Radix Journal

Radix Journal

A radical journal

Tag: Essay

Shorting the Republican Party

No thanks to its former leadership — and all thanks to Trump and those who support him — the Republican Party is on the cusp of a major political victory that promises to crush the Left, and the Democratic Party, for the foreseeable future.

No thanks to its former leadership — and all thanks to Trump and those who support him — the Republican Party is on the cusp of a major political victory that promises to crush the Left, and the Democratic Party, for the foreseeable future.

The only real threat is the constant simmering of opposition within the party (“the traitors within the gates”) that could weaken, divert, and distract efforts in the vital weeks ahead. This is despite strong efforts by Trump to unify the party by selecting conventional conservative Mike Pence as VP and endorsing Paul Ryan.

Of course, the best response would be a Republican “Night of the Long Knives,” but that would obviously be too messy and would alienate some parts of the GOP that are at least going along with Trump in the run-up to the election. So, for the time being, Trump is forced to tolerate this treachery and try to contain it.

In order to do this, it is important to understand what drives the anti-Trump Republicans, so that their disingenuous arguments can be countered and their murky motivations exposed.

There are several well-known reasons. For example, the Alt-Right has long pointed out the “Cuckservative” problem, namely that many conservatives are in fact hollow in their beliefs, having imbibed core liberal and leftist values — like globalism, atomization, political correctness, etc. — that undermine their opposition to liberal political positions. Trump cuts directly across these shared Cuckservative and Liberal values in several important ways.

Others in the Republican Party oppose him for reasons of tone and temperament. This is essentially class politics, as Trump, although immensely rich, well-connected, and stylish in his own way, evokes in his demeanor and virile manner, the lower classes, rather than the “refined” elite.

Another version of this is religious distaste, with Trump seen as too “worldly” and materialistic, and lacking humility and due deference. His meme sobriquet of “God Emperor” — bestowed because it rings true to a large degree — reveals a Nietzschean dimension to Trump. The “invention” of a god implies the death of God. This rubs some Christians the wrong way.

Next, there is the Zionist agenda. Trump’s common sense foreign policy — e.g. avoiding needless conflicts in the Middle East — threatens Israel’s interest because they have benefitted the most from the destabilization of the Middle East through Neo-Con interventionist policies. Many Jews dislike Trump mainly on this basis, while others fear his invocation of a strong American identity that, inevitably, is implicitly White and Christian, even though Trump lacks racial awareness and strong religious views.

All these reasons are simple enough and well-known on the Alt-Right, but there are also less obvious reasons, related to subtler psychological factors. For example, many of those who oppose Trump do so for the simple reason that they have backed the wrong horse too strongly and got badly bruised in the process.

Normally, when there is a contest in a political party — especially an establishment party like the GOP — it is a rather sedate and subdued affair that gently builds to a unifying acclaim. Important people in the party take sides, of course, but they generally keep the door open to other candidates, especially candidates with a chance of winning. This means that even if their preferred candidate is defeated they don’t lose too much political capital, and can easily adapt themselves to the slightly different new order.

Trump’s campaign, however, threw out the form book and upset all the calculations. Rather than just preferring their own candidates, those opposed to Trump were panicked by his unconventional appeal into attempting to slam the door on him. When Trump nevertheless managed to break through each door, in turn, these party worthies were put into both an awkward and disempowering position. They had got it wrong and had then doubled down on their error — and had been forced to bend the knee nonetheless. They thus found themselves devalued and disempowered within their own party.

The best analogy to demonstrate what is going on is the financial market. Trump has effectively crashed their value as politicians, so they now have two options: (1) to hang in there and slowly rebuild their political value, taking their place behind those who realized the Trump train was winning and jumped on board, or (2) they can try to short the Republican Party, which essentially means contributing to a Hillary victory.

In finance, shorting is the practice of selling investments, not currently owned, at the present price, while paying for them at whatever price they are at an agreed future date. If that price is lower the deal makes money, if not, it loses.

Right now the anti-Trump movement in the GOP has lost possession of the party and their only way to get it back is by a process of successfully shorting the party. By opposing Trump, despite his overwhelming primary victory, they are effectively selling their remaining, diminished stake in the party at a relatively high value, in the hope that they can pay the costs for this at a much lower rate in the future.

The main value that they are getting in this transaction is the illusion of moral posturing and being seen as selflessly principled. The main cost, however, is the opprobrium that generally attaches itself to those in party politics who break ranks, divide unity, and throw away victory. Their hope is that once Trump fails, the cost to themselves of shorting the party — political opprobrium — will be much less than the value of their supposed “principled” opposition to Trump.

Such a transaction, if it comes off, will see them accrue political capital, and be in a strong position to once again buy into the party when it devalued by defeat. But it essentially means that they are partisans of defeat, and as such are protected from the full consequences of this by Trump’s reluctance to start a political bloodbath so close to the election.

If they miscalculate, as they have before, and Trump wins — as I think he will — then their attempt to short the party will greatly lessen the value of their moral posturing, while greatly increasing the costs of their political betrayal.

In that case, we can expect to see them wiped out, which might make one or two of them, at least, think about hedging their bets.

No Comments on Shorting the Republican Party

Idiocracy Now?

These days there are so many occurrences, mostly favorable to the awakening of our people, that it’s easy to lose track. This positive  trajectory can be downright intoxicating. But we must also keep the big picture in mind and, more than this, inscribe our work in eternity.


These days there are so many occurrences, mostly favorable to the awakening of our people, that it’s easy to lose track. This positive trajectory can be downright intoxicating. But we must keep the big picture in mind and, more than this, inscribe our work in eternity.

No one can predict the future with much certainty. But we can know what historical forces will be at work in the coming centuries, as these forces will be reflections of human psychology, and this psychology will have significant continuity with our own. Thus, to look into our own souls is to gain insight into the future.

Let me be more specific. In this article, I want to discuss two historical forces which have increasingly affected our world: cognitive sorting and dysgenics, occurring in both cases, for the first time in human history, on a global scale. These two forces are interacting with one another in a complex and dynamic dialectic. Let me summarize my thesis: humanity in general, and our societies, in particular, is becoming more stupid and ethnically fragmented. However, the negative consequences of this are being attenuated by the technical innovations of the second phenomenon: the emergence of a multi-racial, global cognitive super-elite (e.g. Google). Both phenomena are evil so far as our people are concerned: the first means our deterioration and replacement, the second means rule by an alien and hostile elite.

Cognitive sorting is an established phenomenon in the modern era, most famously documented by Charles Murray in The Bell Curve. The more intelligent members of a society tend to converge in the cities, tend to marry with one another, and generally form a sub-group within the nation. Alexis de Tocqueville had noticed a similar phenomenon in the France of his day and in previous centuries, as the nobles ruined themselves, and the more gifted members of the bourgeoisie connived to steadily rise despite aristocratic privileges and prejudices. We might call this the inevitable meritocracy of intelligence.

Today, national borders and racial pride having been dissolved, this phenomenon is taking place on a global scale. In the Western countries in particular, the intelligent create desirable locations and institutions, whether in terms of their agreeableness or resources. People across the planet then conspire to enter these locations and institutions, succeeding in proportion with their ability.

These institutions include all the elite globalist power nodes which dominate our world. The phenomenon is most visible in Silicon Valley and the Ivy League universities, which have largely been taken over by disciplined Asians and nepotistic Jews. A “Jeurasian” super-elite is forming, with inclinations and interests significantly opposed to the traditional European majorities across the West. In practice, the only really ethnically organized element in this super-elite is Jewish. (Compare Bill Gates and Warren Buffet’s promotion of multiculturalism in their own country, with Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban’s support for ethno-nationalism in theirs.)

The second phenomenon is global dysgenics. Within nations, the intelligent, pursuing an individualist strategy of well-being, tend to have fewer children than the poor. Between nations, the more-or-less failed societies of Latin America, South Asia, the Middle East, and especially Africa (which is expected to grow to a fatal 4 billion this century) are having more children than the more successful ones of Europe, North America, and East Asia. Southern and Eastern Europe and East Asia, in particular, have catastrophically low fertility rates.

Indeed, virtually all of the technological innovations of today continue to be accomplished almost entirely in North America, Europe, and East Asia. Facebook and Google, while aggressively pushing multiracial propaganda upon the entire planet, have themselves failed to find many competent blacks and Mestizos: 2% of their workforces are black, while over 30% are Asian. Richard Dawkins has noted that the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims barely produce any scientific papers and, he fails to add, the performance of Sub-Saharan Africans is even worse. Black scientific geniuses to this day mainly exist in television entertainment and advertising propaganda.”

The results of all this, logically, is a degeneration of humanity to more primitive forms. In practice, we witness the phenomenon of combined and uneven development: the innovations of the most gifted parts of humanity are attenuating the consequences of this degeneration and, to some extent, lifting up the less gifted with technology they could never produce themselves.

Even societies which should objectively have a very low level of civilization can rise a little. In much of Africa, tribal nepotism and incompetence are too severe for governments to even be able to maintain basic infrastructure such as telephone poles. The Jeurasians have a solution however: mobile phones for all. Similarly, extremely violent societies such as Brazil or South Africa can artificially reduce crime – not by increasing social trust or reducing the barbarism of the inhabitants – but by the proliferation of security cameras.

This is the phenomenon of “convergence” – evident in the “emerging world’s” economic growth – which short-sighted materialists in the mold of The Economist are very smug about. But they omit the fact that this convergence is never complete. The Iron Law of Inequality remains unconquered.

These two phenomena are then in interaction: the concentration of human intelligence, which is leading us towards transhumanism, and the degeneration of human material, which is leading us back to Africa. I did not invent any of this. Lothrop Stoddard, whose work really does seem to age well, noticed this phenomenon a hundred years ago in The Revolt Against Civilization: The Menace of the Under-Man.

In a word: mongrel Under-Man vs. mongrel Super-Man.

Liberals, in their infinite arrogance, believe that there is nothing to worry about. We have lived since the 1960s in an “affluent society” and they assume that technology will simply solve all of our problems. We will always be comfortable, and that’s what matters. We needn’t think about the implications of long-term trends like demographics (unless, of course, our masters have told us to worry about an alleged long-term trend, such as climate change). A German in 1900, with that forceful pride of the bourgeois fin-de-siècle, European Man having conquered the world and apparently Nature, could be guilty of the same misguided arrogance. The same misplaced belief in a naïve progress.

But history is nothing but a string of surprises. We cannot predict the next world crisis – economic, environmental, energetic, military . . . – and when that crisis comes, a society’s survival will be determined by its character, not merely technological trinkets. Technology will show diminishing returns as America becomes Brazilianized and Europe becomes Afro-Islamized. And really, besides the significant gains of IT, one does not get the impression that technology has much changed human life since the 1960s (the energy sector, in particular, has been rather slow to change, despite all the hoopla about renewables, biotech has also been slow to develop).

Feckless boomers appear particularly guilty of this, with politicians like Bill Clinton, Frans Timmermans, Joschka Fischer, and Carl Bildt being downright enthused at the prospect of minorityhood in our own lands. To be fair, one cannot fault boomers in general for having awful values and ideas. Imagine if you were raised in a world where your only access to information was television and newspapers in the hands of liberal-universalists and anti-gentiles. Imagine if you’d been brainwashed in this manner for 50 years and this conditioning had been reinforced by the agreement of the entire society. Well, you’d also have trouble adjusting to a genuinely inconvenient truth.

The basic force underlying these two phenomena, cognitive sorting, and dysgenics, is individual intelligence. Each try, in his selfish way, to pursue his well-being by joining with other intelligent people and by avoiding an investment in children. These strategies are completely short-sighted and destructive. Against this, we will have to oppose other principles: group identity and solidarity with the next generation, so that our people don’t degenerate. Against the selfish intelligence of individualism and the sentimental falsehoods of egalitarianism, we oppose the collective intelligence, and love, of ethnocentrism. We do it for love.

No Comments on Idiocracy Now?

Donald Trump’s Bad Language

David Goldman (best known by his pseudonym “Spengler”) popularized the phrase, “It’s Not the End of the World. It’s Just the End of You.” The Kristols, the Cucks, and the Cruzes are freaking out because Trump presents the real possibility of the end of them. They are right to be afraid. And #NeverTrump—even taken to the point of supporting Hillary—is a logical response. Our world isn’t ending, but the comfortable bubble in which they reside is in danger of being popped . . . perhaps it has popped already. 

Ross Douthat—who got an early look at Donald Trump’s speech accepting the 2016 presidential nomination of the Republican Party—prepared us for what was in store.

The Trump we’ve come to love is a man who just gets up there and let’s it rip, speaking spontaneously from the heart. The Republican National Convention was a time for something more formal. And in its structure and style, Trump’s speech was very much like what we are accustomed to. Lacking a strong through-line, thematic development, and extended arguments, it was a series of self-contained “beats”—short paragraphs on specific issues, which act as applause lines, and which can be rearranged, added and subtracted depending on priorities and time.

In this way, I was disappointed that Trump (and his speech writer, Stephen Miller) didn’t bring greater poetry and panache to the occasion. This was a Trump speech after all. Isn’t this the man who builds 100-story towers out of pure gold?

But that doesn’t mean his speech was not radical. It was. The most memorable part—which will define the address in history—was his announcement of a new “credo”:

The most important difference between our plan and that of our opponents, is that our plan will put America First. Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo.

“Americanism” has meant many different things. Here, it is a placeholder for “nationalism.” (I would not be surprised if the N-Word was in the text in the first draft.)

It was, undoubtedly, this implied nationalism that made liberals, leftists, cuckservatives, and libertarians squirm, sit agog with fear, and point and sputter at what they were watching:

(You can find similar outrage across the cuckosphere.)

On one level, reactions like this are totally out of whack. Yes, the speech was a bit “dark” (the meme repeated by seemingly every liberal commentator), but so are the times we live in. Seventy percent of the population feel like the country is on the wrong track!

So why was there a freakout over a speech that included promises to protect American workers, cut taxes, and appoint conservative judges? Haven’t we heard all that before? Why was there a freakout over a speech that followed Ivanka Trump’s suggestions of relieving student-loan debt and offering longer maternity leave to working women?

David Goldman (best known by his pseudonym “Spengler”) popularized the phrase, “It’s Not the End of the World. It’s Just the End of You.” The Kristols, the Cucks, and the Cruzes are freaking out because Trump presents the real possibility of the end of them. They are right to be afraid. And #NeverTrump—even taken to the point of supporting Hillary—is a logical response. Our world isn’t ending, but the comfortable bubble in which they reside is in danger of being popped . . . perhaps it has popped already.

Many in the RNC, no doubt, secretly want Trump to lose, as it would offer them the opportunity to say “we told so,” reset the rhetoric, and go back to the days of Dubya, Romney, and McCain.

The Left, too, has benefited greatly from opposing the “conservatism” that Trump is destroying. This is what they are used to and what they are good at attacking. Trump is disrupting business as usual, and there will be casualties on both side.

So here is what he really said.

Conservatism, Inc. is Dead

Sam Francis famously called conservatism “the movement that doesn’t move.” It is certainly one that has accumulated a mountain of wealth, given to it by a handful of patriotic industrialists and millions of little old ladies in the Midwest writing $25 checks every Christmas.

“Conservatism,” as a functioning movement of operatives in the Washington, DC, Beltway, is glued together by shared memes and terminology. With precious few cultural or political achievements to show for their efforts, conservatives are united around “religious freedom” . . . “the culture of life” . . . “helping people help themselves” . . . “fighting terrorism” . . . “defending the Constitution” . . . “opposing Obamacare” or some other portmanteau they vaguely associate with the Soviet Union.

On Thursday night, Trump defenestrated most of this.

In his entire speech, there was but one passing mention of “the Constitution”:

We are also going to appoint justices to the United States Supreme Court who will uphold our laws and our Constitution.

Notably absent were Ted Cruz-style gushing about “faithful devotion” to the legal document.

Trump made one mention of “freedom”—another word that is rarely defined but which gives conservatives a warm feeling in their tummies. But Trump used it in the context of trade deals and protectionism:

I pledge to never sign any trade agreement that hurts our workers, or that diminishes our freedom and independence.

When Trump says “freedom,” he clearly does not mean what George W. Bush means when he says “freedom.”

“Liberty” was never uttered.

By resisting conservatives’ language—and winning all the same—Trump has revealed to conservatives their irrelevance, for language is ultimately all they’ve got.

The Religious Right Was put in Its Place

Trump did not use the words “unborn” or “abortion” and did not once touch on the subject. Earlier in the evening, Peter Thiel’s discussion of “fake culture wars [that] only distract us from our economic decline” hammered the point home. (I’ve written about the “fake culture war” here.)

One of Trump’s more interesting messages came in a moment of self-deprecation:

I would like to thank the evangelical and religious community because I’ll tell you what, the support they’ve given me, and I’m not sure I totally deserve it.

This line was apparently improvised, as it did not appear in the text sent to journalists. It can be read in two ways. On one hand, Trump is admitting that he’s not exactly a Christian paragon. On the other, he’s demonstrating that the path to victory no longer lies in Ted Cruz-style moral righteousness.

A politician can be good for the Religious Right without being one of them. That is what Trump is offering. Southerners mostly love him; millions of Midwestern Christians and Mormons (subscribers to The Blaze, no doubt) fervently hate Trump. What’s clear is that, finally, a man can be the Republican nominee without taking the Religious Right too seriously, evoking John Winthrop, and declaring one’s allegiance to Biblical law.

The Alt Right is “culturally Christian,” without embracing the gooeyness of the megachurch. It’s no surprise that Trump is our candidate. I am pleasantly surprised, however, at the degree to which Christian conservatives have gone along with his candidacy. Perhaps they recognize the failures of the Bush era? Perhaps religiosity was a mask all along?

The Neocons and Bush Family Were Put Out to Pastor

Peter Theil, too, spoke for the Alt Right with his calls for space exploration, as well as with his unequivocal opposition to America various foreign wars:

Instead of going to Mars, we have invaded the Middle East. We don’t need to see Hillary Clinton’s deleted emails: her incompetence is in plain sight. She pushed for a war in Libya, and today it’s a training ground for ISIS. On this most important issue Donald Trump is right. It’s time to end the era of stupid wars and rebuild our country.

Trump also mentioned the Iraq disaster, though more obliquely:

After fifteen years of wars in the Middle East, after trillions of dollars spent and thousands of lives lost, the situation is worse than it has ever been before.
This is the legacy of Hillary Clinton: death, destruction and weakness.
But Hillary Clinton’s legacy does not have to be America’s legacy.

Note that Trump references the last 15 years of foreign-policy making, even though he only mentions the name of Hillary Clinton. Trump didn’t go off on Dubya like he did during the South Carolina debate, but he made it clear that this period of conservative history is over. (Even Jeb can’t bring himself to endorse his brother’s wars.)

The neoconservatives oppose Trump, not only because he doesn’t speak their language—of “nation-building,” “spreading democracy,” and the “Next American Century”—but because his foreign-policy outlook would jeopardize billions in private contracts, federal funding of military bases and operations, and think-tank sinecures.

Can you blame Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer and their ilk when, earlier this year, Donald Trump told them rather explicitly that he was going to end their way of life?

My goal is to establish a foreign policy that will endure for several generations. That’s why I also look and have to look for talented experts with approaches and practical ideas, rather than surrounding myself with those who have perfect résumés but very little to brag about except responsibility for a long history of failed policies and continued losses at war. We have to look to new people.

“New people” likely refers to those who don’t put (((echoes))) around their Twitter usernames to feel like oppressed victims, whether they be Jewish or not.

Robert Kagan’s support of Hillary Clinton might signal a major realignment of this group of numerically tiny but enormously influential Jewish intellectuals. Kagan’s wife, Victoria Nuland, works for the Obama administration and played a major role in creating the disaster in Ukraine.

Power is Good

Candidates of both parties love to talk about being the son of a mailman or bartender, and relish getting themselves photographed wearing a plaid shirt and hunting jacket. Everyone’s an outsider with small-town values.

Conservatives in particular love to wax on about their hatred of power; how the state is a necessary evil and at its best when it governs least.

Trump is making a different kind of pitch altogether.

Nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it.

Trump is leading a populist movement not in spite of the fact that he’s an oligarch but because of it. He has, indeed, turned oligarchy into a kind of populism. The candidate who is able to buy and sell other political candidate is the only candidate who can never be bought.

And finally, there was . . .


. . . which was in all-caps in the text. This simple phrase expresses Trump’s fundamentally different concept of the meaning of democracy. As Carl Schmitt noted, “democracy” means popular rule. It does not mean voting, parliamentary debates, or liberalism. Trump is establishing himself as Tribune of the People, as the Napoleon of the Current Year.

For decades, there has been a pent-up demand for White identity politics. When and how this would come into being was the only question. No on would have predicted that it would arise in the person of Donald J. Trump.

No Comments on Donald Trump’s Bad Language

Reflections on the Alt Right

I’ve been involved with the Alt Right, on and off, for the last seven years, before the term was anything more than a phrase used by a few obscure bloggers. Being in the Quicken Loans Arena as Trump accepted the nomination Thursday night, I couldn’t help but feel proud of the part I did, however small, of bringing about his coronation. The concerns we have been expressing about demographic displacement are now completely mainstream and have clearly influenced conservative powerhouses such as Drudge and Breitbart, without which Trump would have been unlikely to win the Republican nomination.

I’ve been involved with the Alt Right, on and off, for the last seven years, before the term was anything more than a phrase used by a few obscure bloggers. Being in the Quicken Loans Arena as Trump accepted the nomination Thursday night, I couldn’t help but feel proud of the part I did, however small, of bringing about his coronation. The concerns we have been expressing about demographic displacement are now completely mainstream and have clearly influenced conservative powerhouses such as Drudge and Breitbart, without which Trump would have been unlikely to win the Republican nomination.

At this moment of triumph for our movement, there is probably no better time to take stock of where we’ve come from and where we’re going.

Back in 2009, when I first became involved with the movement, we were unknown even among the educated class most interested in politics. When Richard Spencer, formerly of The American Conservative, left Takimag that year to start the website AlternativeRight.com, only a handful of people on the mainstream right even noticed. His move was completely unremarked upon by mainstream journalists and the Left, with the only exceptions being a few organizations specifically focused on exposing “hate.”

In the last year however, it is difficult to find a major newspaper or news website that has not done a feature on Richard Spencer and the “Alt Right,” with some of them writing multiple times about the phenomenon. To name a few you may have heard of: CBS, NBC, ABC, the New York Times, and BuzzFeed. The movement has been a particular obsession of the Washington Post, which has mentioned it on its webpage over 30 times since the beginning of 2014. Googling “Alt Right” and “RNC” and limiting the results to the week of the convention gives nearly 100 results, including articles in The Nation, Salon, and, of course, the Washington Post.

Seven years ago, those of us in the movement paid a great deal of attention to how we were portrayed in the blogs and reports of the SPLC, as they were the only ones giving us regular attention. At the RNC, however, I asked a few old friends what the SPLC was doing now that the mainstream media has taken over their job. We no longer pay them the slightest attention.

More important than press coverage has been the increase in our influence over American conservatives. When Alternative Right was founded, there was something of a concrete wall between “us” and “them.” The kinds of conservatives that appeared on Fox News either did not know of us or, if they did, were horrified by our ideas. Earlier this year, however, Breitbart published a sympathetic explainer on the Alt Right. Individuals whose day jobs put them in good standing with “Conservatism, Inc.” now regularly write anonymous articles for us by night. Throughout the week of the RNC, young people from the Alt Right, mainstream conservatism, and the pick up community socialized together as fellow soldiers in the same cause. A few old-time publications such as The Weekly Standard and National Review remain hostile, but their influence has been usurped by “Alt Right Lite” sites such as The American Thinker, Brietbart, and even The Daily Caller.

Commentators noted throughout the Republican primary that Matt Drudge was tipping the scales for Donald Trump. A Business Insider article argues that Drudge was the one man who could have stopped the billionaire from becoming the Republican nominee. For someone concerned with traditional conservative causes, Trump was on most issues to the left (at as things gauged in 2016) of establishment candidates such as Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio. The only reason that Drudge supported Trump is because he, like us, places more of a priority on reversing demographic trends and opposing political correctness. Perhaps this is because he actually reads websites like this. At the very least, there is second-hand influence, perhaps through his friend Ann Coulter and from websites like Breitbart. Regardless, it seems clear that the Alt Right has had an influence over the conservative movement, particularly through the Drudge-Breitbart network, without which Donald Trump would not be the Republican nominee for president today.

While Peter Brimelow and Jared Taylor run excellent websites full of articles articulating many of our positions, most of handwringing in the media about the movement has focused on the young, largely anonymous, army of Twitter users. The fact that such a large portion of our movement is anonymous makes our success all the more remarkable.

What will the next seven years bring? While it is impossible to know for sure, there are reasons to be optimistic.

When I first became involved with the movement, I saw a hopeless task in front of us. I wrote not because I thought it would change the world, but because I was sick of suffocating political correctness and the denial of biological realities and needed an outlet to express how I felt. But we planted a few seeds, and two presidential cycles later, we had an influence—however small and indirect it might be—on who became the Republican nominee for president.

The growing influence of the Alt Right is not the result of access to large budgets or important gatekeepers. Rather, we have the better arguments, both empirically and morally, and met an emotional need that Whites have after a lifetime of hearing themselves blamed for all the misfortunes of history. The fact that there are important biological differences between the two sexes and the human races is indisputable, but the implications of these findings have been suppressed by the Left and their conservative enablers. Morally, there is no answer to the question of why every group besides Whites is allowed to advocate on its own behalf, or why Whites are the only group morally required to be demographically displaced in their own countries.

Our positions are both obvious and emotionally compelling to young people feeling alienated and defeated by what politics and the larger culture have become. In an environment of demographic transformation and ever more stifling political correctness, all it took was a few obscure voices in the wilderness to help spark the Trumpian revolution.

This should make us optimistic about our ability to influence the future. If our success is the result of the logical and emotionally compelling nature of our ideas, then the exponential increase in exposure of the last few years should continue to bring people into our movement at an even faster pace. It helps that much of the media presents us as a youth movement, which will make it seem all the more appealing to the college students and professionals we need to attract.

We should have two main goals over the next few years. First, we must continue to rout what remains of the old “conservative movement.” We beat the “cucks” this election cycle, but they still have access to money and institutions and, perhaps most importantly, the favor of a mainstream media that wants them as the house opposition. Those involved in conservative institutions should continue to push as far against the envelope as they can on issues such as race, genetics, identity, feminism, immigration, and Islam. Special efforts should be made to hire and promote individuals with similar views. The recent explosion in media coverage for the movement should make it much easier to find qualified individuals sympathetic to the Alt Right in the next few generations of right-wing journalists and activists seeking to make names for themselves. In May, Ann Coulter retweeted the following from the VDare account:

Second, we must encourage more people to come out and identify with the Alt Right openly. No movement will ever succeed if people are too scared to express support for it. As a movement of Internet trolls, we already frighten the Left. Just imagine how they will feel when we are a community of college activists, attorneys, journalists, academics, and successful entrepreneurs!

To get to that point, we need to continue mainstreaming what were once unthinkable ideas and create the conditions under which those who are with us become unafraid to have their real names connected to their politics. Certain individuals who have the least to lose should be encouraged to go first: people such as the independently wealthy, academics with tenure, and individuals so prominent that they cannot be denied a public platform. These pioneers would create space for others to begin to identify as members of our cause.

Seven years ago, the thought of the Alt Right influencing Republican presidential politics was absurd, as was the idea of Donald Trump as a realistic candidate. Yet we have seen that history does not sit still. The influences that have propelled the rise of our movement—militant feminism, demographic transformation, political correctness, and Islamic terrorism—are only growing stronger, and there is no reason to believe that mainstream conservatism will begin to provide any plausible plan of resistance to these forces. While we will remain relevant regardless of what happens in November, a Trump presidency would embolden our side in ways that we can only begin to imagine. The Alt Right should be proud of how far it has come, but not forget that our battle is only beginning.

No Comments on Reflections on the Alt Right

Who Are You?

When was the last time someone asked you who you were? Or, more precisely, when was the last time you asked yourself what it means to be *you*? Growing up, and well into my teenage years, I had the luxury of knowing my now since-passed relatives who themselves grew up during a time when not knowing who you were was either seen as evidence of mental illness or worse, suspicion that you may be a Communist sympathizer or some other anti-American ideological supporter.

Editor’s Note: This article first appeared on the author’s site here.

When was the last time someone asked you who you were? Or, more precisely, when was the last time you asked yourself what it means to be you? Growing up, and well into my teenage years, I had the luxury of knowing my now since-passed relatives who themselves grew up during a time when not knowing who you were was either seen as evidence of mental illness or worse, suspicion that you may be a Communist sympathizer or some other anti-American ideological supporter.

Today things have changed dramatically and not all of them have been for the better. Indeed, many of these changes have been to the detriment of the American Country and its traditional founding stock – American Whites of European ancestry. If you count yourself among the legions of leftist progressive ideologues you’d likely find it easy to answer the question ‘Who are you?’.

Predictably, you’d likely claim you’re a supporter of progress, equality, liberty, religious freedom (or freedom from religion), homosexual rights, rights for the mentally ill transgendered community. You may passionately and aggressively proclaim your support for anarchism or communism and identify yourself as an anarcho-syndicalist or Marxist. You might also see yourself as a subversive of the state apparatus, militarized police, and institutional racism. You probably count yourself a devout practitioner of Kropotkin, Gramsci, or Alinsky.

Likely, you haven’t reflected on why you’re so open with beliefs that just 25 – 50 years ago would have landed you in jail, unemployable, and socially ostracized. Then, the State was against you. Now, you’ve got its full support.

However, it’s likely that you’re not any of those things or at the most, you’re probably somewhat socially left and fiscally centrist or conservative. You’re reading this article and you found your way to this publication so this seems like a safe assumption. And if you were paying attention to the last sentence of the previous paragraph some things are probably starting to click in your mind – albeit they’re likely making you uncomfortable.

That’s alright. Many of us were in your shoes at one point too and we felt just as uncomfortable. Looking back, I now know the discomfort you’re likely feeling – discomfort I felt too – was the result of my reluctance to admit that there’s something deeply wrong with the America I see around me today and one which, while growing up, now no longer exists.

Today, if you’re any bit politically active – whether it be on social media or in your public life – and if you’re anything less than a Marxist or you dare commit the heinous act of claiming you’re not interested in the things the Left is selling you’re automatically labeled a racist, bigoted, homophobic, misogynistic, covert Klu Klux Klan supporter. You’re also probably secretly gay, suppressing homoerotic tendencies, hate your Christian upbringing, or worse (but to the jubilant glee of your detractors) – you probably had your girlfriend stolen by some successful Black Idris Elba look-alike. Oh, and you’re also White. That’s the crucial component.

If you have any of these subversive non-leftist opinions and you’re Black you’ll just get called a ‘House Nigger’, ‘Uncle Tom’, or a race traitor. But that’s it. On the other hand, if you’re any of these things (which means you’re also all of them implicitly) and you’ve been unlucky enough to be born the descendant of European immigrants from anywhere on the European continent (i.e. you’re a White male) you’ll be talking to your boss in the morning telling him why he’s getting all these calls demanding he fire you for being a racist hateful bigot who wants nothing more than to murder Muslims, lynch Blacks, and oppress women.

You’ll probably get death threats, your children, if you have any, will likely be questioned by their school’s counselor and Child Protective Services as to whether you’ve sexually harassed them, beat them, or worse not taught them about their implicit White privilege. Your wife, if you’re lucky enough to be married in a country with astronomically high divorce rates and a culture that abhors heterosexual marriage, will be pressured on her social media accounts, at her job if she works, and get nasty emails and threats herself – likely wishing she is swiftly raped by a non-White male.

Your life will become stressful, your mind will become clouded, and your once peaceful life with your two children and your happy beautiful wife will seem like a fairy tale.

There is something deeply wrong with America. But what? And why?

You may have felt it but you pushed it to the back of your mind because for all intents your life was pretty great. But you made one fatal mistake. You had an opinion, a belief, a set of political principles which put you at odds with the established and entrenched Cultural Marxist left that has become the American education, Academic, and political system. And you’re White.

The what and the why of what’s at the root of the American rot as well as how you’re connected to all this is inextricably linked to the core principle underlying the title of this article.


Up to this point what you’ve just read, if you’re still reading, has been what can only be described as the psychological and social equivalent to a defibrillator charge to your mental chest. If there was an easier way to talk about these things this country would likely not be in the predicament it’s currently in, I’d likely not be writing this article, and this publication would likely not exist. If this is a bit too much for you to take in all at once I encourage you to take a break, hug your kids if you have any, kiss your wife if you have one, or take a walk outside.

A point of note before we continue. You’re likely reading, or rereading through this, and probably saying, “Okay, well show me the evidence… these are some pretty strong and provocative claims you’re making!”. There will be no links, no sourced articles, nor any screenshots linking back to support anything I’ve already written or will write hereafter.

I assure you, the information, data, demographic reports, social media archives, and public videos are all available if you’re willing to put in the effort to seek them out. It is important you seek this information yourself, willingly, and come out the other side having learned everything a growing community of like-minded individuals now know all on your own.

There are those out there willing to point you in the right direction but ultimately you have to have the courage and perseverance to take that first step. None of this information needs to be sought out on ‘fringe’ websites like InfoWars or some obscure lunatic’s blog shouting about some clandestine group proclaiming “Mulder was right!” All the data and other things I mentioned above are available free of charge on government websites like FBI.gov, the Bureau of Labor and Statistics (BLS), and Census records to name a few.

What Is Identity?

There are a few ways to describe it and I’ll start from most abstract to least abstract.

  • The logical representation of predicate and subject:
  • A = B
  • A pseudo-logical explanation of the word identity:
  • ‘There is a thing “A” such that it represents “B”
  • The phenomenological definition:
  • The human individual, as a conscious subject equipped with memory, imagination, and sensation, collects and categorizes their lived experiences such as they appear to him and from this forms a complex basis of subjectivity (i.e. understands himself as a subject) which he then ties to himself and thus ties his existence to the physical and psychospiritual world (i.e. the non-material psychological world of the mind).

If you’re not used to seeing things written in this manner, don’t feel discouraged. You’ve likely been kept in the dark about a lot of things which were common knowledge to many Americans of European descent. Bear through it because there’s not really any better way to go about this.

Where Does Identity Come from?

Identity as a linguistic symbol derives from one’s observation, and thus recognition through this observation, that his own self, being a physical thing in the world along with other physical things, is a special kind of distinct thing.

In creating a word identity, we establish a symbol by which we may move towards creating meaningful knowledge of other subjective beings (again, this just means someone who sees themselves as a subject – not to be confused with subjective in the arbitrary sense) who have also distinguished themselves as special kinds of things. Thus, from the word to its meaning, the concept of identity is ushered forth into the experiential world of human existence.

In observing, and recognizing through observation, the concept of identity applied to, and by, a human subject particularized subjective identity springs forth from the consciousness of the human subject. Identity now becomes dualistic in that it is both concept and subject.

In other words, when we look at the world and see ourselves as distinct from other things in the world, we apply this distinctiveness to ourselves and from this we’ve now made ourselves a single (particular) subject. Now, there’s this thing we call identity which we understand as a concept and this thing we call identity which we understand as our identity.

How, To What, and How Many Levels, the Concept Identity May Be Applied?

Application may be as an affirmation of one’s own understanding of their self, their understanding of others, or as a representation of a unification of many subjective identities into one universal particular identity among many particulars. This extends from the individual and the family unit all the way up to the Nation.

The universalization of many into one particular among many distinct (particular) groups constitutes the creation of the concept of the other.

The Other is the negation of the I. The I is the subjective understanding you create which you then claim is your identity. It is an implicit and explicit exclusion of what now becomes called the Other. I am not you and you are not me. Though the I (you) and the other (me) may share similar constitutive parts of each subjective identity no two others (people) may be the same I such that they are an identical I.

The more similarities two others share the less likely they are to come into conflict. As a result, it is not surprising that human societies have traditionally been seen and documented grouping themselves around others who share similar characteristics, religious beliefs, physical traits, a common language, and skills.

What Does It Mean to Deny an Identity; To Undermine an Identity?

To deny the identity of another is an explicitly hostile act constituting an attack on their very existence. Such an act is an existentially fatal attempt to revoke their psychospiritual existence and thus render them both alive and dead.

When one denies the identity of another they are signaling to the denied that they are somehow mistaken in their observation of their external surroundings, that their consciousness is somehow faulty, and that what they have constituted as their special ‘kind-ness’ is incorrect.

Such an act is disorienting both mentally and physically and will render anyone lacking the sufficient will to reaffirm their subjective identity against the claims of a now proclaimed hostile other immobile and subject to the manipulation and in the worst case scenario, mental and physical enslavement through fear or submission. The more fervent the exclamations of denial the likelier the denied will succumb to the hostile other and ultimately be rendered subservient.

Can We Live Without an Identity?

It does not seem possible to live without an identity. Conscious existence necessarily demands both the concept itself as an objective reality and the resulting creation of identity as a subject. Whether or not this is an objective fact or merely the conditional result of human faculty is irrelevant and either way, the outcome is still the same. Identity exists and serves a life-preserving function. To undermine identity as a concept or as a concept applied to a subject wherein the concept becomes subject is necessarily life-denying.

How can one not categorize the world? Language itself stands as an explicit display of the reality of identity given language is one kind of contingent symbolism whose purpose appears directly linked to the preservation and continuation of human existence in its many forms.

Can Existence Itself as A Concept Survive Without the Existence of the Concept of Identity?

The answer to this question seems an obvious ‘no’. But, this may be the result of an implicit linguistic bias towards the word ‘existence’ as a symbol for life itself. The question we must ask ourselves is can we conceive of identity without any sort of linguistic symbolism? Since it is unlikely that any human being can recall a time when they did exist yet did not have the use of language – even the most rudimentary and limited vocabulary would suffice to constitute ‘the use of language’ – and since human beings are necessarily of the category animal we can look to other animals who have no known language system or other faculty for symbolic representation for an answer.

Take as an example any individual animal which we call rabbit. Certainly, it is beyond discussion that these animals lack any kind of symbolic system with which they consciously represent their world to themselves or other rabbits. However, we can observe when one of the rabbit’s natural predators approach, or some other creature it is unfamiliar with, they flee in the hopes to survive. Though they lack any sort of language, symbol, or system of representation there still exists an unconscious identity with the approaching creature and the need to flee. Whether they experience the concept of fear as human beings experience it doesn’t matter. What does matter is were they capable of similar symbolic representations conscious beings have, it is conceivable they would likely do as we do and create an identity with a concept and an other – in this case the concept of fear (or flee) with an approaching unknown or predator as the subject tied to the concept.

If we assume the above is incorrect then we must also conclude that the rabbit would end up being the meal of the approaching predator or some other possible ill fate in the case of an approaching unknown. Thus, existence necessarily requires identity, at least practically, and in the case of human existence it certainly seems necessary for any meaningful existence beyond fleeing threats and foraging for food.

Towards a New Identity

So, who are you? What does it mean to be you? How do you know yourself? What values, ideals, principles, virtues, beliefs, and experiences make you, you? Are you comfortable proclaiming them in public? With your name attached to them? What about your address? Your place of business? What about your employer?

It’s at this point that someone thinking themselves quite clever would point out that 25-50 years ago certain groups of people wouldn’t have been able to do any of those things either. This creates the false illusion that the American way of life 25-50 years ago was a place for those values or identities.

This is a crucial aspect of the concept of identity itself. Part of what constitutes our identity and breathes life into it are the communities and soil with which these identities are attached. America in the 1930’s to the 1950’s was in no way a place for Communist identities, Marxist concepts of illusory and utopian egalitarianism, or the radical waves of subversive feminism all of which were advocated for, and composed of, predominantly Jewish Marxists and progressives.

Given the only mandate of State governments at the founding of this country in its Constitution was that they be Republican governments, that just as the creators of the founding system didn’t want their system to fall back into what they were trying to rid themselves of in the first place so too does it stand to reason that the right to free speech as a right granted to bar political retaliation for criticizing the government does not extend to speech which is antithetical to the core doctrines of the government. That’s a fancy way of saying Marxists and Communists don’t get 1st Amendment protections.

The reason being is their identity is one of total opposition to the one which was here when they brought their identity with them from wherever they came. It wouldn’t be rational for you to let me come into your home and then allow me to kick you out. It doesn’t make sense to make room for identities which seek to undermine and destroy the host’s identity either.

This is where we are today. For the past 80 – 100 years there has been an ever-increasing campaign against the traditional identity of this country in favor of something which renders its adherents submissive, dull, unimaginative, and free to be molded in whatever way is suitable. The eradication of traditional, and evolutionarily evolved gender roles, monogamous and healthy loving marriages, child rearing, hard work, civic service, a nationalistic pride for your kin and soil, and a willingness to defend these things with your life if need be.

Instead, if you’re not content with the illiberal Marxist ideology of subservience and prostration you can choose between the many hosts of terrible food, low-quality but highly branded entertainment devices, or your choice of overpriced ‘elite’ clothing. This is what your choice is today in America if you want an identity. Anything else and the system comes crashing down on you like a jackhammer on a nail.

Your National Identity, Cultural Identity, Ancestral Identity, and your Historical Identity has been stolen from you and replaced with consumerism and left versus right wing fiscal policy. If things don’t change and people submit to this theft, then what was once the American Dream will be an American afterthought – if it’s remembered at all.

Now, both European and American histories, cultures, nations – their identities – are being threatened with a massive hostile invasion feigned as refugee immigration from the Middle East for both and economic immigration from Mexico in the case of America. And if you dare speak out you’re labeled, again, Islamophobic. The major issue here is just how hypocritical and blatantly anti-White this entire phenomenon is. Only Whites are demanded to relinquish their culture, heritage, and ancestral lands. Imagine if Whites demanded land in Africa!

So, as a result, millions of White Americans have risen up, risked blood and limb, and thrown their support behind Donald J. Trump. His promises to return America to its greatness, build a wall on the Southern border and deny Muslims entry into the United States has signaled a reawakening currently underway in the United States. Of course, the liberal punditry across the nation has feigned ignorance as to why his rise was so swift and unpredicted but then that would mean admitting to their own plans otherwise.

There have been many great thinkers throughout the history of Western civilization who have remarked that all previous events have led to their respective ages and no other future was possible. So too has the initial founding of the United States led its founding stock to their dire situation today – to your dire situation. We are without an identity and without a system which would allow us political or institutional legitimacy to create one. Thus, it is up to the future European Americans of this once hopeful prospective experiment in a new kind of government to forge a new identity, not for ourselves, but for our children.

This identity must be rooted in blood, kinship, soil, and our desire to create a nation which will stand as an undeniable symbol of our existence as a people and as the best humanity has produced thus far. We must seek out a new dawn and traverse the tightrope towards our own values. And we must do so merrily like a court Jester dancing across the grave his enemy has laid out for him. Our identity is what we make it; how we see ourselves and conceive our future is entirely up to us. No one can make this decision for you but you and so your future demands you choose.

Will you be the last man before the American flame is extinguished forever? Or will you be part of a group of New Men, a group of attempters, determined to relight the flickering flame of western society ablaze towards a new dawn?

No Comments on Who Are You?


Like fox-hunting, Pit Bull Terriers, and psychoactive substances, Richard Bertrand Spencer is now banned in the United Kingdom. 

Earlier this month, I received an official notice, packaged in an intriguing manilla envelope labeled “On Her Britannic Majesty’s Service.” The words reminded me of my favorite James Bond film . . . and gave me a foolish hope that I had just received a royal invitation for afternoon tea or perhaps been called into M’s office for an assignment. 

In reality, I had been banned from yet one more European country. 

Like fox-hunting, Pit Bull Terriers, and psychoactive substances, Richard Bertrand Spencer is now banned in the United Kingdom.

Earlier this month, I received an official notice, packaged in an intriguing manilla envelope labeled “On Her Britannic Majesty’s Service.” The words reminded me of my favorite James Bond film . . . and gave me a foolish hope that I had just received a royal invitation for afternoon tea or perhaps been called into M’s office for an assignment.

In reality, I had been banned from yet one more European country.

That makes 27.

Countries in which Richard Spencer is banned. Countries in which Richard Spencer is banned.

The good news is that 26 of these bans will be automatically lifted next year, as tey resulted from my Hungarian experience in 2014. That fall, I was arrested and declared a “National Security Threat” by the Hungarian government for the crime of attempting to host a conference. My punishment was a weekend in a (not-so-brutal) prison and a thee-year ban from the Schengen zone, the passport-less travel area in the heart of Europe.

In the case of Britain, my ban might get reviewed in three years, but ultimately there is “no statutory right of appeal.” Thus, quite a bit has to change in British political culture for me ever to set foot in the country again.

Who is responsible? None other than the then-Home Secretary and newly minted Prime Mistress, Theresa May. A “staunch conservative,” no doubt.

The woman herself is a mystery, much in the way that Angela Merkel is a mystery. Both are childless, frumpy, and lacking entirely in charisma, but then strikingly Machiavellian and effective. Certainly, Angela hasn’t maintained the German chancellorship for more than a decade by being a pushover. May, for her part, opposed Brexit and yet has benefited the most from it, more even than Nigel Farage, who made leaving the EU his life’s crusade.

During last summer’s refugee crisis, Merkel proved to be a self-loathing German of the highest order, even to the point of madness. May, on the other hand, has been hawkish on immigration and made clear that “Brexit means Brexit”; that is, there will be no second referendum under her leadership, and freedom of movement within the European Union will end.

Perhaps, as Matthew Tait suggested on a recent podcast, May’s office banned me as a way of balancing the scales of exclusion: for every 100 or so Muhammads, she’ll ban a couple of Richard Spencers, to signal she’s not “racist,” just an iron lady preventing “foreign influence.”

Her letter reads as follows,

Dear Mr Spencer
I am writing to inform you about the British government’s measures for excluding or deporting extremists under the Unacceptable Behaviour policy. The list of unacceptable behaviours covers any non-UK national whether in the UK or abroad who uses any means or medium including:

  • writing, producing, publishing or distributing material,
  • public speaking including preaching,
  • running a website,
  • using a position of responsibility such as a teacher, community or youth leader
    to express views that:
  • foment or justify terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs,
  • seek to provoke others to terrorist acts,
  • foment other serious criminal activity or seek to provoke others to serious criminal acts,
  • foster hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK.

Quoted are some choice passages from my speeches over the past five years in which I call for a European Ethno-State:

The ideal I advocate is the creation of a white Ethno-State on the North American continent. Vis-a-vis most contemporary states that are putatively based on the “rights of man” and “democracy,” our project would be a new kind of political and social order. It would be a state for the 21 century—or 22nd: reflecting advances in communication and transportation, it would be a home for Germans, Latins, and Slavs from around the world. On one level, it would be a re-constitution of the Roman Empire. The Ethno-State would be, to borrow the title of a novel by Theodor Herzl (one of the founding fathers of Zionism), an > Altneuland> —an old, new country.”

To sum up, I am banned from the UK for thought crimes. (No other accusations were made).

Whatever one thinks about that morally or practically, the claim that I would incite “inter-community violence” has actually already been put to the test. I’ve travelled to London many times over the past decade and spoken at two public events. To my knowledge, no neighborhoods were burned down, no adolescents were kidnapped, and no bombs were set off as a result.

And my ban can teach us two important things.

The first is. . .

The Dominance of left-liberal norms

Liberalism is fundamentally about How and What, that is, it is about “rights,” “procedures,” and “mechanisms,” with elected representatives tasked with making judgement calls. In this worldview, there is no difference between my discussion of an Ethno-State, which would protect European peoples and our shared myths and civilization, and, say, a Muslim calling for an ISIS-style Caliphate. Both are “illiberal” or “extremist.” That one is motivated as a defense of European identity, while the other is an explicit attack on it, is immaterial.

Furthermore, a true liberal ultimately has no way of opposing the transformation of a society—from an English one to an Islamic one, for example—so long as it is done socially and culturally, no laws are broken, and all the forms are filled out on time.

Nationalism and identitarianism, on the other hand, are fundamentally about Who (and not How). How a society is to be governed—whether it be a parliamentary democracy, dictatorship, constitutional monarchy, or any other form—is of secondary importance.

The second thing we learn is. . .

The need for skepticism of “conservatives” and petty nationalists

Hungary’s Viktor Orban banned me for reasons similar to those of “Aunt May.” Yet I still consider him to be the most promising politician in Western and Central Europe. His act of outlawing a conference I had organized and jailing me brought him nothing, to be sure. But I see in Orban a man who loves his people and has a sense of greater Europe.

The Brexit referendum, as so many polls have demonstrated, was fundamentally motivated by Orban’s concerns: mass immigration, cultural and physical displacement, and Islamic terrorism.

The most powerful piece of propaganda issued by the “Leave” campaign was the one called “Breaking Point,” which showed hordes of barbarians at the gates of Europe.

And yet what exactly has been accomplished by this miraculous referendum?

UKIP’s leaders, along with the Tory Brexiteer Boris Johnson, have explicitly stated that they are not interested in curtailing immigration—and, indeed, that they support amnesty and more immigration. Boris, before his Brexit apostasy, was once a vocal supporter of brining Turkey into the European Union!

The way the Brexiteers square the circle is to claim, not that they want Britain to remain White, but that they want to “take back control.” In other words, they want to dispossess their nation on their own terms. How Burkean!

For decades, it’s been convenient for British conservatives to blame Brussels for national decline. And certainly the current EU—a soulless bureaucracy, staffed by nerds, issuing arcane regulations, and incapable of confronting existential crises—is very difficult to love. But in fact, leaving the EU seems to represent little more than entering a smaller concentric circle of left-liberalism. By going back to Britain, Brexiteers will find an even larger bureaucracy per capita, one also staffed by unelected globalist liberals.

In this way, identitarianism and nationalism, properly understood, are not matters of decentralization (or secession in the U.S. context), greater democracy or parliamentarianism, or petty nationalism. Identitarianism and nationalism are about consciousness before they are about anything else. Meta-politics precedes politics; it does not come after (as the term implies). And without meta-politics, any political reform is meaningless; it is just one more loop-de-loop within the current paradigm.

And it is when this essential psychological change takes place—when we rediscover who we are—that I will proudly announce to Theresa May, I’ll be back, bitch!

Banned in the UK by richardbspencer on Scribd

No Comments on Exiled

Mitt Romney, “Conscious” Cuckservative

His eyes were misted with tears, but his jaw was set in resolute determination. There was a hint of tension in the facial muscles as he steeled himself to his duty. He stared into the eyes of his interlocutor, a former AIPAC employee and therefore a trusted moral authority. Resisting the quiver that threatened to creep into his voice, Mitt Romney boldly staked his claim as the conscience of a generation with words that will echo through the eons – “I don’t want to see trickle down racism.”


His eyes were misted with tears, but his jaw was set in resolute determination. There was a hint of tension in the facial muscles as he steeled himself to his duty. He stared into the eyes of his interlocutor, a former AIPAC employee and therefore a trusted moral authority. Resisting the quiver that threatened to creep into his voice, Mitt Romney boldly staked his claim as the conscience of a generation with words that will echo through the eons – “I don’t want to see trickle down racism.”

Even when trying to bare his soul, Romney can’t help but deploy a line obviously slapped together at a meeting of unemployed political consultants. And even this clumsy and lame formulation reveals the deep inner sickness. “Trickle-down economics” was the leftist smear term for Ronald Reagan’s “supply side” policies, whereby tax cuts for the rich would ultimately benefit the poor through economic growth. Here, Romney casually co-opts the leftist insult directed against the unquestioned deity of the GOP and recycles it against the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party. He can’t even come up with his own political attack lines.

It’s not surprising, as Mitt Romney outsources both the jobs of his employees and his deepest sources of his own morality. “Presidents have an impact on the nature of our nation, and trickle-down racism, trickle-down bigotry, and trickle-down misogyny – all these things are extraordinarily dangerous to the heart and character of America,” Romney intoned. Of course, to those in control of the media and academia who actually get to determine who is a “racist,” “bigot,” or “misogynist,” Romney is already an example of all three of these categories. And his statement begs not just one, but several questions. What is the “nature of our nation?” And do we have a “heart” and “character?”

If the nation is the people who created the state and its institutions, America was founded by men who were racists, bigots, and misogynists by today’s standards. They built a herrenvolk Republic designed for “ourselves and our posterity.”
The “American Idea” cited by the likes of Romney, Paul Ryan, and other cuckservatives is a kind of heresy derived from the actual beliefs of the Founding Fathers. They take the universalist and egalitarian ideas inherent in the Revolution and completely remove them from the context understood by the likes of Washington, Jefferson, and Adams.

But such a process was probably inevitable, as the most dangerous heresies are rooted in a grain of truth. And the end result of this Republic created by aristocratic slaveholders and landowners is a Third World disaster where the only people who keep the nation going, Whites, are not allowed to politically organize or possess a real identity.

After all, what “breaks your heart” about Trump, according to Romney, is the presumptive GOP nominee’s suggestion an ethnically Mexican judge might be prejudiced against him. Judge Gonzalo Curiel is a proud and active member of an organization whose purpose is to “advance the Latino community through political activity and advocacy.”

Obviously, Romney isn’t offended by ethnocentrism per se. Nor can he believe simple birth defines someone’s national identity. After all, his own father George Romney was born in Mexico.

Romney’s background provides a key to understanding Mitt’s mindset. George Romney, whom Mitt called pivotal to his political development, was a devout and active Mormon. His parents were missionaries and the family was forced to flee the country because of the violence in the Mexican revolution. This was simply the first step in a proud family history of being a condescending champion for the browns and blacks, fleeing when they burned down the neighborhood, moving somewhere whiter, and then lecturing new White people about racism.

George Romney went on to become Governor of Michigan, where he got to preside over the Detroit riots. He became a footnote in political history when his presidential campaign collapsed after he claimed he initially supported the Vietnam War because of “brainwashing.” After Nixon became President, Romney became Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, where he did his best to make sure all White neighborhoods ended up like Detroit, badgering residents about the “moral responsibility” to surround themselves with black people. He exempted himself from such burdens – when he died at 88, it was at his home in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, a town which at the time of his death was less than two percent black.

George Romney was noted for his religious devotion. But Romney didn’t really believe in the teachings of Joseph Smith and the text of the Book of Mormon, because the defining characteristic of Romney’s political beliefs was support for “civil rights.” And Romney was ahead of his time in helping convert the Mormon Church away from its own supposed scriptures so it could bend the knee to its new god. But interestingly, Romney didn’t publicly condemn his church for “racism,” instead, he quietly waited for it to change. Even as the substance was subverted, the form was maintained.

His son Willard Mitt Romney became a consultant and then helped form a private equity firm specializing in leveraged buyouts. What this means is that with borrowed money, Bain Capital would buy a company, try to increase its value, and then sell. Sometimes it would work, and it could be argued Romney and his colleagues had saved the company. In other cases, workers were laid off or the company later failed after Bain had taken its profits and run. For example, one of Romney’s declared “successes,” Sports Authority, has just been liquidated.

By all accounts, Romney was capable and intelligent and wasn’t involved in some of Bain’s more spectacular failures. But in cases of both success and collapse, Mitt Romney and his colleagues didn’t have a real stake in whatever company they had acquired or what it produced.

Donald Trump will forever be tied to the iconic tower in New York which bears his name. The world is different because he lived and there is a concrete (literally) legacy he leaves behind which goes beyond his political impact. Moreover, as a landlord, Trump understands how property values are tied to the larger community and demographics. He has a stake in the community where he invests.

In contrast, the companies Romney was involved with were simply resources to be exploited before he moved on. They were never anything other than numbers on a spreadsheet. There’s nothing substantial left behind from Romney’s career in business. He simply took the profits and left.

This summarizes Mitt Romney’s approach to politics as well. His “conscience” is flexible on the kinds of issues movement conservatives consider fundamental such as abortion and “limited government.”

Running as a pro-choice candidate against Senator Ted Kennedy in the deep blue state of Massachusetts, Romney declared himself to be pro-choice. In his gubernatorial campaign in 2002, Romney portrayed his stance as a question of principles and character, intoning, “”I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose and am devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard.” He also spoke at a Planned Parenthood fundraiser. However, once he started campaigning for national office, his stance changed. He eventually declared his opposition to abortion and declared he would ban all abortion. However, he would only extend the ban to cases of rape and incest if there was a national consensus on the issue.

As governor, Romney implemented a statewide health program which paved the way for Obamacare. Romney campaigned hard against Obamacare during his presidential run but once he lost, he actually bragged about how his initiative paved the way for Obama’s signature health care policy.

On immigration, another issue where “movement conservatives” suddenly discover a “conscience” when something threatens their supply of cheap labor, Romney was similarly fickle. In 2006, he backed amnesty. But during the 2012 Republican primaries, Romney crushed his opponents by running to their right on immigration, famously backing “self-deportation.” Once he lost politely after campaigning against Obama with far more restraint than he showed against his Republican opponents, he went back to supporting amnesty.

Of course, a politician qua politician is going to flip-flop. But for a movement ostensibly suspicious of the state, “conservatives” seem uniquely vulnerable to promoting politicians and pundits as moral leaders rather than political actors.

Thus, we have the self-discrediting invocations of “conscience” by various political hacks as the excuse for Republicans to stand against Trump. Soulless lobbyist Paul Ryan says Republicans need to “vote their conscience.” Republican delegates, many of whom backed Cruz during the primary, are pushing for a “conscience clause.” Steve Deace, with his permanently crazed expression, multiple chins, and general likeness to the child prophet from Children of the Corn after adding 200 pounds and a coke habit, declares his “conscience” won’t let him support Trump.

None of this can be taken seriously. And the most farcical figure in this circus is Romney. Mitt Romney, through his vocal opposition to Trump throughout the process, is the de facto leader of the #NeverTrump “movement,” despite how he hailed Trump’s endorsement of him in the last election. “You can see how loyal he is,” as Trump said. How can someone with no core have a “conscience?”

The dominant theme of “take the money and run” in Mitt and George Romney’s lives and careers can be found in the larger conservative movement. The premise is that a certain social order and certain civilizational norms can be taken for granted, that conservatives’ perception of being in control can never really be challenged an existential level. Thus, you are free to signal to leftists about your own status and virtue while showing indifference towards the collective interests of your European-American constituency.

If you lose an election, there’s always next time. If you lose a community, you can always move away. Indeed, in both politics and religion, community and identity are defined by abstract belief rather than anything inherent. What’s worse, the power to define those beliefs is outsourced to enemies. It’s not surprising that Romney has already gone the full David French, prominently featuring his adopted black grandson in family photos as a kind of ward against accusations of racism older Romney family photos inspired from leftists.

People like Romney are worthy of contempt because they ultimately rely on the very forces they undermine. At least the occasional leftist will actually believe in what they are saying and move to a diverse neighborhood, rationalizing the occasional muggings or property destruction as part of some larger revolt against the system. At least some of them will openly oppose institutions and ideals associated with Tradition or Western identity. In contrast, the Romneys of the world seek out the holdouts against the reigning liberal hegemony, establish themselves in positions of power and wealth, and then hollow out those communities and institutions. Then they go somewhere else. In the end, nothing substantial is left behind.

What’s changing is that we’re entering a zero-sum world, especially in politics. Republicans like Romney who think they can resist Trump and “get ‘em next time” are fooling themselves. The window of opportunity to “preserve America” in any meaningful sense is closing rapidly, and this November will show whether it is already gone. Another four years of mass Third World immigration will ensure it has vanished forever, leaving European-Americans with the question of how they can exit the catastrophe their former country has become.

There is no “next time.” There’s just a continuing death spiral, as the walls close on those few places remaining where ordinary people can live decent lives. We can either guard one border around our country, or we will be forced to set up innumerable small borders in the form of gated communities, private schools, increased security, closed social networks and the never-ending flight from diversity.

The Romneys of the world can hold out longer than the rest of us. They, therefore, have an interest in telling us not to get excited, to keep believing in the old ideas, to have faith that Republican Jesus (who doesn’t care if you are a Mormon, a Catholic, or an evangelical as long as you aren’t racist) will come down and make everything ok.

But we know protective stupidity is no longer an option. We know politics and culture are the constant results of a never-ending battle, not some objective circumstance we are mandated to accept. And now we are faced with the choice between confrontation or succumbing to eternal night as the darkness closes in around us.

We may win and establish a glory our ancestors could only have dreamed of. We may lose and dissipate into powerless tribes. But one thing we know for certain – however the battle fares, the Romneys of the world will be forgotten. They had their time. And that time is almost over.

No Comments on Mitt Romney, “Conscious” Cuckservative

The Case of George Will

Few writers who apply the label “conservative” to themselves have acquired so prominent a position in establishment media as George F. Will. A regular columnist for *the Washington Post* and *Newsweek*, a future on national television discussion programs, and a winner of the Pulitzer prize, Will has traveled a long way since he wrote articles for *the Alternative* in the early 1970s. With the possible exception of William Buckley and James Kilpatrick, it is difficult to think of any other self-described conservative publicist who has so strikingly “made it.” 

Editor’s Note: This article first appeared in Modern Age, Spring 1986

Few writers who apply the label “conservative” to themselves have acquired so prominent a position in establishment media as George F. Will. A regular columnist for the Washington Post and Newsweek, a future on national television discussion programs, and a winner of the Pulitzer prize, Will has traveled a long way since he wrote articles for the Alternative in the early 1970s. With the possible exception of William Buckley and James Kilpatrick, it is difficult to think of any other self-described conservative publicist who has so strikingly “made it.”

The secret of Will’s success is only in part attributable to his many merits-his willingness to explore controversial areas of public life in a manner remarkably free of cliches and conventional wisdom, his learning in the literary and philosophical classics, and his habitual articulateness. His success is due also to the general thrust of his distinctive formulation of conservatism and the way in which he applies his ideas to public matters, for it is evident in much of his writing that Will is at considerable pains to separate himself from most Americans who today regard themselves as conservatives and to assure his readers that there are important public institutions and policies, usually criticized by conservatives, with which he has no quarrel.

Statecraft as Soulcraft(1) is George Will’s first real book, as opposed to collections of his columns, and its purpose is to develop in a rather systematic way his political beliefs and to explain how these beliefs — “conservatism properly understood — are different from and superior to the ideas to which most American conservatives subscribe. The most distinctive difference, he tells us in the preface, appears to be his “belief in strong government,” and he says:

My aim is to recast conservatism in a form compatible with the broad popular imperatives of the day, but also to change somewhat the agenda and even the vocabulary of contemporary politics. To those who are liberals and to those who call themselves conservatives, I say: Politics is more difficult than you think.

Despite Will’s assertion that today “there are almost no conservatives, properly understood,” the principal line of argument of Statecraft us Soulcraft will be familiar to most and largely congenial to many American conservative intellectuals. It is Will’s argument that modern political thought from the time of Machiavelli has ignored or denied the ethical potentialities of human nature and has concentrated on passion and self-interest as the constituent forces of society and government. Modern politics therefore seeks to use these forces, rather than to restrain or elevate them, in designing social and political arrangements in such a way that passion and self-interest will conduce to stability, prosperity, and liberty. “The result,” writes Will,

is a radical retrenchment, a lowering of expectations, a constriction of political horizons. By abandoning both divine and natural teleology, modernity radically reoriented politics. The focus of politics shifted away from the question of the most eligible ends of lie, to the passional origins of actions. The ancients were resigned to accomodating what the moderns are eager to accomodate: human shortcomings. What once was considered a defect — self-interestedness — became the base on which an edifice of rights was erected.

The Founding Fathers also subscribed to the modernist school of political thought, particularly James Madison, whose “attention is exclusively on controlling passions with countervailing passions; he is not concerned with the amelioration or reform of passions. The political problem is seen entirely in terms of controlling the passions that nature gives, not nurturing the kind of character that the polity might need. He says, ‘We well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on.’”

The result of political modernism and its concentration on the lower elements of human nature has been the loss of ideals of community, citizenship, and the public moral order. With its emphasis on “self-interest” and the proper arrangement or equilibrium of passions and appetites rather than on their reform and improvement, modernism has opened the door to the privatization of politics, distrust of public authority, the pursuit of material and individual self-interest, and the proliferation of individual rights in the form of claims against government and society.

Once politics is defined negatively, as an enterprise for drawing a protective circle around the individual‘s sphere of selfinterested action, then public concerns are by definition distinct from, and secondary to, private concerns. Regardless of democratic forms, when people are taught by philosophy (and the social climate) that they need not govern their actions by calculations of public good, they will come to blame all social shortcomings on the agency of collective considerations. the government, and will absolve themselves.

Contemporary American conservatism, in Will’s view, as well as contemporary liberalism, are both derived from political modernism.

They are versions of the basic program of the liberal-democratic political impulse that was born with Machiavelli and Hobbes. Near the core of the philosophy of modern liberalism, as it descends from those two men, is an inadequacy that is becoming glaring. And what in America is called conservatism is only marginally disharmonious with liberalism. This kind of conservatism is an impotent critic of liberalism because it too is a participant in the modern political enterprise. . . . The enterprise is not wrong because it revises, or even because it revises radically. Rather it is wrong because it lowers, radically. It deflates politics, conforming politics to the strongest and commonest impulses in the mass of men.

For Will, then, the proper corrective to the degeneration of democracy and the substitution of private indulgence for the public good is the restoration of ancient and medieval political and ethical philosophy and its vindication of the role of government in constraining private interests in deference to the public moral order and in inculcating virtue — in other words, “legislating morality”:

By the legislation of morality I mean the enactment of laws and implementation of policies that proscribe, mandate, regulate, or subsidize behavior that will, over time, have the predictable effect of nurturing, bolstering or altering habits, dispositions, and values on a broad scale.

He goes on: The United States acutely needs a real conservatism, characterized by a concern to cultivate the best persons and the best in persons. It should express renewed appreciation for the ennobling, functions of government. It should challenge the liberal doctrine that regarding one important dimension of life — the “inner life” — there should be less government — less than there is now, less than there recently was, less than most political philosophers have thought prudent.

Despite Will’s predilection for putting down contemporary conservatives, the theoretical dimensions of his argument will come as no great shock to many of them. It has been articulated in one form or another by a number of American writers since the 1940s — Russell Kirk, Leo Strauss, and Eric Voegelin, to name but a few. Will is quite correct that the libertarian and classical liberal faction of American conservatism will dissent vigorously from his thought and that they are not conservatives in the classical sense of the term. Yet many prominent libertarians have resisted and rejected being called conservatives, and it is hardly fair to criticize them for not adhering to a body of ideas with which they have never claimed any connection. Nor is it fair for Will to categorize all conservatives or even the mainstream of American conservatism as libertarian. Although this mainstream has been oriented toward the defense of the bourgeois order as expressed in classical liberal ideology, its principal exponents have generally been aware of the moral and social foundations of classical liberal values and have accepted at least some governmental role in the protection and encouragement of these values.

American conservatism is in effect a reformulation of the Old Whiggery of the eighteenth century and has sought to synthesize Burke and Adam Smith, order and liberty, in what was ascribed to its most representative voice, Frank S. Meyer, as “fusionism.” There are of course serious philosophical problems in effecting this synthesis, and the problems have never been satisfactorily resolved; but the efflorescence of conservative thought around these problems in recent decades shows that American conservatives are neither as simple-minded nor as illiterate as Will wants us to believe. In the last decade conservative political efforts have increasingly emphasized moral issues in campaigns against pornography, abortion, and the dissolution of the family and community, and in favor of public support for religious faith. It is therefore simply a gross error to claim that the American Right, old or new, is oblivious to the role of government in sustaining morality.

Will, moreover, knows this, because he is himself a well-informed man and because he was at one time an editor of the National Review and has had close intellectual and professional connections to the conservative movement. Yet at no place in Statecraft and Soulcraft is there any acknowledgment of the richness or variety of contemporary conservative thought, any appreciation for the intellectual and political contributions of serious conservatives to sustaining and reviving premodern political ideas, nor indeed any reference at all to any contemporary conservative thinker. There is only a constant barrage of patronizing and often contemptuous generalization about “soidisant conservatives,” “something calling itself conservatism,” and “‘conservatives.’” Although the traditionalist and most antimodern orientation within American conservatism will probably experience little discomfort at Will’s development of his ideas, it may have problems with some of his applications of his philosophy to contemporary policy. Although Will is consistent in his strong support for the illegalization of pornography and abortion, he also tries to use premodern or classical conservatism to endorse the welfare state and to justify the civil rights legislation of the 1960s, which are the principal creations of modern liberalism and which constitute revolutionary engines by which the radicalizing dynamic of liberalism is built into contemporary American government.

Although Will acknowledges that the “almost limitless expansion of American government since the New Deal . . . was implicit in the commission given to government by modern political philosophy: the commission to increase pleasure and decrease pain,” he also believes that “the political system must also incorporate altruistic motives. It does so in domestic policies associated with the phrase ‘welfare state.’ These are policies that express the community‘s acceptance of an ethic of common provision.” He cites Disraeli and Bismarck as conservative architects of the welfare state and regards as the conservative principle underlying welfare the idea “that private economic decisions often are permeated with a public interest and hence are legitimate subjects of political debate and intervention.”

Will is certainly correct in his assertion of this principle, but the centralized, redistributive welfare apparatus created by liberalism and resisted by conservatives is not legitimately derived from the principle. The classical conservative vision of society as an organic, hierarchical, and authoritative structure of reciprocal responsibilities implies a social duty to the poor, but it also implies a responsibility on the part of the poor that the liberal “right to welfare” denies. Moreover, the virtue of charity endorsed by classical conservatives presupposes an inequality of wealth and an ideal of noblesse oblige that the architects of liberal welfare states abhor. Nor is the classical conservative ideal of public welfare necessarily or primarily restricted to a centralized apparatus or even to government, but rather allows for social provision of support through family, community, church, and class obligations as well as at local levels of government. Finally, the classical conservative welfare state usually developed in nondemocratic societies in which the lower orders who received public largess did not also possess electoral control of the public leaders who dispensed it. The mass democratic nature of the modern welfare state ensures the indefinite expansion of necessary and desirable public provision into a socialist redistribution of wealth that reduces the public order to a never-ending feast for the private interests and appetites of the masses while destroying their families and communities, ingesting them within the cycles of mass hedonism of bureaucratized capitalism and enserfing them as the political base of the bureaucratic-political complex in whose interests the welfare state is operated. At the same time, the administrative apparatus of the centralized welfare state subsidizes a bureaucratic and social engineering elite that devotes its energies to the further destruction and redesigning of the social order.

Will offers some suggestions “for a welfare system that supports rather than disintegrates families” and which “will use government to combat the tendency of the modern bureaucratic state to standardize and suffocate diversity.” It is frankly not easy to see how this can be accomplished, since governmental welfare replicates, usurps, and thus weakens the functions of the family and community and must necessarily proceed along uniform legal and administrative lines. lndeed, Will’s defense of the welfare state suggests no awareness of the important differences between the concept and the actual functioning of the classical conservative welfare state and those of modern liberalism. An important part of his case is the pragmatic argument that conservatives must accept the welfare state or find themselves consigned to political oblivion. “A conservative doctrine of the welfare state is required if conservatives are even to be included in the contemporary political conversation,” and the idea of the welfare state “has now come and is not apt to depart.” “Conservatism properly understood,” then, is to accept the premises and institutions of contemporary liberalism and must not challenge them if it is to enjoy success and participate in dialogue with a dominant liberalism. Hence, any discussion of the very radical and unsettling reforms that would be necessary to construct a welfare state consistent with genuine classical conservatism, as opposed to the abridged, expurgated, and pop version presented by Will, would defeat his pragmatic purpose by alienating and frightening the liberal and establishment elites he is trying to impress.

Similarly, Will’s defense of the civil rights revolution in terms of classical conservatism is an erroneous application of a traditionalist principle. “But the enforcement of the law,” he writes, “by making visible and sometimes vivid the community values that are deemed important enough to support by law, can bolster these values.. . . Of course, nothing in a society, least of all moral sentiment, is permanent and final. Indeed, there have been occasions when the law rightfully set out to change important and passionately held sentiments, and the law proved to be a web of iron.” One such occasion was the abrogation of the rights of owners of public accommodations to deny service to blacks, enacted in the civil rights legislation of the 1960s. The exercise of this right became “intolerably divisive” and therefore had to be abridged by congressional action.

The most admirable achievements of modem liberalism — desegregation, and the civil rights act — were explicit and successful attempts to change (among other things) individuals’ moral beliefs by compelling them to change their behavior. The theory was that if government compelled people to eat and work and study and play together, government would improve the inner lives of those people.

“Moral sentiment” does indeed change, but absolute moral values do not, and only if we believe that egalitarian values are superior to the rights of property can we accept the legislation Will is defending as legitimate. Nor it is clear that the civil rights revolution has really improved our inner lives or even changed our external conduct to any great degree, and if it has, the change has derived not only from government but also from social and nonpublic sanctions as well.

That “stateways” can make “folkways,” that coercive imposition by an apparatus of power can eventually alter patterns of thinking and conduct, is true. The Christian emperors of Rome after Constantine certainly did so, as did Henry VIII and his successors in the English Reformation. What the conservative wants to know, however, is by what authority a state undertakes such massive transformations and whether what is gained adequately compensates for the damage that is inevitably done. In the case of the suppression of paganism and its replacement by Christianity, Christian conservatives will have little doubt of the authority and ultimate value of the revolution. The processes by which the civil rights revolution was accomplished are more questionable. It is not clear that they have led or will lead to more justice and tolerance or to greater racial harmony. They certainly did damage to the Constitution by allowing the national legislative branch to ovemde state and local laws. They also damaged the political culture by popularizing and legitimizing the idea that every conceivable “minority” (women, sexual deviants, and all racial and ethnic groups) may use the federal government to satisfy its ambitions at the expense of local jurisdictions, the public treasury, and the social order. Nor is it clear on what authority Congress overrode traditional property rights to impose new rights. The exploitation of the national government to abrogate and create rights by which the ambitions and private dogmas of a faction may be satisfied is no less an instance of the degeneration of modernism than the abuse of government by the constituencies of the welfare state. The civil rights revolution and the welfare state are not, then, reactions against the tendencies of modernism as Will presents them, but rather their fulfillment.

Indeed, for all his expostulations in favor of the high-minded and aristocratic enforcement of virtue, Will repeatedly expresses his deference to the conventional and the popular. The rights of proprietors in 1964 “had become intolerably divisive,” so conservatism properly understood accepts the will of those who initiated the division. “An American majority was unusually aroused,” so authority must follow the majority. The welfare state is an idea whose time “has now come,” so conservatives must accept the idea and must not resist the times. “If conservatism is to engage itself with the way we live now,” it must adapt itself to current circumstances, and perish the thought that we might really change the way we live now by rejecting the legacies of liberalism, dismantling its power structure, and enforcing and protecting the real traditions of the West rather than indulging in Will’s elegant pretense that that is what he is doing and expressing open contempt for the only force in American politics that has ever seriously sought to do it.

Throughout Will’s articulation of what he takes to be conservatism there is an ambiguity or confusion between the respect for tradition and a given way of lie that animates genuine conservatives, on the one hand, and the desire to impose upon and “correct” tradition by acts of power, on the other.

The primary business of conservatism is preservation of the social order that has grown in all its richness — not preserving it lie a fly in amber, but protecting it especially from suffocation or dictated alteration by the state. However, the state has a central role to play. The preservation of a nation requires a certain minimum moral continuity, because a nation is not just “territory” or “physical locality.” A nation is people “associated in agreement with respect to justice.” And continuity cannot be counted on absent precautions.

Will says that “proper conservatism holds that men and women are biological facts, but that ladies and gentlemen fit for self-government are social artifacts, creations of the law.” Once again, his idea is unexceptionable, but there is no clarification of what the role of the state, government, and law might properly be. The state is certainly not the only agency that enforces morality, and while it is true that “ladies and gentlemen” are indeed social artifacts, it is untrue that they or many other social artifacts are “creations of the law.” Will is again correct that “the political question is always which elites shall rule, not whether elites shall rule,” but elites do not always rule by means of the formal apparatus of the state. They also hold and exercise power, provide leadership, enforce public morality, and inform culture through nongovernmental mechanisms in the community, in business, in patronage of the arts and education, and in personal example. Only in the managerial bureaucratic regimes of modernity have elites relied on the state for their power, and they have done so only because the roots of their power and leadership in society have been so shallow that they possess no other institutions of support.

That government has an important and legitimate role to play in enforcing public morality no serious conservative will doubt; but it is nevertheless a limited role and one that is performed mainly not by government but by the institutions of society. Will defines no clear limits either to how far government may go in enforcing moral improvement or how much man can be improved and on more than one occasion he appears to confuse the legitimate role of the state in protecting the moral order with a kind of environmentalist Pelagianism. Thus, he speaks of “the ancient belief in a connection between human perfectibility and the political order,” although few ancients, pagan or Christian, and no conservative of any time or faith ever believed in the perfectibility of man. By failing to clarify the limits and precise functions of the state in enforcing moral norms, Will fails to define classical conservatism adequately or to formulate a theoretical basis for distinguishing the legitimate and proper role of the state that conservatism justifies from the statism and social engineering of the Left.

Will’s embrace of the modern bureaucratic state as a proper means of encouraging “soulcraft” is neither realistic nor consistent with the classical conservatism he espouses. It is not realistic because the bureaucratic state of this century is predicated on and devoted to a continuing dynamic of moral and social deracination and cannot merely be adjusted to protect and sustain the moral and social order. It is inconsistent with classical conservatism because classical conservatism flourished in and upheld an aristocratic and limited state that operated on predicates completely different from those of its bloated, abused, alien, suffocating, and often ineffective modern descendent — “bureaucracy tempered by incompetence,” as Evelyn Waugh described modern government. Will’s ideology is consistent, however, with the agenda of liberalism and the structures that cany out its agenda, and his self-professed aim “to recast conservatism in a form compatible with the broad popular imperatives of the day” is in fact an admission of his acceptance of and deference to the liberal idols that modem statecraft adores.

Although Will is sometimes called a “neo-conservative,” he is not one. Neoconservatives typically derive more or less conservative policy positions from essentially liberal premises. Will in fact does the opposite: he derives from more or less unexceptionable premises of classical conservatism policy positions that are often congruent with the current liberal agenda. It is because he accepts, and wants to be accepted by, the “achievements” of modern liberalism that he ignores or sneers at the serious conservative thinkers and leaders of our time who have sought to break liberal idols and that he voices no criticism of the powers that support liberalism. It is therefore not surprising that his commentary is welcomed in and rewarded by liberal power centers. They have little to fear from him and his ideas and much to gain if his version of “conservatism” should gain currency. He enjoys every prospect of a bright future in their company.

(1)Statecraft as Soulcraft: What Government Does, by George F. Will, New York Simon and Schuster, 1983. 186 pp. $13.95.

No Comments on The Case of George Will

The Priests of Weakness

An attempt to encourage reporters to be more fair-minded and accurate when it comes to guns has led to one of the more startling admissions from a journalist. Rachael Larimore, a token Republican at Slate of the Rick Wilson variety, urged journalists to become familiar with firearms and conduct interviews with gun owners which don’t come off like an anthropologist studying the bizarre customs of some isolated tribe. 

An attempt to encourage reporters to be more fair-minded and accurate when it comes to guns has led to one of the more startling admissions from a journalist. Rachael Larimore, a token Republican at Slate of the Rick Wilson variety, urged journalists to become familiar with firearms and conduct interviews with gun owners which don’t come off like an anthropologist studying the bizarre customs of some isolated tribe.

She wrote:

The mainstream media lobbies hard for gun control, but it is very, very bad at gun journalism. It might be impossible ever to bridge the divide between the gun-control and gun-rights movements. But it’s impossible to start a dialogue when you don’t know what the hell you are talking about…

If the media wants to work toward actual solutions for gun violence, to do right by the people who are senselessly murdered, they need more than righteous indignation. They need to be better informed and more willing to engage honestly with their opponents.

Many of the comments interpreted her position as an “apology” for gun owners. To admit gun owners even have a position and a rational basis for their beliefs is too much. A Muslim terrorist is inspired by “root causes” which have nothing to do with his religion and must be understood. There’s nothing to understand about White American gun owners. They are simply to be disarmed and crushed.

Yet Larimore’s advice is actually more revealing than the usual inchoate rage emitting from progressives.

First is the characterization of the media as political actors who already have “actual solutions” in mind and “lobby” for them.

Second is the implicit admission that to “bridge a divide” or “start a dialogue” means to facilitate a left wing advance on a particular issue. (Why can’t we “bridge the divide” by having gun control proponents leave us gun owners alone?)

Finally, there is the blunt admission that gun owning Americans are simply “opponents” of journalists.

As Paultown might say, “What did she mean by this?”

She could have meant it simply as analysis. Alternatively, she might be doing the traditional cuckservative job of helping leftists achieve their goals by perpetuating the illusion right wingers should engage them in good faith.

In the end, it doesn’t really matter. As she implicitly admits, reporters and commentators are simply political activists. Talking to one or expecting fair treatment from a reporter is as foolish as welcoming “antifa” into a meetup and then being surprised when they try to hurt the people inside. They aren’t open to being convinced and they aren’t there to observe the facts. “Journalism” is simply a political tactic, no different than street protests. And if reporters were less clumsy in their agitprop, they would be even more effective.

Though she didn’t make the comparison, contemporary reporting on guns is similar to much of the reporting on immigration. The leftists have slogans and an aggressive sense of moral self-righteousness but they don’t really know what they are talking about when it comes to specifics. It’s the restrictionists who can tell you whether E-Verify works, the relevant statutes, or what powers the President of the United States actually has to ban the entry of undesirable foreigners. However, in the eyes of the media, this knowledge is somehow damning. Just as it’s somehow dangerous and weird to know the specifics of the AR-15, it’s immoral to know anything about immigration other than a vague belief that national borders should be abolished.

If journalists listened to Larimore, they would be more effective. But her analysis will go unheeded. The lying press cannot conceal the rage and hatred it feels toward European-Americans or the contempt it has for dissidents on issues like guns, immigration, and sovereignty.

The 2016 election is not Donald Trump versus Hillary Clinton. It’s Trump supporters versus the media. And one of the many benefits of the 2016 campaign has been the exposure of the press as hostile enemies. Trump has thrown down the gauntlet to the lying press, calling them “scum” and “dishonest.” In return, journalists have abandoned even the pretense of objectivity, conspiring openly against Trump and his voters.

There is no greater enemy to freedom of speech than contemporary journalists. Far from serving as a check on power and conduit of information, journalists deliberately protect our rulers from criticism, hunt down dissidents, and misinform us. We see the consequences in the constant threat of violence directed against European-Americans as the media constantly incites hatred against us, usually on the basis of hoaxes.

The media complex directed against us offers snark in lieu of information. And snark is, after all, simply an expression of perceived status. The purpose of the profession is to prevent the audience from finding out the truth about issues like race, crime, and terrorism. It’s no coincidence the most effective leftist thought leaders (and the figures endlessly signal boosted by journalists) are “comedians” such as Samantha Bee, John Oliver, or Seth Meyers. Indeed, progressives now beg these figures to “save them” from Trump and what he represents. Such figures can emote and snark at us, then put on the clown nose if someone challenges them. They can’t argue with the Alt Right because they’ve already determined engaging with us is automatically illegitimate.

Much of the media’s hatred has an ethnic motivation, as we’ve seen with the reaction to the “echo” meme. The spectacle of NPR hosts solemnly declaring parentheses around people’s names as “a modern day burning cross” speaks to a profound sickness, a shrieking chaos concealed within the ostensible thought leaders of our media-saturated society.

Jew or Gentile, those who thought they were untouchable and unaccountable find themselves on the receiving end of the Alt-Right’s own Callout Culture. Many of these content generators make less than the European-American truck drivers, plumbers, or construction workers they hold in contempt. Yet they are reacting to even this harmless online name-calling with the rage of medieval German princes receiving news their peasants are in revolt.

The media’s reaction to Orlando encapsulated this hatred, as a terrorist attack on Americans was followed by frantic calls to disarm and punish Americans. For all intents and purposes, ISIS and the press are on the same side.

But there’s a logic to it. The United States is under threat from terrorists motivated by a “caliphate” enabled by our government’s foreign policy, and carried out by hostile Muslims frantically imported by the feds at our expense. One member of this leftist client group then turned its guns on homosexuals, another leftist client group, showing the contradictions inherent within the Coalition of the Oppressed. And Donald Trump is now making it clear he wants to split that coalition.

The only way to keep the show going is to double down on anti-White hatred, the binding agent for the entire progressive project. What else can they do?

There’s also something deeper. The weaker, more pathetic, and more cowardly Americans become, the more the media’s power grows. Guns allow Americans, especially Whites, to exist outside the managerial state’s system of control. Therefore, they must be taken away.

Consider one Gersh Kuntzman, who was recently “terrified” when he fired an AR-15. In most cases, taking someone to the range creates a lifelong passion for firearms. But Kuntzman said it made him literally ill:

I’ve shot pistols before, but never something like an AR-15. Squeeze lightly on the trigger and the resulting explosion of firepower is humbling and deafening (even with ear protection.)

The recoil bruised my shoulder, which can happen if you don’t know what you’re doing. The brass shell casings disoriented me as they flew past my face. The smell of sulfur and destruction made me sick. The explosions – loud like a bomb – gave me a temporary form of PTSD. For at least an hour after firing the gun just a few times, I was anxious and irritable.

Kuntzman was, quite appropriately, shamed for this. Yet much like some cuckservatives tried to claim the “cuck” label for themselves, Kuntzman actually bragged about his weakness. To bring it all full circle, he wrote:

I wear it as a point of personal pride that conservative darling Erick Erickson posted a story on The Resurgent with the headline, “My 10 Year Old Daughter Is Tougher Than Gersh Kuntzman, Author of the Stupidest Thing on the Internet Today.”

That right goys, this guy was essentially called a low T pussy by none other than Erick Erickson.

Kuntzman says: “This weapon scared the crap out of me… An AR-15 is a weapon of mass destruction, a tool that should only be in the hands of our soldiers and cops… I don’t think that there’s anything unmanly about pointing out this fact.”

It makes me weary to remind a supposed writer that his whining about the need to disarm Americans isn’t a “fact,” but just his opinion. A “fact” is something that is objectively true regardless of the biases of the author, like racial differences in IQ or the disproportionally high crime rate of blacks.

Of course, to put on the bow-tie for a moment, one has to bring up the invisible gun in the room. Violence is Golden. What Kuntzman wants is men with guns to use force to take guns away from other men whom he doesn’t like. Traditionally, in Germanic societies, all free men who could bear arms had a voice in the state. Now, it is precisely those who have nothing to contribute, who are actually incapable of using force, who claim the right to direct power and violence against their enemies.

But even though Kuntzman is an idiot as well as a weakling, his point here is important. The power of the press lies in its ability to construct the Narrative and promote a certain vision of morality. Few religions, oaths, or bonds of friendship or loyalty can stand in the way of a determined media offensive. But this power is dependent on the moral weakness of the population. It’s dependent on people believing that they are incapable of protecting themselves, uncomfortable with upholding their own identity, and unwilling to sacrifice their “reputation” in the eyes of people who hate them anyway.

One of the best things about the Alt Right is the aesthetic of strength and achievement. Conservatives have often been mocked (accurately) as “too cowardly to fight, too fat to run.” In contrast, the Alt Right, broadly speaking, talks about the need to lift, train, and become prosperous. Some people are even looking to Trump as a kind of self-help guru. It’s important because a worldview shouldn’t be something that is simply abstract or that exists online but something you actually live out.

But there’s a drawback. In a media-dominated culture, achievement is actually a vulnerability. Strength is a weakness. However tough and independent you think you are, even if you can deadlift 600 pounds and have your jujitsu brown belt, if your livelihood and social life are dependent on the opinion of your transgender human resources director, you’re xir bitch.

Kuntzman’s braggadocio about being a weakling actually increases his power. Though he is holding The Microphone, Kuntzman is declaring he is under threat from uppity Whites with guns and for his safety and security, we must be disarmed. If Kuntzman had actually enjoyed firing the gun and become comfortable with it, his political power would have decreased. He would have less of an ability to enforce his will on us.

In a “victimhood” culture like ours, power comes from the ability to claim oppressed status and successfully demand the resources of others as compensation. Strong, accomplished men are easily destroyed if the fall under the Eye of Sauron that is the media. Other “elite” figures can get away with it.

Ultimately, it is the journalists and the reporters who serve as the clergy in this new creed of decay, the Priests of Weakness who determine who is to be spared and who is to be hunted down and sacrificed. More importantly, they, in partnership with their antifa allies (or really, co-workers), are the ones who seek out those who are trying to build an alternative to the status quo and work to actively destroy them.

In the end, the shriveled creatures produced by post-modernity aren’t even people with identities or values of their own. They are simply content to be farmed on social networking, their views, friendships, and values utterly dependent on whatever is spat out by an algorithm. The reporters are the enforcers, weakness is the aim. In the end, we are to be reduced to simple products.

The battle to save our race isn’t just about building a future for ourselves and our posterity. It’s to prove that we are, in fact, human. That we have a real identity and an existence worth fighting for, that we’re something more than another account on Netflix. That we will resist the collective downgoing of our entire species. It’s a refusal to become The Last Man, to Start the World and undo the End of History.

No Comments on The Priests of Weakness

Euro 2016:Analysis and hope for a “Bleu” defeat

Today, we are saturated with the Euro, vintage 2016. Formerly known as the “European Cup of Nations”, a name abandoned as it is now the 3rd international sporting event (based on spectators and turnover) after the Olympic Games and the World Cup.

Editor’s Note: This article first appeared on Guillaume Faye’s blig “J’AI TOUT COMPRIS” here, translated by Hannibal Bateman.

Today, we are saturated with the Euro, vintage 2016. Formerly known as the “European Cup of Nations”, a name abandoned as it is now the 3rd international sporting event (based on spectators and turnover) after the Olympic Games and the World Cup.

France is trying to forget reality with this tournament, trying to escape its problems like an ostrich buried in the spectacle of a fake sport plagued by filthy lucre. The rhythm of strikes and the threat of Islamist terrorism being the true national sports. Football has become a collective drug and a place for bizarre arrangements: Qatar, an Islamist, dictatorial, monarchical and pro-slavery state, effectively has the main French club and enjoys a free ride for all of its investments in France, the pretentious “country of human rights”…

A Predominately African Team

Of the 23 players selected(active and reserve) by Didier Deschamps(who has been accused of racism by Eric Cantona and Jamel Debbouze for daring to not select the thug Karim Benzema) in the French team, there were 10 Whites(Blancs), 11 Blacks with three born in Africa, one Arab(Beur) born in France and one mestizo born in Reunion. Therefore, the French team is comprised of a White minority. This fact is even more pronounced seeing the team actually on the field. Watching the team play in France, viewers from around the world say: “France is no longer predominately of European origin”.

The message from this selection is very clear; François Hollande reiterated that the football team represented the nation: “You are France,” De Gaulle, who confided to Alain Peyrefitte that France was a White country and should remain so, must be turning over in his grave. The French football team is predominately non-French and non-European in origin. In any other country of the world, this would seem absurd.

France is the only European country in which this is the case. One must assume it is done voluntarily to launch an ideological message (the French football team must be emblematic of the new ethnic France, that is to say, déblanchie), which would be an anti-White approach, or the team is just not popular enough to recruit young French-born footballers as candidates. Both explanations may intersect. The argument that blacks are better footballers than others(as they are the best sprinters) does not hold as no African country(100% black) performs well internationally, quite the contrary.

Recovery of Football by Politicians and Power

Like Chirac before him, Hollande is fully participating in football and the struggles of Euro2016. He hopes that if the French team is successful it will yield electoral benefits in 2017 like it did in 1998 when France won the World Cup over Brazil. An incredible victory…it was the time when the “Black-White-Arab” Zidane prevailed, for ideological reasons. Wicked tounges have suggested that the game was rigged-common practice in football-for the French team. It shouldn’t be discounted that similar match tricks are underway to make the French team win Euro2016. Bernard Tapie is a master teacher of this discipline(1). In any case, if the French team wins, then it is very likely we should ask questions.

Dining with the “Bleus” on June 5, Mr. Holland explained: “The country can be happy with you while we live with difficulties […] Our countrymen want to be happy and proud with you. We must give them what they expect from you, a collective spirit, a will to win together”. We recognize this in context as the official dogma of “vivre ensemble” a ridiculous and inefficient one at that.

In the opening match against Romania, the President of the Republic was present, covered with a huge supporters’ scarf. Grotesque. A real clown, insensitive to his own absurdity. What would this little politician not try to do to snatch votes?

Football as Hollow Liturgy

The sad reality is that the world of football-international and French in particular-is plagued by widespread corruption, doping, mafia practices, sex offenses, financial traffic, delusional enrichments, and match fixing. Recent cases (Platini, Benzema, etc.) are only the small tip of the iceberg of the most rotten sport on the planet.

It is disastrous to present as role models for our “youth” millionaire footballers, who are illiterate poseurs and often criminals. It is unworthy of the salaries given to its top managers, who are still entrepreneurs and employers, but not all of them, and of the often higher salaries of the footballers.

The stars of football, who “behave like scoundrels while creating the ecstasy of the crowd in the words of Chantal Delsol, are mercenaries, often illiterate, sometimes rogue, and always motivated by financial greed. Their transformation by Mr. Hollande into representatives of French patriotism and symbols of France is lamentable.

With all of this footballing, mass insignificance becomes the central issue. The polemicist Anthony Palou (Le Figaro 08/06/2016) takes up the classical idea of “football as the opium of the people”, writes: “We have nothing against football, rather against the stupidity that emerges […] what we have against a sick society, a society which lives only by the ball, a completely infantile society” . It’s the pretext for a low-end chauvinism, the opposite of real patriotism or nationalism, football is also the realm of “crazy money” and the political demagoguery: “ras-le-ball these ridiculous politicians and not a few professionals who are constantly spending their time watching TV or at the Stade de France

Without forgetting hooliganism and the ultraviolent support football amplifies, in any of its aspects football is not friendly. Chantal Delsol, on the great mass that is the Euro and football, in general, uses this phrase: “Hollow liturgy”.

The lie of Happy Diversity represented by the “Bleus”

The French team is not French society. The “Bleus”(a very dark blue at that) have become a derisive symbol of national identity. We’ve been trying for some time-the ideology of Black,Blanc,Beur-to present this multiracial team as a successful example of plurality and coexistence in a company under the obligation to diversify and to déblanchir.

The official rhetoric(hollowly racist as any “racism”) says it is this (ethnoracial) diversity which gives dynamism to the French team and is, therefore, also an advantage, it’s an opportunity for a new France. These two assumptions are false. The French team was performing better in the rankings when it was ethnically homogenous, or European. the best teams in the world(in all sports) are mono-ethnic. Yves Kendrel recalls that in 1970 “football was a sport where real athletes competed and not uneducated urchins stuffed with millions of euros and unable to sing La Marseillaise” ( Actual Values , 9-17 / 06 / 2016). The “Bleus” for several years were poor and shaken by scandal. The French company, in turn, became multiracial and multicultural and is in deep crisis. The famous “vivre ensemble” is a sinister utopia, a tragic farce. Which was predictable as an ethnically heterogeneous society is an univable term.

This hides a terrible situation, a heavy truth, that imposes the lie of “happy diversity”, the propaganda of the state and the dominant media orchestrates huge hype about the French team and Euro 2016. The ideological issue of a “Bleu” victory is huge. They will be tempted to do anything to win…

The Bleus, False Heros, and Dummy Models

The state authorities, including the President of the Republic, devalue themselves by deifying this “team of France” a bunch of doped athletes, with chicken IQs, paid like moguls. Here are the “Bleus” as the supreme symbol of France it’s insulting and degrading. We give them as a symbol, while we neglect the true French elites which, unfortunately, are exiled researchers, inventors, entrepreneurs, talented artists, etc. often ignored by the media, who are much more attracted to footballers and rappers.

At least the gladiators and charioteers of the same Circus Games in the Roman Empire were risking their lives every descent into the arena!

President Hollande, visiting the Clairefontaine training center of the team, in a ridiculous pomposity, exclaimed: “You are France, France!” This compares the national football team of France to France itself. Making them such models is obsessive and miserable. Mr. Hollande obviously meant that France has, like its team, “diversified” that is to say “Africanized”. There it is, the obsession to end France.

Ivan Rioufol, who addresses current football as “rotten sports, money and idiocy” and deplored “the crowd anesthetized by this new opium” wrote: “I’ve come to accept that professional football, corrupt to the bone, alone is capable of uniting the citizens with all the exploded ills of France […] Watch the helpless government fall into the arms of a high adulterated soccer elevated to cult status, makes a pathetic situation”(Le Figaro, 10/06/2016).

This alienation reached Le Monde, the official newspaper of the dominant ideology and oligarchy, which devoted two pages(!) on June 8th to the player Zlatan Ibrahimovic, a perfect narcissistic moron spouting nonsense, who compared the strength and health of a country to its football team (a team of millionaires who, in addition, don’t reflect its identity) it’s deeply perverse. For it is an attempt to siphon real French patriotism into a degenerate chauvinism that makes mercenaries heroes.

Wish the best for our country: That the French football team, the “Bleus” is eliminated and a truly national European team wins.

(1) Rig a match by paying athletes to play badly and let score goals to the opponent, a common practice in football. The reasons for this is multiple political and/or related to Paris. Players accomplices of the defeat of their team are highly paid. This practice was common in Roman times for chariot races. 

No Comments on Euro 2016:Analysis and hope for a “Bleu” defeat

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