second “America” that Grant represents is that of the frontier and the “undiscovered country” of the West. This was the America of big-game hunting beneath Rockies and Tetons—a world where man’s existence hung in the balance, threatened by savages and the elements. One of Grant’s most emblematic accomplishments was not only to help preserve the dwindling American Bison but to bring a herd of them to the Bronx Zoo, not too far away from his redoubt in the hoity-toity Upper East Side. The act stands as an almost comical conflation of the two worlds he straddled.

Grant was a compulsive “joiner” and “founder,” and he was involved in the creation of a host organizations and entities with social purposes, many of which remain prominent today, such as the Save the Redwoods League and Glacier National Park. Through his membership in the Boone and Crocket Club—dedicated to “promoting manly sport with the rifle” and protecting the endangered Bison—Grant broke bread with future presidents, senators, explorers, diplomats, and writers; he counted Rudyard Kipling and Theodor Roosevelt among his circle of friends and acquaintances.

Fresh out of law school, the young Grant acted an eminence grise in the creation of the municipal New York Zoological Society, whose crown jewel was the Bronz Zoo, which first realized the then-quite novel conception of broad enclosures, which allowed Bison, and even at one point an African Congolese Pygmy named Ota Benga, to roam in great refuges within urban modernity.[6] Through his involvement with the American Bison Society, Grant helped preserve the majestic creature that had, shocking, dwindled from some 30 million to less than 100 in the first decade of the 20th century.

Ota Benga in the Bronx Zoo in 1906 Ota Benga in the Bronx Zoo in 1906

On top of this, Grant was one of the premier advocates of eugenics in the Western world, acting as President of the Galton Society (named after Charles Darwin’s cousin and eugenic’s progenitor). Most all of Grant’s societies were interlocking in nature, as he would recruit his naturalist colleagues to collaborate with him on his political efforts and eugenic research, tasks which were seen as deeply related.

Grant’s naturalism—what might be termed his “green,” “environmentalist,” or even “tree-hugging” inclinations—inflected his racialist writings. The title Conquest of the Continent might lead one to believe that it is a brutalist, “Might Makes Right” history of expansion. In fact, Grant’s admiration for the “the most vigorous race in history” is always tempered with an abiding concern for the natural world. As he writes, in the period between the Colonial era and the Civil War, “A continent was occupied and the territory of the Union was swept westward to the Pacific.”

The forests were cut down and the wild life destroyed. The Indians were evicted. The mineral wealth of the western mountains was ransacked. The coal was exploited, and the once fertile soil of the Southern States greatly depleted through the reckless growing of tobacco and cotton. Waste was the order of the day in America.

All this was perhaps inevitable, but never since Caesar plundered Gaul has so large a territory been sacked in so short a time. Probably no more destructive human being has ever appeared on the world stage than the American pioneer with his axe and his rifle.

One major reason for the neglect of Grant today, especially by self-styled conservatives, is that he does not “fit in” with the current Left-Right dialectic nor the portraits the mainstream Right and Left like to paint of themselves. Grant comes down to us at a time when environmentalism has never been more popular and White racialism, never more reviled. And yet, as Grant’s recent critical biographer, Jonathan Peter Spiro, writes,

There was no duality to Madison Grant’s life, no basic conflict between his espousal of conservation and his preaching on behalf of Eugenics and immigration restriction.”[7]



The Conquest of the Continent is inseparable from Grant’s greatest achievement as a political activist—the 1924 Johnson-Reed Immigration Act and 1929 National Origins Act (which superseded the former). Indeed, both pieces of legislation inform the structure of the book and reveal many of Grant’s motivations in writing it.

Today, the Johnson-Reed Act enjoys scarce support among mainstream commentators; and in truth, it was quite unlike any piece of immigration legislation being proposed today, even by avowed restrictionists. The ’24 and ’29 Acts were not merely attempts to “control the borders” or “shut the gates” (though they were that), and they were decidedly not efforts to “keep America the same,” in the sense of pulling an emergency break on the Second Great Wave of immigration. From a Grantian perspective, they were Acts of racial reconstruction: they marked abrupt reversals of the immigration trends that had predominated for the previous 75 years and were aimed at recreating a specifically Nordic America. Not all of the Acts’ supporters, including legislators and the Presidents who signed them into law, would use such terminology; yet all were well aware of the Acts’ overarching goals. Moreover, the Act was conceived by Grant and his colleagues as a eugenic project. Indeed, much as the Communist “Third International” (1919–1943) looked to Moscow, the Second International Eugenics Congress (which met in 1921 at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City) looked to America as the premiere homeland of the Nordic race.

Though Grant founded so many organizations, he joined the one that would play a determined, behind-the-scenes role in passing immigration restriction—the Immigration Restriction League (IRL), created by friends from the Harvard class of 1889.

The IRL’s first political effort was to advance a Literacy Test for entry, which it promoted over the course of the William Howard Taft and Woodrow Wilson administrations. Restricting immigration on the basis of literacy (a test could be taken in a variety of languages) certainly gave restriction a neutral, non-racialist patina; however, when Grant was lobbying politicians, he explained his motivations in no-uncertain terms. Writing to President Taft,

[T]he old theological views in regard to the unity of the human race and its relatively recent origin (some six thousand years ago), is giving away to the knowledge that man as such dates back two or three hundred thousand year, and that consequently the line of cleavage between the so called races of mankind is fundamental and cannot be modified by any change in environment in the life time of a nation.[8]

In turn, Grant later lobbied Woodrow Wilson by explaining that his advocacy for restriction was based “solely in blood.” Both Presidents were not persuaded.

The IRL had better luck with congressmen, who avidly passed a series of Literacy Test Acts by broad margins—only to have them consistently vetoed by Taft and Wilson. Success finally came in February 1917, when yet one more Literacy Test Act was vetoed by Wilson—who was then overruled by two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate.[9]

A decisive influence on Congress was the pressure of the American Federation of Labor, led by Samuel Gompers (himself an immigrant Jew), who recognized the simple arithmetic that, all things being equal, more laborers equals lower wages. The bill thus marked an interesting point in time at which elitist racialists were in a functional coalition with “big labor.” On the other hand, those who opposed the bill—and would oppose future restrictionist acts, including Reed-Johnson—are recognizably the same cohorts who push for “open borders” today: the industrialists who seek cheap labor and (in Grant’s words) the “wishy-washy sentimentalists” of either Christian or liberal persuasion.[10]

Bolstered by the enactment of the Literacy Test, the Grantians felt the time was ripe for substantial immigration reform made on a racialist foundation. The subsequent political victories of the 1920s included three connected pieces of legislation: the Emergency Quota Act of 1921, the Johnson-Reed Immigration Act of 1924, and the National Origins Act of 1929 (which replaced the former bill). The “Emergency” bill was justified on the fears of mass European immigration following the Great War, and in particular “radical” and “anarchist” immigrants from Eastern Europe. The Acts of ‘24 and ’29, however, were meant as lasting, principled expressions of America’s character; Representative Albert Johnson, indeed, called the piece of legislation that bears his name “a second Declaration of Independence.”

Each of these Acts regulated immigration not simply on the raw number but on each immigrant’s ethnic and national origins and, in turn, the place of this ethnicity within the American nation. The 1924 Act established an immigration quota of two percent of the foreign-born presence in the country, as enumerated by the 1890 census.[11] The choice of the base year 1890 was key, for, as mentioned above, the Act did not seek to “keep things the same”; it instead sought to re-constitute the American nation that existed before the Second Great Wave of Southern and Eastern European immigration. The National Origins Act (which originated in the Senate’s version of the ‘24 restriction) capped total annual immigration at just over 150,000—a dramatic reduction considering that more than a million immigrants per annum obtained permanent-resident status during the first decade of the 20th century.[12] It also regulated immigration based on the national origins of the existing population (as of 1920), which was, of course, soundly Northern and Western European.[13] As Grant writes in Conquest, the purpose of both the ’24 and ’29 Acts was, “frankly, to encourage new arrivals from the countries of the old immigration”—

the countries of northern and western Europe who had contributed most to the American population and whose people were, therefore, most easily assimilable in the United States; and, conversely, to discourage immigration from the countries of souther and eastern Europe most of whose nationals had come here since 1890.

The law reduced the total possible immigration under quota to 167,750 as against 357,800 permitted by the act it supplanted, and favored the European Nordic whose people made the United States what it is, as against the European Alpine and the Mediterranean who were late comers and intrusive elements.

A full understanding of the racial constitution of the United States—so as to aid in administration of the National Origins Act—was, as Grant puts it in Conquest, “the reason for the existence of this present book.”

Though the Grantians were effective activists behind the scenes, it is wrong to think that the ’24 and ’29 Acts were passed in a stealthy fashion, without any meaningful debate or popular support, or that the Acts appealed only to the educated classes interested in Darwinism. Representative William Vaile of Colorado certainly spoke for million of majority Americans when he said plainly that Czechs, Jews, Italians, et al. immigrated to a country that was “already made as an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth.”

They added to it, they often enriched it, but they did not make it, and have not yet greatly changed it. We are determined that they shall not. It is a good country. It suits us. And what we assert is that we are not going to surrender it to somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it something different.[14]

While immigration restriction appealed to the common sense of the common man, Grant saw the Act in more lofty terms: “one of the most decisive events in the racial history of America.” Perhaps he might call the Reed-Johnson and National Origins Acts the final chapter of The Conquest of the Continent.

President Coolidge signs the Johnson–Reed Act on the White House Lawn on May 26, 1924. President Coolidge signs the Johnson–Reed Act on the White House Lawn on May 26, 1924.

In 1933, Conquest appeared at an equivocal, and, in many ways, doleful, moment in Grant’s life. Grant could look back on major successes, most prominently the ’24 and ’29 Acts and the success of his first book,The Passing of the Great Race. On the other hand, Conquest amounted to Grant’s Last Stand: he would die some four years after its publication and the eugenics and racialist movement he led was in the process of losing legitimacy and its ability to affect politics and culture.

The critical reception and popularity of Grant’s two magna opera is, in fact, a lesson in the changing winds of social mood. Though The Passing of the Great Race might never have been a “bestseller,” it achieved something more powerful—the formation of elite opinion. The book, published by Charles Scribner’s Sons, was endorsed by university presidents and Pulitzer Prize winners; it was used as a textbook in college classrooms. Its powerful status was, ironically, confirmed by the fact that F. Scott Fitzgerald deemed it worthy of being parodied in The Great Gatsby (1925); the author expected his audience would readily recognize the fictional Nordicist known as “this man Goddard”—a conflation of Grant and his disciple Lothrop Stoddard— whom Tom Buchanan bombastically paraphrases in a famous scene.

An even more telling sign of racialist hegemony in the ‘20s was that Grant’s ideas were appearing in William Randolph Hearst ladies magazine Good Housekeeping. Take, for instance, this Grantian editorial on immigration from February 1921.

Biological laws tell us that certain divergent people will not mix or blend. The Nordics propagate themselves successfully. With other races, the outcome shows deterioration on both sides. Quality of mind and body suggests that observance of ethnic law is as great a necessity to a nation as immigration law.

The writer mentions some economic arguments for restriction, which “respectable” restrictionists today might favor, but he leaves no doubt as to the true character of his injunction: “Our country must cease to be regarded as a dumping ground.”[15]

The author of the passage was President Calvin Coolidge

By 1933, so much had changed. The Conquest of the Continent was published with little fanfare or public interest. By 1940, only 3,000 copies had been sold, and apparently not believing that the book had a future, Charles Scribner’s Sons melted down the plates.[16]

In Conquest, Grant observes that “American public sentiment regarding the admission of aliens has undergone recently a profound change”:

At the end of the nineteenth century a fatuous humanitarianism prevailed and immigrants of all kinds were welcomed to “The Refuge of the Oppressed,” regardless of whether they were needed in our industrial development or whether they tended to debase our racial unity.

The “Myth of the Melting Pot” was, at that time, deemed by the unthinking to be a part of our national creed.

But ultimately Grant was wrong. The tremendous shift in public sentiment that had occurred in the 1920s was fleeting, and by the time of Conquest, things were trending in the opposite direction. The “Melting Pot Myth”—however hokey and seemingly outmoded—would get a second life (despite that actual immigration in the Depression era was virtually nil).

Grant went from making public opinion to being unmade by it; the reasons why are worth enumerating, for many of the dynamics involved are very much still in play 70 years later.[17]

Certainly, “Reductio ad Hitlerum”—the spoiling of anything that can be associated, however tangentially, with the Third Reich—played a decisive factor in this regard; indeed, the Second World War would utilized by egalitarians of every stripe. Moreover, Grant laments many times in Conquest the tendency towards sentimentality over Ellis Island and the “unity of mankind,” which seems to be part an permanent part of the American national psyche.

Another important factor was the Great Depression. The popularity of Grantian racialism and eugenics came in the 1920s, at a point when majority Americans were, generally speaking, proud of their race and culture and had a forward-looking outlook. With the onset of the Great Depression, Darwinism in the social sphere became associated with advocates of “survival of the fittest” qua dog-eat-dog capitalism.[18] The Grantians were mostly uninterested in economics, outside vague warnings of the implications of importing low-quality immigrants; they were certainly not concerned with weeding out those who lacked business acumen. Nevertheless, the Depression made it easy for egalitarians to smear eugenics as an expression of haughty, even sadistic “class privilege.”

This new stance towards the Grantians was taken by the paper of record (then and now), the New York Times. which had actually endorsed immigration restriction in 1924. Reporting on the Third International Eugenics Conference of 1932, the Times declared that for the participants,

[eugenics] seems to have become a disguise for race prejudice, ancestor worship and caste snobbery… . Such were the views of the promoters of the now discredited doctrine that social salvation lies with the supposedly pure Nordics.”[19]

The Grantians also failed to control academia. As racialism gained hegemony in the ‘20s, it was inevitable that it would spur some kind of strong left-wing reaction. This came in the person of German-born Jew Franz Boas (1858–1942) and his disciples, who across two decades produced a library of Anthropology, so much of which was directed polemically against the Grantians.[20] The Boasian shift from race to “culture”—in the form of tribal customs, primitive rituals, and, most famously, “coming of age in Samoa”[21]—was, in itself, neutral. However, all of Boasian writing was undergirded by an egalitarian faith in “the psychic unity of mankind.”[22]


Franz Boas in 1940 Franz Boas in 1940


On a more pragmatic level, the Boasians were quite astute at professionalizing their movement and co-ordinating mutual promotion. And the fact that they were successful in academia gave them a decisive advantage over the Grantians, who as a class were gentlemen amateurs.

Jonathan Spiro writes,

On a theoretical level the debate between the Grantian and the Boasians pitted the defenders of heredity against the proponents of environment. Intellectually, the split was a disagreement between adherents of polygenesis, who were obsessed [sic] with the classification of races, and adherents of monogenesis, who were fairly certain that races were socially constructed myths. And professionally, it was a conflict between an older generation of physical anthropologists (often gentlemen amateurs with no academic affiliation or perhaps an association with a museum) and the newer generation of cultural anthropologists (usually trained professionals with full-time positions in academia).[23]

But for all that, it was difficult not to notice that at heart it was a confrontation between the ethos of native Protestants and immigrant Jews.

The older generation of amateurs were aristocratic WASPs with the money and leisure time to ponder fossils as an avocation, whereas the younger generation of professionals were immigrant Jews who saw higher education as a route to social respectability…

Though evolutionism (if not racialism) is paradigmatic in the biological sciences, the Boasians have not lessened their grip on Anthropology departments. For better and for worse, a revival of racial thinking will have to emerge, at least at first, outside the walls of the academy.

Happy Days! A eugenics exhibit at the Kansas State Fair, Topeka, Kansas, 1920. Happy Days! A eugenics exhibit at the Kansas State Fair, Topeka, Kansas, 1920.

What made The Conquest of the Continent anathema to the Boasians—and what makes it notorious to this day—is not its demographic history per se so much as the eugenic spirit that underlies it.

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

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

But ultimately, the “totalitarian” connection to eugenics has never held much water. For instance, the eugenics programs in Nazi Germany were, historically speaking, quite unremarkable: they were begun during the Weimar Republic and were no more advanced than those of Sweden or the State of California.

Furthermore, the Nazis’ brutally against Jews, in what has come to be known the Holocaust, and Slavs, during campaigns on the Eastern Front, were not eugenic in any real sense of the word and should be criticized in other contexts.[24]

It is worth pointing out that state science during the other reviled totalitarian regimes of the 20th century was based on the very opposite of Darwinism. The head of Soviet Biology during Stalin’s regime (and beyond), Trofim Denisovich Lysenko (1898–1976), believed, quite literally, that a plant could be genetically altered by its pot—and that these acquired characteristics would be passed down to its offspring. “Lysenkoism” was applied as both agricultural policy during collectivization as well as “political science,” with equally disastrous results. The philosophy of “environmentalism”—the ideal of the “Blank Slate” that can be written upon by progressive leaders—justifies, much more so than Darwinism, the treatment of people as “material,” whose nature can be altered at will, with the “reactionary” parts simply cut off and discarded.[25]

Madison Grant never sought to create a “New Man.” He sought, instead, to conserve the results of natural selection, as he sought to conserve the natural world.[26] Moreover, eugenic thinking is a logical implication of the Darwinian and the Mendelian (i.e., genetic) scientific revolutions. The first chapter of Charles Darwin’s (1809–1882) On the Origin of Species (1859), “Variation under Domestication,” is an extended analogy between evolution through natural selection, Darwin’s thesis, and evolution through artificial selection, which was well known to his readers as the breeding and domestication of birds, dogs, livestock, and the like. As Darwin notes, “the great power of this principle of selection is not hypothetical.” Francis Galton (1822–1911), Darwin’s cousin and originator of the theory of eugenics, was likely thinking of that passage when he quipped, “If a twentieth part of the cost and pains were spent in measures for the improvement of the human race that is spent on the improvement of the breed of horses and cattle, what a galaxy of genius might we not create!”[27]

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

Franz Boas—whose scraggly visage appeared on the cover of Time magazine in 1936 announcing the triumph of “environmentalism”[28]—actually theorized that as Italian immigrants entered the United States, their head shapes would mutate according to environment, with the second generation having a shape closer to that of the American majority than their parents.[28] This marked Boas’s frontal assault on Grant, in particular, his distinction between Dolichocephalic (long-headed) Nordics and Brachycephalic (round-headed) Eastern and Southern Europeans (i.e., Second Great Wave immigrants.)

And as it turns out, Boas’s study was bunk. He “fudged” his data for a good cause (in this case, the myth of the American “Melting Pot,” where democracy dissolves heredity).[29] More importantly, Boas’s thesis is preposterous and risible on its face from the standpoint of Darwinian evolution, that is, from the standpoint of accepted biological science in the 21st century. Boasianism is, at its core, little different than Lysencoism or various other experiments in Marxian biology. Madison Grant’s oeuvre, on the other hand—however we might want to revise Nordicism—remains scientifically and rationally defensible.

Indeed, one of the primaries lessons that racial idealists can draw from studying Grant’s career is that, as trite as it may sound, science matters—and it is likely no coincidence that the most successful effort in racial idealism in modern American history was grounded in Darwinism.

Of course, as good science, Darwinism can be revised, expanded upon, and, potentially, falsified. Also, as good science, Darwinism does not favor or justify any one group or desired outcome. Indeed, as the 2005 science-fiction comedy Idiocracy painfully points out, natural selection does not even favor what one might call the strongest, most beautiful, and most intelligent.[30]

That said, Darwinism offers a compelling and rational justification for Whites to act on behalf of their ancestors and progeny and feel a shared since of destiny with their extended kin group. As Kevin MacDonald correctly points out, “rational, scientific discourse” is granted pride of place in advanced Western societies; and one shouldn’t underestimate the “emotional commitment” that Darwinism can instill in Whites—as it raises politics to the level of collective survival, above claims to fairness that dominate the language of liberalism. Darwinism is seemingly more “effective in rallying Whites, especially elite Whites, than religious feelings.” Indeed, “the story of religious feeling in the modern age has been to either sink into irrelevance for secular Whites (who are likely to be more educated) or be diverted into causes that are suicidal for religious Whites.”[31]

Viewed from another angle, Madison Grant had become relevant for contemporary racial idealists due to the increasing irrelevancy of what might be called “respectable” or “patriotic” immigration reform, that is, restriction on the basis of legality or concerns about assimilation (which are the only restrictionist arguments that are granted a hearing in the mainstream media).[32]

According to the U.S. Census Department, by the summer of 2011, the majority of births in the United States were non-White infants. This means that if all immigration, legal and illegal, were (quite miraculously) halted immediately, nothing of significance demographically would change. The proverbial 2050 “tipping point”—when America reaches “majority-minority” status, with no single racial or ethnic groups defining the national character—will merely be delayed by a decade or two. Moreover, “assimilation” has become a deceptive and misleading term, as it begs the question “To What?” Hispanic immigrants have been assimilating downward across generations towards the culture and behavior of African-Americans.[33] Indeed, one possible outcome of the ongoing demographic transformation is a thoroughly miscegenated, and thus homogenous and “assimilated,” nation, which would have little resemblance to the White America that came before it.

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

This essay was first published in 2012.

  1. Northrop Frye. “The Decline of the West by Oswald Spengler,” Daedalus, Vol. 103, No. 1, Winter 1974. ↩︎
  2. Grant’s chief research assistant, who compiled the bibliography, was Paul Popenoe. ↩︎
  3. The Annales School is associated with academic journal by that name, founded in Strasbourg by Marc Bloch and Lucien Febvre in 1929 and later relocated to Paris. The School sought to examine long-term evolution of societies, geographies, and economies. ↩︎
  4. The name Madison Grant does not appear anywhere in the two official chronicles of the American conservative movement, George Nash’s The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America and Russell Kirk’s The Conservative Mind. Grant is a non-person as well as The Intercollegiate Studies Institute’s putatively exhaustive 1,000-page American Conservatism—An Encyclopedia. In the face of all this, one can be forgiven for thinking that Grant was simply an artifact of a benighted, bigoted age, perhaps best treated like the “haters” one reads about in the bulletins of the Southern Poverty Law Center. (The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot, 7th edition (Regnery Publishing, 2001); George H. Nash, The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945, 2nd Edition (Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2006); Bruce Frohnen, Jeremy Beer, Jeffery O. Nelson (Eds.), American Conservatism—An Encylopedia (Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2006).) ↩︎
  5. A useful, though often hostile, introduction to such thinkers is Arthur Herman, The Idea of Decline in Western History (The Free Press, 1997). ↩︎
  6. The Zoological society was later transformed into the Wildlife Conservation Society, which currently manages some 200 million acres worldwide. ↩︎
  7. Jonathan Peter Spiro, Defending the Master Race: Conservation, Eugenics, and the Legacy of Madison Grant (Vermont University Press, 2009), 136. ↩︎
  8. Quoted in Spiro, 201. ↩︎
  9. In the U.S. political system, the power to legislate is vested in Congress. The President can only has veto bills he deems unsatisfactory. Congress has the additional authority to override a presidential veto with two-thirds majorities in both Houses. ↩︎
  10. In his books, Grant rarely dilates on the Jewish Question; however, his correspondence reveals that he was quite prickly about Jews in positions of power, such as Congressmen Isaac Siegel and Adolph Sabath and Rabbi Stephen S. Wise of the American Jewish Congress, whom he considered the most aggressively and effective opponents of immigration restriction. ↩︎
  11. The Act also extended the restriction on the Chinese to include the Japanese. ↩︎
  12. Accessible and accurate histories of American immigration can be found in Peter Brimelow, Alien Nation (HarperCollins, 1995), Byron Roth, The Perils of Diversity (Washington Summit Publishers, 2010); and Otis L. Graham, Unguarded Gates: A History of America’s Immigration Policy (Rowen and Littlefield, 2006). ↩︎
  13. Worth noting, the 1924 and ’29 Acts did nothing to address immigration from South America, which was not politically significant at the time. Quite prophetically, Grant laments this oversight in Conquest. ↩︎
  14. Quoted in Roth, 294 ↩︎
  15. Good Housekeeping, volume 72 number 2, February 1921. ↩︎
  16. Spiro, 346. ↩︎
  17. “The Melting Pot,” for instance, has returned as self-styled conservatives’ answer to multiculturalism. ↩︎
  18. Notably, “survival of the fittest” was coined by Herbert Spencer, not Darwin; the former attempted to associate his economic theories with evolution through natural selection. ↩︎
  19. “Genes and Eugenics,” New York Times, August 24, 1932; quoted in Spiro, 231. ↩︎
  20. See, for instance, Franz Boas, The Mind of Primitive Man (MacMillan, 1911) and “This Nordic Nonsense,” The Forum, October 1925. ↩︎
  21. Margaret Meade, Coming of Age in Samoa (William Morrow & Co., 1928). ↩︎
  22. This term was coined, not by Boas, but by German ethnologist Adolf Bastian (1826–1905), whom Boas worked for briefly at the Museum of Folkart in Berlin. ↩︎
  23. Spiro, 302. This conflict also brought to the fore some of the painful ambivalences of assimilation for immigrant Jews, something best expressed by the Polish immigrant Moses Israel Ehrenberg, who as an academic and public intellectual—the man who would write UNESCO’s statement rejecting the existence of race—refashioned himself with the absurdly WASPy name “Ashley Montagu.” ↩︎
  24. For a discussion of this issue, see John Glad, Future Human Evolution: Eugenics in the Twenty-First Century (Schuylkill Haven, PA: Hermitage Publishers). ↩︎
  25. See Steve Pinker, The Blank Slate (Viking, 2002). ↩︎
  26. Galton, “Hereditary Talent and Character.” ↩︎
  27. Time, May 11, 1936. ↩︎
  28. Franz Boas and Helene M. Boas, “The Head-Forms of the Italians as Influenced by Heredity and Environment,” American Anthropologist, April-June 1913. ↩︎
  29. Corey S. Sparks and Richard L. Jantz, “A Reassessment of human Cranial Plasticity: Boas Revisited,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, October 8, 2002. See also, Nicholas Wade, “A New Look at Old Data May Discredit a Theory on Race”, New York Times, October 8, 2002. ↩︎
  30. In film’s opening scenes, a stereotypical high-IQ WASP and Jewish couple is depicted as a continually forego child-rearing (“Not now, not with the market as it is…”), while a stereotypical low-IQ redneck family breeds with passionate intensity. The ultimate outcome, by 2050, is a collapsing, exceedingly vulgar world in which the average IQ of the population is at retardation levels. ↩︎
  31. Kevin MacDonald, “The Dispossessed Elite,” in Richard B. Spencer (ed.), The Great Erasure (Washington Summit Publishers, 2012). ↩︎
  32. As Byron Roth observes, the “debate” on immigration in the Western world throughout the 2000s was over whether Third World immigrants should or should not assimilate to the dominate culture, not whether this is possible or desirable. Roth, The Perils of Diversity, Chapter 1. ↩︎
  33. See Richard Spencer, “Who’s Taking Over?” American Renaissance, Vol. 21, no. 4, April 2010. ↩︎
6 Comments on Madison Grant and the American Nation

A True Empire: Form and Presuppositions of a United Europe

In order to head toward a united Europe, the first step should consist of a concerted exit of all European nations from the United Nations, which is an illegitimate, promiscuous, and hypocritical association. Another obvious imperative should be to become emancipated in every aspect and in equal measure from both the United States and the USSR.

Editor’s Note: Posted from JuliusEvola.net here, all quotations come from “Men Among the Ruins

In order to head toward a united Europe, the first step should consist of a concerted exit of all European nations from the United Nations, which is an illegitimate, promiscuous, and hypocritical association. Another obvious imperative should be to become emancipated in every aspect and in equal measure from both the United States and the USSR. […]

[…] Here I will only hint at what concerns the form and the spiritual and doctrinal presuppositions of a united Europe. […] The only genuine solution must have an organic character; the primary element should be a shaping force from within and from above, proper to an idea and a common tradition. […]

[…] As I have indicated in another chapter, the concepts of fatherland and nation (or ethnic group) belong to an essentially naturalistic or “physical” plane. In a united Europe, fatherlands and nations may exist […] What should be excluded is nationalism (with its monstrous appendix, namely imperialism) and chauvinism—in other words, every fanatical absolutization of a particular unit. Thus “European Empire,” and not “Nation Europa” or “European Fatherland” should be the right term, in a doctrinal sense. In the Europeans we should appeal to a feeling of higher order, qualitatively very different from the nationalistic feeling rooted in other strata of the human being. […]

The scheme of an empire in a true and organic sense (which must clearly be distinguished from every imperialism, a phenomenon that should be regarded as a deplorable extension of nationalism) was previously displayed in the European medieval world, which safeguarded the principles of both unity and multiplicity. In this world, individual States have the character of partial organic units, gravitating around a unum quod non est pars (“a one that is not a part,” to use Dante’s expression)—namely, a principle of unity, authority, and sovereignty of a different nature from that which is proper to each particular State. But the principle of the Empire can have such a dignity only by transcending the political sphere in the strict sense, founding and legitimizing itself with an idea, a tradition, and a power that is also spiritual. The limitations of the sovereignty of the single national units before an eminent right of the Empire have as their sole condition this transcendent dignity of the Empire; as far as structure is concerned, the whole will appear as an “organism composed of organisms,” or as an organic federalism similar to that realized by Bismarck in the second German Reich, which was not acephalous. These are the essential traits of a true Empire.

What are the conditions and the opportunities for the realization of such an idea in Europe today? […] Because what is needed is an organic unity, the premise should rather be the integration and consolidation of every single nation as a hierarchical, united, and well-differentiated whole. The nature of the parts should reflect the nature of the whole. […] What matters is the synergy and the opportunity for every common action.

Every organic unit is characterized by a principle of stability. We should not expect a stability of the whole, where there is no stability guaranteed in its very components. Even from this point of view, the elementary presupposition of an eventual united Europe appears to be the political integration of the single nations. European unity would always be precarious if it leaned on some external factor, like an international parliament lacking a common, higher authority, with representations from various democratic regimes; such regimes, because they are constantly and mutually conditioned from below, cannot in any way ensure a continuity of political will and direction. […]

What is required is not to impose a common regime on every European nation; however, an organic, hierarchical, anti-individualistic, and antidemocratic principle should be adequately implemented, even though in various forms adopted to different circumstances. Thus, the preliminary condition is a general antidemocratic cleansing, which at the present appears to be almost utopian. Democracy, on the one hand, and a European parliament that reproduces on a larger scale the depressing and pathetic sight of the European parliamentary systems on the other hand: all this would bring ridicule upon the idea of a united Europe. In general, we should think of an organic unity to be attained from the top down rather than from the bottom up. Only elites of individual European nations could understand one another and coordinate their work, overcoming every particularism and spirit of division, asserting higher interests and motives with their authority. […] A well-established “center” should exist in every nation; as a result of the harmony and the synergy of such centers, the higher European unity would organize itself and operate.

Overall, what should be promoted is a twofold process of integration: on the one hand, national integration through the acknowledgment of a substantial principle of authority that is the basis for the organic, anti-individualistic, and corporative formation of the various sociopolitical national forces; on the other hand, supernational European integration through the acknowledgment of a principle of authority that is as super-ordained toward that which is proper of single units (individual States), as it is toward the people included in each of these units. Without this, it is useless to talk about an organically united Europe.

Having put the problem in these terms, there are serious difficulties regarding the spiritual, not merely political, foundations required to implement this European unity. Where should we find these foundations? […]

Obviously, it would be a pure Utopia to yearn to oppose in practical terms all the material aspects of modern civilization: among other things, this would involve surrendering the practical means that are necessary today for every defense and attack. However, it is always possible to establish a distance and a limit. It is possible to enclose that which is “modern” in a well-controlled material and “physical” domain, on the plane of mere means, and to superimpose upon it a higher order adequately upheld, in which revolutionary-conservative values are given unconditional acknowledgment. The Japan of yesterday demonstrated the possibility and the fecundity of a solution of this type. Only in that case could Europe represent something different, distinguish itself, and assume a new dignity among world powers. […] The first European detoxification should concern this obsession with “antifascism,” which is the catchphrase of the “crusade” that has left Europe in a pile of rubble. However, we cannot side either with those pro-European sympathizers who can only refer to what was attempted in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany before the war, toward the creation of a new order. These groups fail to recognize that Fascism and National Socialism were movements and regimes in which different and even contrasting tendencies coexisted; their development in the right, positive, revolutionary-conservative sense could have occurred only if circumstances had allowed for an adequate, further development, which was stricken down by the war they ignited and by their ensuing defeat. This is how we should at least proceed to a precise distinction, if we want to draw reference points from those movements.

Besides doctrinal difficulties, which I have examined, a radical European action finds its major obstacle in the lack of something that could represent a starting point, a firm support, and a center of crystallization. Before 1945 we could at least witness the wonderful sight of the principle of a supernational European Army, and the legionary spirit of volunteers from many nations who, having been organized in several divisions, fought on the Eastern front against the Soviets; at that time the foundation was the Third Reich. Today the only concrete, though partial, European initiatives of various governments are taken on a mere economic plane, without any deep ideological and ideal counterpart. Those who are sensitive to the idea of a united Europe in a higher sense are only isolated individuals, and not only are they not supported, but also they are even opposed by their own countries; and much more so, let me add, if their necessary antidemocratic and anti-Marxist profession of faith is openly declared. In effect, a European action must proceed in parallel with the rebirth and the revolutionary-conservative reorganization of the individual European countries: but to recognize this also means to acknowledge the disheartening magnitude of the task ahead.

Despite this, we could suggest the idea of an Order, whose members would act in the various nations, doing what they can to promote an eventual European unity, even in such unfavorable conditions. The enthusiasm of young militants who conduct an active propaganda should be commended, but it is not enough. We should count on people with a specific qualification, who occupied or intended to occupy key positions in their own nations. What kind of men could be up to this task? Assuming bourgeois society and civilization as a reference point, it is necessary to win over to the cause and to recruit people who neither spiritually belong to the bourgeoisie nor are affected by it, or who are already beyond it. A first group should be composed of members of ancient European families that are still “standing” and who are valuable not only because of the name they carry, but also because of who they are, because of their personality. It is very difficult to find such men but there are some exceptions, and even during and after the last World War, some of these figures emerged. Sometimes it is a matter of awakening something in the blood that has not been entirely lost but still exists in a latent state. In these elements we would expect to find the presence of congenital, “racial” dispositions (racial in the elitist and non biological-racist sense of the term) that guarantee an action and a reaction according to a precise and secure style, free from theories and abstract principles, in a spontaneous and complete adherence to those values that every man of good birth considered obvious before the rise of the Third Estate and of what followed it.

In regard to a second and more numerous section of the Order, I have in mind men who correspond to the human type shaped here and there through selections and experiences of an essentially warrior character, and through certain disciplines. Existentially speaking, this type is well versed in the art of “demythologization”: it recognizes as illusion and hypocrisy the entire tenacious legacy of the ideologies that have been employed as instruments, not to bring down this or that European nation, but to deal a deadly blow to the whole of Europe. These men harbor a healthy intolerance for any rhetoric; an indifference toward intellectualism and politicians’ gimmicks; a realism of a higher type; the propensity for impersonal activity; and the capability of a precise and resolute commitment. In the past, in some elite fighting units, today among paratroopers and analogous corps (e.g., Marines and others), some disciplines and experiences favor the formation of this human type, which displays the same traits in various nations. A common way of being constitutes a potentially connective element, beyond nationalities. By winning over these elements to the European cause, we could constitute, with a “force at the ready,” the most active cadres of such an Order. If direct and integrating communications were established between these two groups (which is not as difficult as it may first appear), the foundation would be laid. For these men, the most important concerns should be the European idea in terms of values and of worldview, followed by the Order and then by the nation.

Naturally, the personality of an authentic leader at the center and head of the Order is of the utmost importance. Unfortunately, no such person exists today: it would be dangerous and rash to see him in any of the figures who are currently working here and there, albeit with the best of intentions, selflessly and bravely, to form European groups. One has to consider here that no one could have detected in advance the potential of any of the men who later became leaders of great movements. Nevertheless, it is easy to see the great advantages in the case where such a man, in whom authority and status now became manifest, had been there from the beginning.

We do not need to repeat what the basic requirement is for such a European action to mature and bear any results. One must first get rid of the political class, which holds the power in almost all European countries in this time of interregnum and European slavery. This would be immediately possible if a sufficient mass of today’s peoples could be reawakened from their stupefied and stultified condition that has been systematically created by the prevailing political-social ideas.

But the greatest difficulty for the true European idea is the deep crisis of the authority principle and the idea of the State. This will seem contradictory to many, because they believe the strengthening of that principle and that idea would bring in its wake a schismatic division and thus a rigid, anti-European pluralism. We have already shown why this is not at all the case, when we were speaking of the Männerbünde and indicating the higher level that characterizes the idea of a true State and its authority, in contrast to everything that is merely “folk” or “nation.” For the individual, true political loyalty includes, besides a certain heroic readiness, a certain degree of transcendence, hence something not merely nature-bound. There is no break, but rather continuity when one crosses from the national level to the supernational: the selfsame inner readiness will be required as in the times of Indo-European origins and of the best feudal regimes, in which it was also a matter of the voluntary union of free powers, proud to belong to a higher order of things that did not oppress but rather embraced them. The real obstacles are only fanatical nationalism and the collapse of society and community.

In summary, let it be said that breaking through into more thoughtful minds is the idea that in the current state of affairs, the uniting of Europe into a single bloc is the indispensable prerequisite for its continuation in a form other than an empty geographical concept on the same materialistic level as that of the powers that seek to control the world. For all the reasons already explained, we know that this crisis involves a dual inner problem, if under these circumstances one hopes to establish a firm foundation, a deeper sense, and an organic character for a possible united Europe. On the one hand, an initiative in the sense of a spiritual and psychic detoxification must be taken against what is commonly known as “modern culture.” On the other, there is the question of the kind of “metaphysics” that is capable, today, of supporting both a national and a supernational principle of true authority and legitimacy.

The dual problem can be translated into a dual imperative. It remains to be seen which and how many men, in spite of it all, still stand upright among so many ruins, in order that they may make this task their own.

5 Comments on A True Empire: Form and Presuppositions of a United Europe

Victory Conditions

I would like to propose victory conditions for our movement. For me, it’s essentially this: a cultural revolution whereby genetic quality and homogeneity are recognized as self-evident social goods and goals in all of our countries. 

I would like to propose victory conditions for our movement. For me, it’s essentially this: a cultural revolution whereby genetic quality and homogeneity are recognized as self-evident social goods and goals in all of our countries.

Our views on history, political systems, and international relations essentially derive from this more fundamental postulate. The European is a creative breed: set the goal posts and he will do his darnedest. Even when, as in the case of Equality, the goal is actually impossible. How much more satisfied he will be when his unquenchable ambition is set upon something which is both achievable and elevating!

That genetic quality should be a goal should be self-evident for every person who claims to believe – as liberals do – in Darwinian evolution. In general, scientists have found that human physical and mental traits are about 50% heritable. This means there are limits on what can be achieved solely through education and upbringing. Whether we meet our potential is determined by one’s life trajectory, but that potential is genetically predetermined.

The liberal, especially the vulgar “I fucking love science” type, will typically be the most hysterical in claiming heredity has no public policy implications. That is intellectual incoherence and moral cowardice. If you have concerns about the consequences of eugenics, then tell us how best to move forward, but not deny that heredity has massive public policy implications.

Two-thousand-five-hundred years ago, the great Greek philosopher Plato argued that the composition of the gene pool was an obvious matter of public interest and that, in his ideal Republic, the ruling elite and people would breed themselves better over time, just as we have bred innumerable strains of plants and animals according to our goals and interests.

The value of genetic homogeneity is evident in the degree of cohesion in nations like Japan or Denmark, as opposed to the conflict and tensions evident in multiethnic societies.

This is a question of blood: if peoples can form one ethnic group, then their tribal instinct becomes a positive force, as they identify and are solidarity with one another. But, with genetic diversity, they cluster into different racial categories with different temperaments, different preferences, and no inter-ethnic solidarity.

Scientists recently showed that Denmark – Bernie Sanders’ favorite country – has (or had) “remarkable” genetic homogeneity. This homogeneity and the fact that a Jewish social democrat would cite such a Nordic country as his model, would not have surprised the world’s most famous Viennese café-conspirator.

Of course, I do not advise being more homogeneous than native Danes, as that would mean inbreeding depression. Systematic cousin-banging is a traditional Judaic and Islamic custom but certainly not a European one. As in everything, one must aim for the Aristotelian mean.

It goes without saying that in cultivating our genetic quality and homogeneity, our European identity must be preserved at all costs. As a rapidly-shrinking global minority, who ultimately face extinction, we Europeans must take our own side.

I also believe that our existence can be justified in universalist or Kantian terms. The Ancients believed that morality is in harmony with the laws of universal nature. And that nature does not stop at the borders of race and nation, even though, by their genetic and cultural specificities, these laws express themselves somewhat differently.

Practically, the fact is that the European peoples, from ancient times to today, have contributed more to civilization, culture, and science than all of the other peoples put together. I am not denying others’ contributions, particularly of the Chinese and Japanese, but it obviously follows that the preservation of European peoples is a supreme moral objective even from a universalist point of view.

Following the Kantian moral imperative, we ask: would the world be better off if all peoples cultivated their genetic quality and homogeneity?

The answer is obviously yes: the world would be smarter, there would be less civil conflict, and the chances of mankind escaping the surly bonds of Earth would be maximized.

In evolutionary terms, we can maximize European, and also mankind’s, survivability by pursuing genetic quality and genuine diversity. Species are best adapted when they have the best traits for their environment but also have, as a bonus, a wide variety of subspecies with various traits which might be useful for survival if circumstances change. Where we know what the best is, we pursue that, when we do not know, we allow for variety.

The “U.N.-World” proposed by the globalists would be an evil monoculture: one global economic and cultural space, the same socio-political norms, all nations (or at least ours) semi-blended into an ethnic mush with the usual stratification: Jews, East Asians, Whites, browns, and blacks. This system would be dominated by ethno-plutocratic elites – whoever has the perfect combination of social intelligence and hypocritical clannishness – all the while paying lip service to an impossible Equality. Hillary Clinton already embodies this today: owned by Wall Street banks, largely funded by Jewish oligarchs, and race-baiting blacks and Mestizos against the traditional majority.

Who is foolish enough to believe that Paul Krugman and his ilk consider White gentiles, let alone blacks and Mestizos, their “equals”?

The globalists’ world would be one without identity or solidarity, it would be a global favela, governed by nothing but envy, lies, and hypocrisy. And, actually, I believe that whatever the technological gains, this world would be bad for mankind’s survivability and ultimately unsustainable.

I propose Eurocentric Hereditarianism. Today, we chase after G.D.P. and Equality, tomorrow: the genetic and cultural cultivation of our people.

Even if we manage to impose genetic quality and homogeneity as fundamental goals of our society, that will not be enough. We must also vanquish individualism and egalitarianism, fancy words for personal selfishness and vanity. Hereditarian norms must be culturally hegemonic to such an extent that people care more about the well-being of future generations, especially genetic well-being, than about their empty caprices and their personal ego.

This will be the hardest part. With the free debate on the Internet, a very substantial subculture recognizing genetic realities is emerging. But will it have the will to really affirm these principles in the real world?

That will be much more difficult: we are talking about deciding, as a society, who has babies and how they have babies. One hundred years ago, life was still tough, and people were willing to countenance the ruthless imposition of their racial interests over both other races and their own community. Today, we have grown very soft and sentimental indeed.

In truth, the idea that the individual is more important than the whole is a modern piece of solipsism with no basis in tradition. Without the community, the individual dies, and that is that. Thus, when the public good and the individual good clash, the public must prevail. Even the men of the Enlightenment recognized this. Article I of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen states: “Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions can be founded only on the common good.” It is obvious that advocates of Jim Crow or the Nuremberg Laws believed their “social distinctions” were “founded on the common good.”

Or another example; the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights reads:

“Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.”

Well, suppose you were on a rough island able to support 100 people of reasonable intelligence. Would the State not be justified in regulating reproduction to prevent overpopulation and stultification? Or would, as today, individuals be “free” to mate blindly according to their instincts even if it means the destruction of the entire society?

I used to be very, very pessimistic about demographic developments in the sense that I believed them to be more-or-less irreversible and I could not countenance putting millions of people on boats. Today, I affirm two things:

1) The survival of our people must be pursued by whatever means necessary.

2) These means, with new technology, would not necessarily be “inhumane.”

William Shockley proposed voluntary sterilization of those with an IQ of less than 100 in exchange for cash. Steve Sailer has proposed a very humane “one-and-done” policy whereby people with bad genes can have only one child.

Recently, I have thought about the possibilities of embryo selection. Suppose you required all prospective parents to fertilize 10 or 20 embryos and then had them (actually, I don’t think they would need much prodding) choose the genetically most desirable one. William Pierce once said: “from mongrelization, there is no recovery.” But actually, I am not so sure. (A Dutch comrade, with perfectly northern Europe pallor, tells me he is one-sixteenth Indonesian.)

With such measures, and others I am sure, we can improve the gene pool generation by generation. And, rather than an essayist telling you that, we should have the best scientific minds of the entire European world working on this, so as to address the problems that would occur (e.g. excessive spread of harmful recessive genes). In any case, I doubt the Jews or the Chinese will wait for us.

In principle, non-Europeans also have some genes which it would be desirable for us to acquire, but I’ll not speculate on that.

Today, humans are increasingly coming to resemble a vast swarm of billions of hamster-locusts. Hamsters in the sense that we live in little boxes and are very comfortable, feeling very entitled to lodging, food, running water, flat-screen TVs, laptops, WiFi, etc. This logically ends in Bern Victims’ “Stoner Communism.” Locusts in the sense that, to maintain this basically subhuman lifestyle for every featherless biped on the planet – as is the goal of the United Nations – we are ravenously consuming our Earth’s natural resources with a downright Tanakhian contempt for the natural world of which we are a part.

This planet, mankind, and European man would all be better off with less and better humans. Even Africa would do OK if, instead of spawning to 4 billion, they were limited to their Talented Tenth.

The point is, that we need to both have the right ideas and be strong enough to impose these ideas in the face of individualism and egalitarianism. Once we get the trajectory right, we can proclaim victory, so long as we ensure that the European garden will be steadily cultivated and perfected from generation to generation. We would again have a home and a future. We would be psychologically healthier and more alive because our in-born emotional longing for tribe and spirit will be met by this Eurocentric civil-religion. Our people’s existence will be secure and we will again look to the future with hope. If this is done, we will work with eternity.

7 Comments on Victory Conditions

Big in Japan

Pepe, Asianization, and the End of Western Civilization There is a spectre haunting the interwebs. It is the spectre of a laid back, occasionally Nazi-cosplaying green frog and his dead…

Pepe, Asianization, and the End of Western Civilization

There is a spectre haunting the interwebs. It is the spectre of a laid back, occasionally Nazi-cosplaying green frog and his dead gorilla sidekick.

And the establishment doesn’t quite know what to do about it.

But even the Alt-Right is not quite sure what Pepe is or even if he’ll stick around. Memes, by their very nature, are transient and ever changing, and Pepe casts a nervous glance over his shoulder at the Mighty Harambe, who, in turn casts, a nervous glance over his shoulder at . . .

OK, stop right there!

Now you see what’s happening, don’t you?

A grown man—me!—in an attempt to explain something, has ended up writing what is essentially complete drivel within the accepted means of discourse. It is not the first time and Pepe has turned this trick and it certainly won’t be the last.

This is because Pepe–and the associated 4chan culture from which he spawned–is essentially something alien to Western values and norms. Only by understanding him in this sense–as something truly alien, a significant category mistake–do we stand a chance of relating Pepe and the 4chan Alt-Right to the wider world, culture, and political process.

In short, while some see Pepe as a saviour of the White race and Western Civilization, he is, in effect, just another harbinger of that race and civilization’s decline and downfall. In truth, as the invokers of Kek have intuited, Pepe has much more in common with the pre-Christian pagan and Oriental mentalities than with anything truly White and Western. This is why tryhard efforts to pin Pepe down by “respectable” news sources are doomed to laughable failure.

All generations of White and European man since the early Middle Ages have existed within a culture that is based on a Greek Classical and Judeo-Christian basis. That is until now.

The Millennials may, in effect, be the first post-White or post-Western generation of Whites, in that their essential culture has lost many of the salient points of White, European culture as it has been known for so long.

I first started to suspect this one or two decades ago, when I noticed how supine, evasive, wishy-washy, feckless, and “make-do” so many young people in the West were becoming. They were starting to define themselves by a low-grade pragmatism, flexible values, coyness, tweeness, and what can best be described as a general “off-centredness.” An earlier generation might have described it as spinelessness or a lack of backbone.

Consider the more obvious evidence, the Millennials are the generation of irony, memes, cosplay, gaming, RPGs, gay marriage, transgenderism, socking up, trolling, shitposting, doing things for LULZ, insincere racism (Milo is right to a large degree), and going with the flow (while also pissing in the flow), etc.

The defining characteristics are listlessness, playfulness, effeteness, constant shapeshifting, neoteny, and a sense of passive fatalism.

With my extensive experience of Asia, I soon started to realize the affinities that young White men (and women) were showing with the fundamental Asian type, which shares many of these characteristics.

Vis-à-vis the traditional European type, the Asian is regarded as self-effacing, less rigidly moral, less logical, more superstitious, dogmatically syncretic, etc.

This dichotomy also operates rather well between the younger generation in the West and its predecessors. Post-Christian generations like the Boomers and Generation-X felt almost as much need for moral validation as their Christian predecessors, which is what gave us terms like “Racism” and “Sexism,” “Save the Whales,” and those harpies of shrill morality called SJWs.
Earlier Western generations, right up to Gen-X, operated within a corrupted form of what was essentially still Western culture–defined by a high degree of moral rigidity and a Manichean sense of good and evil, stemming both from aspects of Christianity, Judaism, and the Platonic wing of Classical culture.

This is exactly what people like David Duke and Hillary Clinton share in common, although how they process that rigid Black-and-White dichotomy differs markedly. Trump by contrast is a more “Asian” type—although why is a question for another day.

But how did this great generational shift come about? There are, as usual, several factors. The previous generation was subjected to some of the same forces, but resisted them, so the switch, when it came, happened quite dramatically.

The two most important factors pushing it were (a) the destruction of the “moral bubble” of the West and (b) the isolating and reconnecting of individuals in a self-selecting manner, freed from a social consensus.

The morality of Western Civilization was always a moral construct bolted onto a previous pagan substrate, in many ways a distortion of more organic and natural patterns of social, spiritual, and moral organization. This is what gave our civilization its greatness and its architectonic structure. In the same way that North Korea enforces its own rigid ideology by isolating the state from the World, Western Civilization was enforced by excluding all that could not be controlled (the period of defense, 900 to 1492 AD) or by controlling all that could not be excluded (1492 to 1990 AD).

This was comparatively easy to do–especially in religious, moral, cultural, and media terms–until the turn of the millennium, when the gatekeeper media started to give way to the mass-market, globalized Internet connectivity.

This opened up each individual to whole worlds, where basic Western morality simply did not exist or operate, or did so very feebly. The essentially Asiatic “4chan mentality” of the Millennial generation was empowered by a combination of porn, perversion, gaming, and access not only to alien cultures but the Id-directed undersides of those cultures.

This was the significance of manga and anime culture: presenting millions of young kids with a world where Western values—epitomized by the shrill moral signaller that has been with us at least since St. Augustine—was not only ignored, but not even known to exist.

This—combined with the isolation caused by atomization and the self-selecting reconnection of people through the Internet via social media (the echo chambers)—created a world of variable, organic moral textures, rather than the universalist sheen of standardized morality.

This is why tryhard efforts to pin Pepe down by conventional analysis fail. He operates at the level of ever mutating animism, and/or as a left-handed Zen kōan catalyst. Aim at him directly, and you’ll miss, as Eugen Herrigel might have inferred if he were alive today.

This led to the world we have today, with such phenomena as gender-fluidity or kids typing “Feels Good Man” to memes of gas chambers for lulz and keks; a world stalked by Heliogalabian types like Milo, leading “moral” insurrections, and where a presidential candidate with serious health problems ends up shouting at a cartoon frog—and the cartoon frog even shouts back.

We have, without realizing it, slipped into Asianization, or perhaps into our own long-repressed pagan past. The West is dead and Generation X may well be the last true generation of White men.

No Comments on Big in Japan

The Dark Right

Sometime in the near future, in an America crippled by degeneracy and stifling bureaucracy, two men of stature fight in the streets. One, an aging billionaire fed up with his society’s imminent collapse, has become a polarizing threat to the governing establishment.The other, a compromised but well-meaning foreigner wrapped in an American flag, bringing a false and used-up patriotism to a disenfranchised population.

Sometime in the near future, in an America crippled by degeneracy and stifling bureaucracy, two men of stature fight in the streets. One, an aging billionaire fed up with his society’s imminent collapse, has become a polarizing threat to the governing establishment.The other, a compromised but well-meaning foreigner wrapped in an American flag, bringing a false and used-up patriotism to a disenfranchised population.

The men I speak of are not Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, but the World’s Finest themselves—Batman and Superman.

In this future, your average American might look into the sky as an object flies overhead, but it’d just be a bird or a plane. The era of the superhero is over—their presence banned as a threat to democratic normalcy. The Cold War is hotter than history has recorded. Meanwhile, Gotham is slowly succumbing to the decay of street gangs and low-energy politicians too incompetent or comfortable to bother themselves. Homeless doomsayers trudge through the streets prophesying the end times. The superhero has been reduced to the realm of legend for young generations, who, with no heroes of their own, are drawn to the seductive promises of miscreant gang chieftains.

Published in 1986, Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns breathed life into a comic-book industry suffocated by the creativity-killing censorship of the self-imposed Comic Code Authority (not so different from the “private” censorship of social media today.

DKR not only ushered in an era of creative vitality, bringing a dying medium back to its feet, but to this day it serves as a clever and relevant work of modern satire. The Cold War may be over, but just as in Miller’s dystopia, we’re living in a Kali Yuga—an age void of heroes, when eccentric mediocrities are fetishized by the 20-square-inch boxes in our living rooms, and all hope is almost lost . . . almost.

While every work of art is defined by the vision of its artist, there comes a point in the life cycle of all great works where art takes on a new life beyond its author’s intent—a point in which the piece no longer belongs to the author, but to the culture.

In this sense, The Dark Knight Returns serves as an Alt Right hero’s journey, in so far as it chronicles Western man’s spiritual struggle towards superhuman reawakening against modern egalitarian mediocrity—including a necessary break from American conservatism. It is a battle cry, not just for a creative revolution in the stuffy recesses of the comic book medium, but a call to arms against the existential lethargy of modern man.

The Dark Pill

The time has come. You know it in your soul. For I am
your soul… You cannot escape me… you are puny, you are small—you are nothing—a hollow shell, a rusty trap that cannot hold me… you cannot stop me—not with wine or vows or the weight of age—you cannot stop me but but still you try—still you run—you try to drown me out—but your voice is weak…

Enter millionaire Bruce Wayne, age 55. Ten years ago, he hung up his cape and cowl—swearing an oath he would never don it again. A restrained titan among Last Men, his purposeless life draws on, as he drinks by himself during the day, dreaming of a perfect death—a perfect death to take away the pain—the pain of watching his beloved Gotham City slowly sink into the abyss of rot and chaos—as good men do nothing.

All that is left for the former crime fighter is nostalgia and baseless thrill-seeking. Behind what appears to be a life of futility broods a malevolent demon—the Batman persona incarnate, transcending masked vigilantism and biological decrepitude—urging, no, compelling the fruitless Bruce Wayne to become who he is. No longer can Bruce Wayne stand by as news station after news station regurgitates the same deterministic and sanitized murder stories. As we are learning today, Wayne can ignore reality no longer.

The threat is here and it is time to act. In a blaze of glory, Batman sweeps the streets of Gotham—revitalizing hope in Gotham’s citizenry.

There is little doubt that Miller, the man who called Occupy Wall Street “nothing but a pack of louts, thieves, and rapists” and author of the unabashedly identitarian 300 and “Islamophobic” Holy Terror, was channeling many of the same concerns back in [1986 that the Alternative Right is facing today. While the West is certainly sick, it is a sickness it has brought on itself. Unlike European colonialism of the 19th century, The Global South’s colonialism today is strictly the result of self-imposed ethno-masochism of a civilization defeated by centuries of victory (to paraphrase Bane from The Dark Knight Rises) and internal waring.

While DKR is not, by any means, a commentary on modern immigration, it challenges the same wounded spirit of the modern world. Like his fellow supermen in tights, Batman quit because he chose to quit. There was no one to stop him. He gave up by his own volition, but something deep inside him urges that the war goes on.

A Reflection

I close my eyes and listen. Not fooled by sight, I see him … as he is. I see him. I see … a reflection.

Due to Batman’s successful return to crime fighting and subsequent public approval, a coalition consisting of the media, politicians, and “public intellectuals” arises devoted to stomping out the new public champion threatening their authority. Sound familiar?


Asylum Home for the Emotionally Troubled releases two of Batman’s greatest foes, Two-Face and The Joker, upon psychological evaluation by Dr. Bartholmew Wolper—a curly black-haired whiny and narcissistic psychoanalyst, who occupies the airwaves crying out against the “reactionary” crime fighting of the Dark Knight, while he sits cozily in a television recording studio in his pali sandals, while donning an ironic (or not so ironic) toothbrush mustache and Superman t-shirt.

Wolper, accompanied by the narrative of the mainstream media, inspires the release of the two by demanding that they are not murderous villains, but misunderstood outsiders victimized by Batman’s “fascist obsessions.” As is customary, soon after their releases, both go on the greatest terroristic murder sprees of their careers. (It’s worth noting that Dent’s plan involves blowing up Gotham’s “Twin Towers”—mind you, this was written in 1986).

Even Wolper, the primary advocate behind the anti-Batman controversy and release of Gotham’s most dangerous, is murdered by the Joker on a live late-night talk show, as a public relations attempt to clear the Joker’s name goes awry.

Like the refugees in Europe and the Black Lives Matter crowd, the Joker knows how to game the progressive establishment. He has been crystal clear in his unwillingness to live peacefully in society, yet the metropolitan liberals refuse to see this. A great irony of Islam’s disdain toward the West is that it is derived from the very “weak horses” (to borrow from the Lion Sheik himself) who defend Muslims at every turn.

Like Leftists today, Wolper defends civilization’s enemies, despite the fact that it is the likes of him who they hate most of all.

To move on to the central point, the irony of Batman and the Joker lies in their stark contradictions. One, a hero, looks like a brooding monster; the other, who looks like a childhood circus performer, is a mass murdering maniac. As Nolan’s The Dark Knight captures perfectly, the Joker is chaos incarnate. He is the Dionysus to Batman’s Apollo. Batman’s recurring conflict with the Joker represents his attempt to bring order to the randomness of existence that took the lives of his parents. Batman is the virility that is birthed in the midst of chaos. Just as the Joker only awoke from a coma upon hearing of Batman’s return—a coma that was induced by Batman’s disappearance from public eye—Batman cannot exist in a world without chaos (embodied in the Joker). Western man is no different. Western man reaches his potential only when his back is against the wall. The refugee crisis, and the innumerable attacks and rapes that have followed, though an immediate threat to our long-term existence, could be just the thing to spawn a new flowering era in Western history.

It’s worth recognizing that Miller initially frames Batman’s moral crusade, quite true to character, as one of ressentiment. The very Batman persona, itself, grew out of Bruce Wayne’s deep seeded frustration with the seemingly unintelligible disarray of life’s suffering. It is for this very reason that Batman’s existence has been thematically bound to the Joker over the decades. Batman exists so that he can create a world where he will not have to exist. For many identitarians, it’s easy to fall into this same temptation—hating one’s enemy more than loving one’s own.

But by the climax of the penultimate issue, Batman paralyzes the Joker, who subsequently commits suicide to frame him. Batman has now overcome his greatest existential threshold. His journey must now be self-fulfilling, self-perpetuating, or he must die.The manhunt for the Batman that ensues only confirms the inevitable—that Batman’s crusade must take on the establishment sooner or later.

Two Face also reflects Batman’s persona. After finally being apprehended, Dent tragically reveals that despite his recent plastic surgery to correct his disfigured face—a procedure funded by Wayne himself in a naive humanitarian attempt to rehabilitate his old foe—Dent’s shadow-self has overcome him entirely. This symbolic gesture foreshadows Wayne’s own transformation: in a conflict of wills (Wayne vs. Batman), it is inevitable for one to win out in the end. This is true not just within the soul, but in the world.

Conservatism fails for this reason. Deep inside, every conservative recognizes nature’s iron law of inequality, masked by the current year’s egalitarian paradigm. Conservatism making the way for the much purer and harder Alt Right was only a matter of time.

The Way of the Gang is the Way of the Demon

They can’t be arrested. You could never hold them all. They have to be defeated. Humiliated.

In between his conflict with his old foes, Batman confronts the Mutant Gang (who are not actual mutants by the way). He recognizes that to beat them he must crush their head. After Batman beats the Mutant leader to a bloody pulp, the disillusioned Mutant Gang, with their proverbial god now proverbially dead, soon dissolves (reminiscent of the decapitation of James Earl Jones in Conan the Barbarian). Unlike Conan, however—and in a way much more accurate to human nature—many of the former gang members find in their enemy a new god worthy of their reverence. Donning woad and jackboots, the Sons of Batman cult are born-devoting themselves to mercilessly crushing crime and those too cowardly to fight it themselves. More on them later. . .

Superhuman, All Too Superhuman

“Yes”—you always say yes—to anyone with a badge—or a flag.

As his name suggests, Superman was in fact named after the Übermensch from Friedrich Nietzsche’s Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Writing in a time when Nietzsche was more closely associated with the fascistic tenets of National Socialism, Jewish cartoonists Jerry Siegal and Joe Shuster sought out to reshape the “Super-man” in their image. No longer the hierarchical freethinker of insurmountable willpower, their Superman™ was an egalitarian strongman, an alien, whose might lay not in his will but raw materialistic faculties. Like the neoconservative establishment, Superman is a foreign entity wrapped in our flag.

Originally depicted as a hard-boiled “champion of the oppressed” in 1938, at the dawn of America’s entrance into the Second World War, Superman, with Old Glory and bald eagle in hand, became a distinctly American icon alongside Uncle Sam and Lady Liberty. The Man of Steel became a symbol of “American exceptionalism”—his red and blue uniform inspired young boys to scrounge up scraps of metal in the streets for democracy’s war effort.

Copies of the monthly Superman comic book featured the Big Blue Cheese whopping Hitler to a pulp with his fists. When Superman punched Hitler in the jaw it was as if we were punching Hitler in the jaw. And that was good enough for us.

What happens when you run out of bad guys? Such a dilemma is explored in DKR. Superman is still the same walking propaganda poster he has been, here Miller treats him subversively. In DKR, America is, much as it is today, a flabby managerial state, flimsily held together by the flag and the people’s bourgeois unwillingness to resist force, micromanaging the status quo and stomping out anything opposing it. Unlike the rest of his fellow superhumans, Superman is still at large—but only because he is on the U.S. government’s payroll.

For decades, virginal nerds have been arguing over who would win in a showdown between Batman and Superman. Recently it has been fascinating to watch fewer and fewer relate to Superman and more to Batman. This says something about our culture. Like the conservative establishment of today, fighting for “truth, justice, and the American way” isn’t enough anymore.

Modern culture, or anti-culture, as it should more appropriately be called, shuns truth. “Justice,” as it is defined today, has been reduced to “virtue signaling” and guilt tripping. And what exactly is “the American way” anymore?

Superman™ Versus Superman

“You sold us out, Clark. You gave them the power—that should have been ours. Just like your parents taught you to. My parents taught me a different lesson—lying on this street— shaking in deep shock—dying for no reason at all—they showed me that the world only makes sense when you force it to.

In Angus, George C. Scott says “Superman isn’t brave. Superman is indestructible, and you can’t be brave if you’re indestructible.” Perhaps Superman is, in fact, a perfect description of modern America. For the past century, Americans have had the privilege of being the big kid on the block. Geographically we have the protection of the world’s two largest oceans. However, for the first time since perhaps the War of 1812, America is beginning to taste nonexistence. Victory, and the spoils of war, that have defeated America. For so long Superman had the comfort of knowing no one posed an immediate threat to his existence.

Once this changes, he doesn’t know what to do. How was it possible for mighty Rome to fall into oblivion while the tiny Jews, persecuted and bounced around through history, are as old as history itself? Why is Europe, at its height of scientific discovery, succumbing to the barbarism of a bunch of brown goblins who haven’t moved past the Middle Ages?

When you don’t know suffering you won’t be ready for it when it arrives.

Miller’s reinvented Batman, however, is a superman in the Nietzchean sense—beginning as a disaffected Gothamite, by the end he transforms into more than just a man. Unconcerned over the well-being of the status quo and democracy, as societal order breaks down due to nuclear detonation by the Soviets, it is Batman, with the “Sons of Batman” (former disaffected youths to whom he has given purpose) at his command, who takes the reigns of authority and declares “Tonight, I am the law!” as Gotham is consumed in fire and chaos.

Earlier, despite his highly weaponized, and expensive, arsenal, Wayne couldn’t even defeat a brute gang lord. Now, a spiritually awakened Batman is taking on the most physically powerful threat on Earth, and wins in the showdown that made the “Superman vs. Batman” debate exist in the first place. When Superman fan boys belly ache that “the only reason Batman could beat Superman is because Batman is willing to do what Superman isn’t,” they are conceding that Batman is more powerful. Power is the ability to change, to force, to will. It doesn’t matter how much intelligence or capital you have, if you aren’t willing to use it what good are you?

Batman, having proven the establishment’s illegitimacy by cleaning up their country better than they ever could, forces the ventriloquists to bring out their mightiest puppet, the Man of Steel, in a last ditch effort to stomp him out once and for all.

Gone are the days of punching Hitler in the jaw.

In that climactic street fight, Superman rips Batman’s helmet off, stripping away his masked identity and exposing his human identity to the world. No longer does Batman need a mask. Bruce Wayne is of no more value—there is no longer anything to hide. This consummates his becoming.

The Dark Knight as the Third Way

”I couldn’t judge it. It was too big. He was too big…”

What we’re witnessing today in the United States is an establishment whose elites, caught up in a political paradigm limited by a bipartite party system, are finding themselves with their pants down when faced with alternative, non-centrist Third-way politics. You can choose rootless multiculturalism on the left or rootless globalism on the right but nothing else. Until recently, this has been the paradigm of the age.

The Dark Knight Returns is sprinkled with panels of television broadcasters arguing over the exploits of the recently resurfaced Cape Crusader. For some, talking heads and citizenry alike, he is a menace to the established order—an “outdated fascist reactionary.” To others he is a patriotic Minute Man of sorts, restoring Gotham to its status quo. But like the Alt Right of today, he is so much more than this. He is a revolt against the modern world altogether and all its bourgeois insecurities.And as he learns by the end of the novel, he must “bring sense to a world plagued by worse than thieves and murderers.” Batman is in a spiritual war—first within himself, now the world, and in order to change the world, just as his spirit was reborn in the cave, his flesh must be “reborn” to take on the world. Batman was good while it lasted, but like all life, it must either die or evolve.

By the end, Batman realizes that there is more wrong with the world than street crime. The problem with it is the world itself, and in order to reestablish a sense to a its madness, the only solution is letting go of this life and, as Jack Donovan might say, start the world. Batman won the streets by defeating its leader. He must win the world by defeating its leaders as well.

When it comes down to it, that’s what makes the Alt Right so vital. Conserving the status quo is no longer sufficient—for the status quo does not belong to us anymore. It belongs to the Last Men and spiritual rejects. If we are to win, we must refuse to accept death, no matter how glorious it may be, as our end game, but the reaffirmation of life and order toward a rebirth.

By the end, no longer is Bruce Wayne awaiting a good death. No. There is no future in death. He, as a superman, in search of a good life—a life void of mediocre leaders, a life where heroes will once again roam the skies.

Zachary O. Ray is a freelance writer. More of his work can be found at plugging-out.blogspot.com

1 Comment on The Dark Right

In The Arena

There’s a reason Bane started his war on decadent Gotham by blowing up the football stadium immediately after the national anthem. The circuses part of the equation has always been as important as bread. And as the System increasingly fails to deliver a lifestyle previous generations could take for granted, circuses become even more critical to keeping everything going. 

There’s a reason Bane started his war on decadent Gotham by blowing up the football stadium immediately after the national anthem. The circuses part of the equation has always been as important as bread. And as the System increasingly fails to deliver a lifestyle previous generations could take for granted, circuses become even more critical to keeping everything going.

But there’s always an implicit threat to the social order presented by such spectacles. Dominant athletes tend to come from groups outside the core demographic of the society. Gladiators in ancient Rome could become huge celebrities and, supposedly, objects of sexual desire for aristocratic women. However, they were still slaves. And when slaves, usually recruited from the ranks of defeated enemies, are informally at the top of the social ladder despite being legally at the bottom, a deep perversion sets in.

In American sports, many of the top football players, basketball players, and other athletes are simply thugs. The fate of every team, no matter how skillfully assembled by the front office, partially depends on which player is going to commit some inexplicably stupid crime during the off-season despite being paid millions of dollars. These are the exact people European-Americans have to arrange their entire lives trying to avoid. And yet even though men work jobs they hate and waste hours commuting every day just to live away from diversity, they spend their weekends and money watching mostly black teams throw a ball.

Sports, of course, are a natural and healthy part of anyone’s upbringing, for both men and women. And it’s always a good thing to watch people from your community compete. But any connection to community has long since been severed. Not only are professional teams simply assemblages of random individuals from around the world but college and even Olympic and world cup teams have no connection to the peoples they ostensibly represent.

It’s useless to bemoan the frivolity of “sportsball” and just tell people to stop. After all, it was the rivalry between the “Blues” and the “Greens” which plunged Constantinople into chaos and almost overthrew the Emperor Justinian 1,500 years ago. Like the poor, the superfans will always be with us.

Anyone reading this already knows the costs. The desire of White South Africans to participate in international rugby tournaments was one of the factors which broke their resistance. Now, White players are being forced out of sports where they traditionally dominate in the name of “diversity,” i.e. eliminating Whites. Southern college football coaches are notoriously contemptuous of Whites and integration for the sake of winning football games is partly what broke the White South. Boosters at a number of these Southern schools essentially pimp out White girls for visiting black athletes. The feminist hysteria about “rape culture” would be beneficial if it had the inadvertent side effect of destroying college football. Unfortunately, just as feminists didn’t care about Rotherham, they’re still mostly concerned with going after White fraternity members rather than black rapists.

It seems like a lifetime ago, but it was only 2006 when The Boondocks aired “Return of the King,” an episode about what would have happened if Martin Luther King had lived. Aaron McGruder was heavily criticized for Lèse majesté against America’s King, as the episode featured King cursing out his frivolous and degenerate people. Though King says he is “moving to Canada,” McGruder imagines King’s tirade finally getting through to American blacks, who become dedicated left-wing activists whom Whitey can no longer buy off with trinkets. Angry blacks organize politically, protesters surround the White House and Oprah is elected President of the United States (in 2020). Perhaps most importantly, McGruder’s closing montage features NBA players refusing to take the court “until the troops are brought home.”

Having turned on the White working class as part of the problem, progressives have always thought American blacks would serve as the foot soldiers of their revolution. Black athletes have been regarded as especially promising propaganda tools if only they could be lured away from the pleasures of money and fame. From Mohammed Ali to the Black Power salute at the 1968 Olympics, journalists are eager to celebrate the politicization of sports. Dave Zirin, who made a career of this, is practically giddy at what is happening in the NFL with blacks refusing to stand for the national anthem.

It is already beyond Colin Kaepernick. As this is written, it’s being reported entire teams may decline to stand on the anniversary of September 11. High school teams are joining the protests. And unlike in the case of John Rocker, few will pay any real price for this, aside from losing an endorsement here and there. After all, the President has defended Kaepernick even as Hillary Clinton condemns a huge chunk of the American population as “irredeemable.”

Ostensibly, the justification for the protest is the same thing we always hear – America not living up to its “founding ideals,” police brutality against blacks, etc. Leave aside for a moment that these “founding ideals,” at least the modern egalitarian interpretations of them, are garbage. There is no scenario where African-Americans will achieve on the same levels as Whites.

Race is a biological reality and the complaints and screams of a hundred thousand parasitic journalists and academics won’t change that any more than the fasts of Glenn Beck will make Ted Cruz the Republican nominee. This protest movement, could, in theory, go on forever as “equality” will always be unrealized. And it doesn’t bode well for the stability of The Republic when athletes can’t even make the pro forma gestures of respect towards the symbols of state.

Leftists are smirking at White discomfort about this, with Zirin specifically claiming the “Alt Right” is enraged at Kaepernick. He’s got it backwards. Come the Revolution, we’ll name a street in the ethnostate after him. Probably the one with the most crime, the way America does with MLK.

Contra Zirin, we don’t want business as usual when it comes to professional sports. We don’t want the multimillion dollar subsidies for stadiums given to plutocrats pushing degeneracy. We don’t want our children looking up to scum as role models. We don’t want the only form of tribalism and identity practiced in White America to revolve around whether “our Negroes can beat your Negroes.” And we do want White people to understand blacks will continue to regard you as a kind of enemy, even if you raise them within your own home as White goobers did with Kaepernick.

Yet there’s more to it than that. It’s easy to snicker at blacks complaining that they are essentially high paid slaves when it comes to professional sports. But in some ways they are right. Why should they be stuffed into suits for post-game press conferences instead of dressing like they normally would? Why should they be penalized for trash talking and swearing on the field when that really is a celebration of their culture? Why should we continue to pretend college football players at Division I universities are actually “scholars?” Most importantly, why should black athletes feel anything but contempt and resentment towards the fat businessmen in the luxury boxes who pay their salaries or the White carb-cucks wearing their names on their backs? Incidentally, Kaepernick’s jersey is now the top selling jersey in the NFL.

What’s more, the mostly White people who can afford to go to these games and order the expensive cable channels really do regard black athletes as a form of property. In the past, you could imagine being loyal to a franchise which has some tie to a community. At least then you would have some kind of tie to individual players, at least until they were traded. That has long since passed.

Today, people build fantasy teams composed of different players on different franchises, with players regarded as interchangeable, their only value being their stats. Instead of young White males dreaming of becoming a professional ballplayer, many now seem to be acting as if they want to be the guy in the front office dealing with players as property. The general manager is higher in the power structure than the athlete, but he has less dignity and certainly less heroic appeal to most people.

It’s been said as a society declines, its heroes change. Initially, heroes are military, political or spiritual leaders. Then they become great athletes. Finally, they become celebrities or artists of uncertain accomplishments. Sports, whatever else one may say about it, is not about egalitarianism. An athlete is still more admirable than Kim Kardashian or some other living justification for nuclear winter.

Competition, athleticism and yes even fandom are important elements of our social life. We can’t do without them. We need to seek new outlets for them. Sports provides the one context where a modern average American can meaningfully talk about concepts such as victory and defeat, struggle and sacrifice, achievement and glory. As a substitute for war, it has sublimated the heroic virtues and in a healthy culture, it can enhance them. In our society, much like public service, it’s just a racket preying on our decadence.

Because we recognize this, we want professional sports, as constituted today, to utterly collapse. We want the culture to crack. We want White superfans to constantly be lectured about Black Lives Matter by affirmative action sociology majors on ESPN, to feel embarrassed about the athletes they are paying for their kids to see, to stop donating to their damn college athletics programs, to feel ashamed of themselves for wearing a jersey like a six-year-old boy.

Obviously certain sports like hockey (a kind of last stand of implicit whiteness) or attending your son’s high school football games are far less harmful than shoveling money to the NFL. In the long run, the ideal solution would be segregated sports, the same as we had throughout most of American history. If Black Lives Matter continues on its current trajectory, they’ll be advocating for that the same way there are calls from blacks for segregated college housing.

Fandom can be healthy when it’s aspirational – just like you have to actually know something about music to really appreciate a concert, you tend to most enjoy watching the sports you have some experience playing. But when it’s an excuse for inaction, when it’s a subsidy for people who despise you, when you are literally outsourcing your manhood in the same way some financier outsources American jobs, it’s despicable.

Yet our rebellion can’t just be about turning off the TV or watching sports that are more politically correct to the Alt Right. One of the trends which should be most encouraged in our broad cultural scene is the push for fitness, combat training, and learning to fight, using physicality as first step to spiritual and mental discipline. If the stereotypical conservative is some fat low T cuck with bad facial hair in a cheap suit, we need to look and act differently. The whole point of the Alt Right isn’t just to be an alternative policy program or political philosophy but to become a subculture which can eventually become the mainstream culture. Rejecting mainstream culture, turning away from the “porn and football” cucked consumerism of outsourced masculinity and building or adapting alternatives is a necessary step. But if we really want to become who we are, we need to put ourselves in the arena and build an athletic underground.

(Besides, considering how the Alt Right articles which get the most clicks tends to be about infighting, I’ve often half-seriously proposed we should start broadcasting MMA fights between feuding movement figures via subscription. Revenue from religious arguments alone could fund us for years.)

More importantly, we need to crack the culture. Let’s push this movement. Let this whole rotten edifice break apart. Let the cultural fragmentation of this media-saturated Third World disaster accelerate. Let these White men trudging to some stadium named after some corporation every Sunday reclaim their masculinity and their identity.

The spectacle of sports, especially pro football, is one of the few things holding the Hollow Empire together. And the sooner it splits culturally, the sooner we can reconquer it or break it apart, and reclaim a destiny for ourselves.

5 Comments on In The Arena


Sun Tzu famously advised leaving a line of retreat to your enemies even when you have them surrounded. After all, you don’t want them fighting to the bitter end. You want them to see there is an alternative to death. 

Sun Tzu famously advised leaving a line of retreat to your enemies even when you have them surrounded. After all, you don’t want them fighting to the bitter end. You want them to see there is an alternative to death.

Hillary Clinton has provided us no such option. Her recent comments should not be a subject for laughter or mockery. They are a deeply ominous warning to every one of us.

Everyone’s having a good time snickering at her speech about half of Trump’s supporters being a “bucket of deplorables.” It’s so awkward and cringe-inducing it reminds you of Mitt Romney complaining about “trickle down racism,” another case where a politician tried to express moral indignation through a term obviously conjured up by a committee of political consultants. Clinton can’t even be outraged without seeming utterly fake.

Yet Hillary Clinton has a soul of a sort. We got a glimpse into the black pit residing within this infernal crone when the cameras caught her laughing about the torture and slaughter of Muammar Gaddafi, who was stupid enough to trust the word of the U.S. Government. The consequences of Clinton’s policy in Libya have been an utter catastrophe, unless it really was her goal to deliberately destabilize the Middle East and flood Europe with mass Third World immigration.

Where Hillary really showed her hand was in characterizing “some of those folks” as “irredeemable.” “Irredeemable” means there is nothing they – we – can do to be regarded as part of American society, to be citizens like everyone else with certain inherent rights. As Clinton put it, we are “not America.” We are simply an enemy to be destroyed.

At some level, we already know this. The National Press Club is willing to host anyone in the entire world, except White people who don’t hate themselves. To the American government and the corporations which control the Internet,we are on par with the Islamic State. Throughout the “free world,” patriots are arrested for what they say online or attacked in the streets by pro-System thugs. Stating the fact – the indisputable, undeniable reality that race is real and that people are not equal – is career ending, regardless of your prestige or accomplishments.

We are hated for who we are, for our immutable, unchangeable characteristics. We aren’t just the Alt Right, we are the only alternative to the entire System, the one group which can never be assimilated or accepted by them. Unless you consciously decide to work for your people’s destruction, you are an enemy, a kulak, an unperson. All Whites are racist, all non-white failings can be blamed on racism, and there is no salvation in this new theocracy. That is the essence of what it is to be “irredeemable.”

But there’s a contradiction at the heart of this new anti-White American creed, the rot which threatens to break apart the whole System. The one group characterized as “not America,” Trump supporting European-Americans, are also the group which keeps the whole failed experiment limping along. The group most likely to support Trump, the Scots-Irish, are also the one group who identify simply as “American.” Those whom the elite call “not American” are the most American in any meaningful cultural sense. And the non-white “new Americans” fetishized by Hillary and her media don’t want any part of the historic American nation.

Even with a black president, outrageous government benefits, and an all but official state ideology of multiculturalism, nonwhites feel less patriotic towards America than whites. Whites disproportionately bear the costs of America’s wars. Whites are not the ones offended by the American flag, who want the Founding Fathers’ names taken off schools, who see American history as a long Narrative of shame and oppression.

As the white majority decreases, nonwhites will feel less pressure to make even token gestures of solidarity with the American nation. Increasing black and Hispanic political power won’t increase American unity, but further the centrifugal process already underway.

Even if American founding principles are defined entirely in terms of the “struggle towards equality,” it’s not going to win anybody over. Why should blacks or Hispanics feel loyalty towards a Republic founded by men who today would be called “irredeemable” by Hillary Clinton? It makes far more sense for them to feel loyalty to their own race and to pay rhetorical tribute to some universal ideal of equality which transcends American identity. They also have more to gain in terms of material benefits by claiming continuing oppression. If a specifically American identity survives, it will be because the “new America” of non-whites will be framed as a victory over the old European-America. Black South Africa is the obvious model for what is on the way.

Rotted as we are by both spiritual and material poisons, our people could probably be coaxed to acquiesce to our extermination, as long as it was done gradually. But it’s unclear the American Left can allow this. The only thing holding the Democrats’ coalition together is hatred of the core European-American population. This hatred has to be kept at a fever pitch to ensure black and Hispanic voter turnout and support for the Democratic Party.

Thus, White identity is a political necessity not for the American Right, but for the Left. It will be forced on Whites whether they like it or not. Issues like reparations, apologies for slavery (and, someday, immigration laws), demands to remove “problematic” historical symbols and memorials, alleged racial bias in law enforcement, and racial disparities in income and education will constantly be sources of agitation. They will always be portrayed in frankly racial terms, with whites pressured for more redistribution of wealth and resources even as the American economy grows more unstable and debt dependent.

And this is, gradually, inevitably, turning into hatred for Whites as such. The undercurrent of Hillary’s “irredeemable” comment, something now explicitly defended by the media, is that racially aware whites deserve no political representation, no place in polite society, nothing but contempt and hatred. At the same time, the racial identity of every other group is to be praised. Nothing is even offered to defend this double standard anymore except snark and signaling.

This is a suicidal strategy. It increases the expectations among nonwhites to unrealistic levels. As we see with the carnage in the cities and attacks on police officers, it constantly threatens to spill out of control into violence and rioting. There’s also the threat White and Jewish leftists will lose political control of their black and Hispanic pets, who will refuse to vote for the likes of Hillary Clinton much longer. If not united by a common foe, the militant left cannot coexist with Clintonian corporate liberalism for long, as we saw in the 2016 Democratic primaries.

The only tactic they have is to double down on incitement against the European-American population. What Raspail called the conflict between “the Fatherland and the Republic” in France, the contradiction between the egalitarian premises of the System and the reality that whites created and sustain the West, will define the politics of the next century in America and Europe.

The foundational principle of the modern anti-West is the idea you can replace the entire population of a country without cost to its institutions, social stability, and level of civilization. This principle, as we see every day, is wrong. And just as failed socialist regimes turn to outlandish theories about “wreckers” and saboteurs to explain the failure of their system, so will Cultural Marxists turn on us. The more “White racism” is pathologized, the more unhinged and hysterical will be the witch hunts for the racial dissidents ostensibly ruining everything.

Some Whites will cuck, some whites will collaborate, but an ever greater number will begin to realize they have no choice but to fight or die. As we are seeing with the current media surge for the Alt Right, we are ideally placed to take advantage of the Left’s strategic necessity for a White boogeyman. We will serve their short-term interests until the precise moment we can either take power or break free of their filthy System.

We face an opportunity, but also a terrible danger. Leftists used to bemoan the so-called “eliminationist” rhetoric of the American Right as inherently immoral because characterizing electoral opponents as enemies to be destroyed is a sanction for political violence. Now, characterizing half of all Trump supporters as de facto enemies of the state is taken as a self-evident good, and the only quibbling is about just how many undesirables need to be purged.

Even the “redeemable” half of Trump’s supporters are, according to Hillary, desperate for change but it “doesn’t really even matter where it comes from.” Their views are also not really worth consideration.
Do not underestimate what is coming if Hillary Clinton is president. As “Decius” predicted in his widely circulated “Flight 93 Election” piece, an extreme policy agenda “will be coupled with a level of vindictive persecution against resistance and dissent hitherto seen in the supposedly liberal West only in the most ‘advanced’ Scandinavian countries and the most leftist corners of Germany and England.”

The law is always just a reflection of power, not power itself. The First Amendment or the Constitution will not save us.

Hillary has put us on notice. From the street level antifa to the shitlib journalists, from the plutocrats to the current President, we are the enemy. No tactics are off the table.

Yes, it is White genocide. Yes, they really do want to destroy us. And yes, you are going to have to decide which side are you on.

No Comments on Irredeemable

America’s Orphans

Much of who we are is decided before we are born.

We spend the rest of our lives filling in the gaps. For some it’s easier than others; you fill the gaps in with family, church, heritage or in our deracinated age, brands. Fitting in is easier for some of us than others, but as long as we stick to the script, keep our heads down and recite “all men are created equal,” we do just fine as good Americans.

Much of who we are is decided before we are born.

We spend the rest of our lives filling in the gaps. For some it’s easier than others; you fill the gaps in with family, church, heritage or in our deracinated age, brands. Fitting in is easier for some of us than others, but as long as we stick to the script, keep our heads down and recite “all men are created equal,” we do just fine as good Americans.

For White people, buying into American identity is easy. It’s the default setting; it’s your pre-packaged default. You’re not “White,” but American, and anyone can be an American as long as they recite the pledge of Allegiance, for then the only colors they’ll see are Red, White, and Blue. At least, that’s what so many White Americans are desperate to believe.

White America deludes itself so much that it’s hard to know where to begin untangling the multitude of delusions. It puts its faith in institutions that have long since devoted themselves to their dispossession. Yet they cling on , born ceaselessly into the past , ever more endangered of becoming it. So they while away the hours, identifying with trivia instead of trials. Nowhere is this more evident than White America’s, and especially White American Men’s, devotion to the National Football League (NFL) and other ubiquitous “sportsball” related enthusiasms.

Church of Sunday Night

Football, especially in its professional form, has come to be a crux of American identity, and more importantly, White identity. The NFL’s audience is 83 percent White and over 64 percent male, while Blacks make up more than 70 percent of its players. But players and fans alike all stand up before every game to sing the national anthem and take their oaths to America.

The America represented by the NFL is usually nothing more than a sterile shopping mall. Just a quick look at the last Super Bowl is more than enough to confirm this. But to many of its fans, it represents something more: it is an identity. One in which America isn’t divided by black or White, but by Green Bay Packers and Dallas Cowboys , who still come together every week to reaffirm their “American” identity at the beginning of each game. To its White fans, professional football is the outward celebration of the American creed, that all people are created equal and that the American dream as enunciated by “Dr.” King has come to pass.

Many have likened the NFL to the gladiator games of ancient Rome.

In some ways that’s fair, but for White America their meaning is more than that. The average White American male probably identifies more with his favorite NFL team than he ever has his race, or even his religion or family. The NFL is an outward celebration of the America he’s been told to believe in. He worships the strength of others, because he’s been told that his own strength is evil. He cheers for others because he’s been told cheering for his people is “problematic” or “oppressive”. Finally, he worships and adores some rag tag team of convicts and thugs because it’s the only avenue for an identity he has.

We still spend Sundays in Church, only now the church comes in through our screens every Sunday night. And just as in Church, sacrilege and heresy will not be tolerated.

Mulatto America

Colin Kaepernick was born to a mother that didn’t want him and a father he would never know.

He was adopted by a nice White Midwestern family from Wisconsin who lost two of their previous children. Kaepernick excelled at sports, achieving notoriety in baseball and American football. I’m sure his adopted parents were at almost every game, beaming with pride at how well their “son” was doing. In addition to his prowess on the field, Kaepernick was a “devoted Christian” who made numerous references to his “faith” and offered a mocha-shaded version of “Tebowing” after a touchdown, to Russell Moore’s delight no doubt.

Kaepernick has probably gone his whole life trying to “fit in” and figure out who he is. Lucky for him, his athletic ability fetches top dollar in today’s America, and being a pro-athlete, especially a Black or mulatto pro-athlete, is about as close to deification as we come in secular America. But I’m sure he never really fit in with his “family” or the doughy Midwestern identity they represent. Of course, it wasn’t the only card he was dealt.

Being a mulatto in America gives you a lot of options. Just ask Barack Obama.

Blackness has come to be the standard of masculinity and coolness in today’s America . Her sons grow up worshipping Black athleticism while her daughters grow up lusting for it. More than that, to be Black in America is to have a grievance, to be a victim. In the Current Year there is no more powerful moral narrative than that of the victim.

Despite being raised in White America, and achieving relative affluence, Kaepernick chooses to identify with lower class Blacks rather than the effete American elite or his slovenly White fans, who one surmises he despises. Like Barack Obama, or Roger “Too” White II in Tom Wolfe’s A Man In Full, Kaepernick has discovered the power of Blackness to shape narratives in today’s America.

When Kaepernick refused to stand for the pledge of allegiance he wasn’t rejecting America, but attempting to claim it. Already, the usual suspects in the press are going into overdrive to defend him, to wrap his actions up as his right as an “American.” We’re already hearing the comparisons to Muhammad Ali who has gone from a pariah to a patriot in just a few decades.

Sure, White America was shocked by Kaepernick. That’s because his refusal to salute the flag makes him take a pause from his Bud Light fueled soma-coma long enough to make him feel something. He feels an anger, though it’s misplaced. Conservative media are already crowing about how anti-American this is, or how ungrateful Kaepernick is to Our Great Country^tm.

The truth is, Kaepernick and others like him make these demands because they can. Because they have an identity made up of more than cheap beer and chicken wings. Kaepernick’s fiancée is a member of the Black Lives Matter movement, and a vehement Black nationalist. Also, if reports are to be believed, Kaepernick has renounced his feel-good Christianity in favor of Islam.

It’s useful to be in the rising tide of color.

America’s Orphans

Kaepernick was born as close to a blank slate as any liberal could hope for. He even got the all-American smiling happy family in the Midwest. But for him, it was not enough. The call of blood is stronger than any adopted bond. By embracing his Blackness, he has become more of who he is than he’s probably felt at any other time in his life. That’s why “losing endorsements” or other pecuniary repercussions do not matter to him as long as he has an identity.

White Americans are in many ways orphans themselves. America is one big foster home where they bounce from surrogate family to surrogate family, hoping to find the one that will take them in. The truth is, they either gave it up or were tricked into giving it up generations ago. Today they just grope and yawp for anything that reminds them of what they had, be it star spangled beer commercials or negro athletes decked out as Captain America.

White America is angry about Kaepernick.

But really he’s just ahead of the curve. He’s found his tribe, and it ain’t the San Fransisco 49ers, but something more real, something based on blood.
White Americans are willful orphans to their identity. It’s time for them to come home.

No Comments on America’s Orphans

The Coming Legitimacy Crisis

The wrecking ball that is the Trump campaign has already smashed through the Republican Establishment and “movement conservatism.” The next target is the System itself. And this requires blowing apart the indispensable support of the occupying government—the lying press. 

The wrecking ball that is the Trump campaign has already smashed through the Republican Establishment and “movement conservatism.” The next target is the System itself. And this requires blowing apart the indispensable support of the occupying government—the lying press.

Ezra Klein (Is there an echo in here?) says the election is not between Left and Right but between “normal” and “abnormal,” which explains the media’s increasing willingness to dispense with objectivity and openly attack Trump. More importantly, Klein admits that the press is “afraid” of Trump because he “is a threat to the free press as an institution.”

Of course, the “free press” is anything but. As we are learning from the Soros leaks, the Narrative of White dispossession promoted by the lying press is simply a product, bought and paid for. Western reporters scream for citizens who criticize mass immigration to be jailed. The Fourth Estate acts as an instrument of repression, serving the interests of those in power, hunting down dissidents and comforting the comfortable.
Journalism is about as “subversive” as late-night comedy. Reporters are enforcers for the political and cultural regime. And certain journalists can be explicitly identified as morally culpable for everything we face.

The lying press is screeching because Trump calls reporters “liars” and “scum” at his rallies, and his supporters are taking notice. One attendee was taking photographs of people in the press pen at a recent Trump rally, leading to kvetching from the journalists about the lèse-majesté of a random citizen doing the same thing they do to Trump’s voters.

After all, thanks to the media’s hate campaign, it’s Trump supporters who are constantly attacked by leftists around the country. Meanwhile, those of us who constantly have the entire mainstream media and quasi-government intelligence agencies trying to destroy us are portrayed as ruthless oppressors because we occasionally send a reporter a cartoon of a smug frog. Spare us the moral indignation or the lectures about how a “free press” is a check on the state. Reporters are far more interested in attacking individual Alt Right supporters than they are exposing government corruption or the crimes of those in power.

Indeed, nothing exposes the myth of the “adversarial press” like journalists’ relationship with Hillary Clinton. As of this writing, it has been 262 days since Clinton held a press conference. The Clinton Foundation’s nature as a “pay-to-play” influence-peddling operation is so overt and blatant even outlets like The Huffington Post are having to act embarrassed about it. And Clinton is now incorporating the neoconservative foreign-policy advisors who gave us the Iraq War into her team. Her corporate liberalism is precisely the kind of inherently corrupt and shadowy edifice you would think reporters LARPing as Woodward and Bernstein would want to deconstruct.

Instead, on the rare occasions Hillary emerges from whatever protective cocoon they have her in, she’s applauded by journalists. There’s a vast cultural establishment protecting Hillary like some kind of Imperial Guard. From Hollywood celebrities to academia, from Jeff Bezos’s Washington Post to Carlos Slim’s New York Times, all the institutions of the Great and the Good have formed a protective bubble around her. And Trump is taxing their resources to the limit. Whether it’s from a supposed comedianne, a journalist, or some political “insider,” every article carries that same insufferable hectoring and scolding tone Americans are increasingly tuning out.

Even if they pull it off, who is the System left with as a frontman . . . er, -person? Hillary Clinton is a sick old woman, even if some of the more spectacular health rumors are exaggerated. The vast majority of the American people find her untrustworthy. The policies she has supported have been a disaster. Most Republicans believe she should be punished for committing crimes that would have led to jail time for any low-ranking national security staffer or intelligence officer who did the same things. She only has a political career because she hung on to Slick Willie like grim death for decades, giving us the ultimate example of a supposed feminist and “strong woman” who is utterly dependent on a man for everything she has ever “accomplished.”

Though political rallies don’t actually tell us much about how the vote will go, they do tell us Hillary Clinton has few passionate supporters excited about her candidacy or dedicated to what she represents. And what does she represent anyway?
If Trump wins—though there are obviously dangers about him becoming a safety valve—the Alt Right will have increased freedom of action. But if the decrepit hag somehow limps across the finish line with a heavy assist from the media, she’ll be illegitimate from day one in the eyes of many Americans. The brand of #CrookedHillary will last beyond November, whatever happens.

And this illegitimacy will extend to the entire system. Already, thanks to Trump’s charges, his supporters will (accurately) blame the media if the would-be God-Emperor is finally Stumped. Each Trump haymaker calling the System into question may be costly for him in the short-term, but is beneficial in the long-term for us. Charges of voter fraud will circulate widely, as will talk of secession. Having pulled out all the stops to defend their System, the lying press will own it. The System’s ability to survive a crisis, should one arrive, will be dramatically reduced.

It’s not that anything fundamental will change. However, the System works best when power is concealed. Under President Hillary, it will be harder to disguise how we are ruled like peasants by a corrupt and sociopathic political class, propped up by its media servants. The Jewish role, the real “third rail” of American politics, will be more overt and obvious than ever before.

Ultimately, journalists are courtiers. They rely on stability and a predictable power structure. Revolutions are bad for courtiers. Klein seems to believe Trump is going to start rounding up reporters or destroying their outlets. It’s more likely we will see The Great Shuttening accelerate if Trump loses, cheered on by the “free press.”

The real reason Trump is a threat to the press is because he’s calling the policy consensus into question and creating the possibility of a populist force overtly hostile to the media. He also provides legitimacy to dissident outlets most reporters would rather see destroyed. In the Information Age, all politics is a media war.

If Trump wins, the press is neutered. If Clinton narrowly wins, the press is exposed as shills. The only way they can preserve their position is if Trump is so roundly defeated journalists can pretend that his rise was a massive fluke.

The Lügenpresse recognizes something fundamental is at stake. In an extraordinary confession earlier this month, Jim Rutenberg of The Old Grey Lady admitted journalists are throwing out “the textbook [they] have been using for the better part of the last half-century, if not longer. . .

You approach [Trump’s candidacy] in a way you’ve never approached anything in your career. If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that.

But dangerous to whom? What is the wonderful policy consensus that Dangerous Donald is challenging and which the press is now sworn to defend?

We are now witnessing the wholesale destruction of German society, and possibly all of Europe, by Angela Merkel’s utterly unnecessary decision to admit an unlimited number of “Syrian” refugees to her country. The vast majority are young, male, uneducated, unemployable, and hostile. Even now she refuses to confess that she has done anything wrong, mindlessly repeating “we can do it!” without ever giving reasons why we should. Mainstream journalists never treat this as an act of criminal lunacy or sadistic treachery, but as a responsible, statesmanlike policy only opposed by creepy “extremists.” Clinton is never challenged on whether she still admires Merkel.
The ostensible cause for this refugee crisis is instability in the Middle East. The period of chaos began with America’s utterly unnecessary and insanely costly invasion of Iraq, an invasion championed by the same neoconservative “experts” now decrying Trump and lining up behind Hillary. Europe’s southern defenses against mass immigration were destroyed by the overthrow of Gaddafi, a policy championed by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The catastrophe in Syria, and the rise of the Islamic State, was also a creation of our government. And it’s becoming increasingly clear a second Clinton Administration would move us into an another unnecessary confrontation with Russia.

America’s middle class is well into a collapse. Many cities are literally in flames. Universities turn out mentally crippled degenerates. The financial situation is obviously unsustainable, with skyrocketing rates of debt and dependence and a potential crisis looming when automation meets the mass of unskilled immigrant workers. Most importantly, our leaders take as the fundamental premise of all their policies that dispossessing and then replacing the traditional ethnic population of every Western nation will have no ill effects whatsoever and that questioning The Great Replacement is not something that can even be debated.

The only two possibilities are that “our” leaders are astonishingly stupid and incompetent or they are deliberately trying to destroy Western Civilization. Either way, it is a question of our survival or theirs. And regardless of what happens in November, the battle will be taken to a new level of intensity.

Trump has already done what we needed him to do. So for all the reporters reading this, you do what you must. For we have already won.

No Comments on The Coming Legitimacy Crisis

I Was Never Red-Pilled: The Case Against the Metaphor

Those on the alt right often talk about being “red pilled.” Although the term is popular in our circles, I was surprised to see that the concept even has its own Wikipedia page, which refers to the choice between “embracing the sometimes-painful truth of reality (red pill) and the blissful ignorance of illusion (blue pill).”

I’ve always instinctively hated this analogy. Recently, I’ve begun to think about why and have come to realize that it concedes way too much to the conventional wisdom.


Those on the alt-right often talk about being “red pilled.” Although the term is popular in our circles, I was surprised to see that the concept even has its own Wikipedia page, which refers to the choice between “embracing the sometimes-painful truth of reality (red pill) and the blissful ignorance of illusion (blue pill).”

I’ve always instinctively hated this analogy. Recently, I’ve begun to think about why and have come to realize that it concedes way too much to the conventional wisdom. More importantly, I think that it is bad marketing, and would urge that we stop using the phrase altogether.

First of all, to say one has been red pilled means that the alternative, the blue pill, has some plausibility. One never says “I used to expect free ice cream in the mail every day, but now I’ve been red pilled and accept that’s never going to happen.” It’s an absurd statement, because if you ever believed such a thing there is something wrong with you.

As long as I have given any thought to these issues, I cannot recall ever believing that all races and both sexes are genetically interchangeable. Every native Norwegian looks completely different from every Congolese, and neither would ever be mistaken for a Korean. Somehow, we are to believe that these isolated populations, that bred only with one another for thousands of years and diverged so much physically, are exactly the same on the inside. It’s an absurd assumption, even before you get to data on things such as crime rates and IQ and look at the record of historical achievement.

Blank slate feminism is even more absurd. We are supposed to accept the idea that humans are the only mammalian species without behavioral differences between the two sexes, and believe this despite all lived experience and the logic of evolutionary psychology. Just as in the case of race, you do not have to delve into the scientific literature about sex differences (although you should anyway) to understand the absurdity of elite wisdom.

The other thing that the red pill analogy concedes to liberalism is the idea that its vision is somehow appealing. I find a world where there are no behavioral differences between my mother and father, son or daughter, horrifying. I’ve overheard women brainwashed by Sex and the City talk openly of sleeping around, and found nothing appealing about this. Similarly, the denial of IQ and other hereditary differences between individuals and races tells us that every human accomplishment owes nothing to the inherent capabilities of the great creators, but only to historical accident, which some time long ago determined that some groups would be advantaged while others would be oppressed. Little wonder that communists were so full of hate and killed tens of millions of people. While they dreamed of a utopian future, the cost of their fantasies was an intense hatred of everything in the past and present.

Until recently, every civilization in human history believed in sex differences, and few would have denied that race or ethnicity mattered. The idea that diversity is a societal strength would have struck most of our ancestors as completely bizarre. Yet these views were considered common sense, not some difficult truth that individuals had to struggle towards. This shows that there is nothing inherent to our ideas that make them painful truths; it’s all a matter of perception, created by current social conditions.

Why, then, has the red pill analogy had memetic success on the alt right? The answer lies in the fact that we are social creatures. The only reason that our beliefs seem like hard truths is because publically accepting them makes one a social pariah. People don’t even like privately believing socially unacceptable things, as doing so creates a psychological distance between them and most of their peers.

Many of you probably found accepting the ideas of the alt-right to be difficult and mistook the fear of social ostracization for pain stemming from accepting truths that are inherently harsh.

From a more objective perspective, giving up religion, with its promise of eternal bliss, should be much harder than accepting human biodiversity(HBD). Compare losing a celestial paradise to accepting that blacks will never be good at algebra. But nobody says that they were “red pilled” and became an atheist, because not believing in God carries no social sanction in educated circles.

All of this helps explain why the red pill analogy is bad marketing. It concedes that the other side has views that are realistic and pleasant. We convey the message that joining our movement is something difficult, and implicitly remind people that they’ll be socially ostracized for expressing support for our views.

Leftists understand the concept of social proof. Because humans have a desire to fit in, Hollywood tries to convince them that all the cool people are socially liberal, sexually free anti-racists. It’s why the media talks about all the outrage being generated after a public figure makes a politically incorrect remark, instead of presenting the comments in a neutral manner. This also explains why a great marketer like Trump talks about his supporters composing a “silent majority,” even though the evidence suggests that they are neither.

We should likewise do our best to emphasize the ways in which people through their actions show that at some level they know the truths of which we speak. For example, no normal father would be happy with his daughter becoming a slut, or attending a majority black school. We should stress the similarities between our beliefs and those of different cultures and previous generations, not portray ourselves as a group of outcasts who arrive at positions that all psychologically normal people reject.

Smart political marketing involves presenting your movement in a relatively positive light and exaggerating the support that your ideas currently have. The red pill metaphor does neither. Worst of all, it reminds people of the possibility of social isolation, which they inherently fear much more than they do any abstract scientific or political argument. Our views are well grounded in science, having a natural appeal and the potential to create a happier and healthier world. Our memes should reflect what is best in our vision, not emphasize the most powerful psychological obstacles to our ultimate victory.

No Comments on I Was Never Red-Pilled: The Case Against the Metaphor

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