Radix Journal

Radix Journal

A radical journal

Tag: Libertarianism

UKIP and the Sailer Strategy

The UK Independence Party has stolen the show, and the polls leading up to the upcoming May 22nd European Elections in their country – much to the shock and dismay of the rest of the rainy isle’s political establishment.

There’s anarchy in the UK and you can’t blame street-class punks for the ruckus. Instead, it’s a bunch of older guys decked out in the unintimidating colors of purple and yellow wrecking havoc in Great Britain.

The UK Independence Party has stolen the show, and the polls leading up to the upcoming May 22nd European Elections – much to the shock and dismay of the rest of the rainy isle’s political establishment.

But what about this party is attracting so many disaffected voters and angering so many of their political colleagues? The answer is that they are for restricting immigration – which is an item much desired by the British people but is repulsive to British elites.

This phenomenon is not limited to the UK as right-wing parties all over Europe have made significant strides in recent years and are set to make even larger gains in the upcoming EU elections. But UKIP being situated in our paternal land of the British Isles is a case that calls for further analysis and a comparison with the political climate in America. In particular, what does UKIP have to say about the much vaunted Sailer Strategy and is their operation an item for us to emulate?

UKIP was created in the early 90s as a single-issue organization dedicated to opposing the EU. Unlike the British National Party, they weren’t ethno-nationalists cleaning up their image to appeal to voters—they were solely concerned with the apparent threat of European integration for libertarian reasons.

They’ve remained a marginal party for the majority of their twenty years of existence, until the recent collapse of the BNP and the emergence of Nigel Farage as the face of UKIP in recent years.

Farage, as a documentary produced by the BBC reveals, is UKIP in human form. Hailing from a middle-class background and with work experience in the London financial trade market, Farage does not cut the figure of the average nationalist politician. And he isn’t. He’s a libertarian who’s political philosophy was formed by John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty and is mainly concerned with restoring the UK to the status it enjoyed under the leadership of Margaret Thatcher.

If you watch this documentary, you would take Farage to be the British version of Rand Paul, add in more charisma and a perennial pint in his hand. He never talks about the declining culture in Europe or how it its native people are threatened by modernism and rapidly shifting demographics. The documentary primarily covers him discussing the “tyrannical” regulations and bureaucracy that has been created by the EU and how it hurts entrepreneurship and the free exchange of goods.

All of these items are the same topics that are continually rattled on by the Republican Party in the United States to the avoidance of issues that actually matter for the long-term survival of the White race. The difference between Farage and the average GOP politician is that he is strongly in favor of restricting immigration and understands that it has had an enormously negative effect on his native land.

This is where the BBC documentary veers from its cheery coverage of Farage and takes a derisive tone towards this particular stance. Every journalist that was previously singing the praises of Farage denounce his stance on immigration and claim it makes no sense if you believe in libertarian principles such as the free exchange of goods. While the documentary depicts this as an unavoidable blemish on UKIP’s platform, it is actually one of the primary causes for their success and why the party has managed to steal blue collar votes away from the Labour Party.

The commentators interviewed for the documentary and the producers behind it have no problem giving preferential treatment to Farage’s libertarian side, but they have zero tolerance for any attitudes that might be critical of the United Kingdom becoming an island of forced multiculturalism. That’s because libertarianism is not a threat to the System, while playing with White interest politics is.

It is clear that UKIP is in no way run or even composed of serious ethno-nationalists and this documentary concedes that.
Rather, the system is concerned that too much of UKIP’s success is derived from the same troth that every party of the right (whether center-right or far-right) has to appeal to in order to do well in elections. That is white angst, and the concern is that UKIP might actually try to implement the demands of this frustration rather than misdirect it towards ends that matter little to the actual interests of White people.

White angst is the dirty secret to conservative politics in the Anglosphere. Politicians and strategists understand that Whites are feeling the crunch of rapidly changing demographics and diminishing economic prospects and exploit it as much as possible for political gain. The Republican Party certainly exploits it, and so do the Tories. The problem is that they don’t actually try to solve the problems that are causing White angst. They just target it at frivolous issues like the capital gains tax and the all-encompassing power of teachers’ unions.

Which makes UKIP somewhat of an insurrection against the political establishment and has drawn comparisons between it and America’s Tea Party phenomenon. Both groups share several similarities and appeal to similar demographics. They’re both dependent on older, middle-class voters who are worried by mass immigration and feel that they have lost their respective countries. They spout off about the political status quo and continually use language that renders the impression that both movements want to take back their countries from powers that have wrestled control away from the proverbial people. For UKIP, that power is the EU. For the Tea Party, it’s the democratically-elected Obama administration (which will be out of office in two years, but don’t get hung up on facts like that).

UKIP also shares the unfortunate tendency to respond to accusations of racism by digging up every non-White supporter they have and giving them a press conference. This tactic, like in the States, doesn’t work in the British Isles.

But there is one substantial difference that makes the two groups different beasts—UKIP actually wants to resolve some of the causes of White angst. The Tea Party, as Richard Spencer has noted and like the party it has become linked to, turns white angst into fights about defunding Obamacare and eliminating Common Core standards in education. Immigration is a secondary issue and when it comes to debating the topic, the only opposition tolerated is towards illegal immigration–not immigration in general.

UKIP on the other hand has made anti-immigration a primary part of their political platform and seems intent on implementing some impediments to the flow of mass migration. The Tea Party seems content to remain a massive scam operation that sucks money out of retired citizens who think their donations go towards winning back America.

This is why UKIP has become the darling in the eyes of many who dream that one day the GOP will wake up and actually begin to fight for White interests. VDARE and others see the success of UKIP and Front National and say “This is what we need to do in America.” They see their gains as the Sailer Strategy in motion and double down on their belief that this is all that takes for America to become a White country again.

But this is a hopeful delusion as UKIP is not a phenomenon that we can emulate in America, nor does their platform fully restore Whites to their rightful place as the masters of their own destiny.

For those who don’t know what the Sailer Strategy is, here’s an outline of the idea that is promoted by Steve Sailer and others on the paleo-right. Essentially, it argues for the GOP to solely pander to Whites and correlates with his ideology of “citizenism.” Citizenism is a not explicitly racial political alignment that merely calls for the GOP to focus on the interests of the citizens who already live here rather than those outside of the country. Sailer engaged in a debate with Jared Taylor on the topic of his ideology versus White Nationalism and it forms the bedrock for the form of American nationalism preached by Peter Brimelow and VDARE.

While it is notable that UKIP is actually keen on implementing policies that would temporarily halt the flow of non-Whites to their country (and this is a good thing), it is not enough to reverse the tide of degeneration that’s sweeping through Europe. Besides, their political focus is not of an ethno-nationalist bent and they would be content if the UK simply returned to the Thatcher-era. All they want is an efficient economy where they can attain more comfort and live their lives without so many immigrants.

Even if they eliminated immigration entirely, the UK would still retain the same values that ruined it in the first place and the cult of profit would not be diminished in the slightest. Thus, the UK would very likely end up in the same predicament that it is in now.

That’s not to say their efforts to reduce immigration aren’t beneficial and if you are a British citizen, you shouldn’t withhold your vote from the party because they aren’t doing enough metapolitical activity. But we should be realistic about what a UKIP victory would accomplish and not pedestal their organization as the one we should all replicate.

Their method of using the political process to further their goals can also not be replicated in the US for the time being. VDARE seems eager for America to have its own USIP and how this third party or outside pressure group on the GOP would finally restore the historic American nation.
The only way you can believe this is if you have a naive view of the American political process. There are some major differences between America’s electoral process and Britain’s. For one, Britain restricts the amount of fundraising a party can amass and publicly funds opposition parties like UKIP to pay off their administrative costs. Meanwhile, America allows for unlimited campaign fundraising and any limits to campaign financing keep getting knocked down by the Supreme Court. This has led to the Republican Party (and the Democractic Party as well) to become a handmaiden of a small donor class that dominates its policy decisions and controls the party’s structures.

Some point to the Tea Party’s development as a sign that the power of this donor class is not as all powerful as it has been portrayed, but those same people overlook the fact that the Tea Party is largely an “Astroturf” movement and is never directed against issues relating to long-term White interests. Furthermore, the donor class that supports the Tea Party and “insurgent” conservative politics are only marginally different from the establishment GOP and the majority of them support open borders and recoil from the thought that America should be kept White.

These donors have immense power since money drives the political process in the United States. To run a competitive Congressional race, a candidate would have to amass at least a million dollars, if not more, to have a chance of winning. Our movement unfortunately does not have the money to spend on a campaign like that and we cannot afford to waste our precious time, resources, and the few people willing to involve themselves in our cause in efforts such as campaign politics.

Even the watered-down rhetoric we would employ in a “citizenist” campaign is not tolerable to the Republican Party and the figures that VDARE has latched onto as potential saviors of the republic (such as Jeff Sessions) argue against immigration for exclusively economic reasons—not because it threatens the so-called historic American nation. Even if you ran a campaign that only used code words such as the historic American nation, “Treason Lobby,” and “minority-occupation government” (MOG) the GOP’s donors would hurriedly rush to whatever district you were running in, pour millions of dollars to defeat your campaign, and pressure every single figure in the party to denounce you.

It is also disingenuous to lie to ourselves into believing that we can take America back. No, we can’t take America back nor should we attempt it. America is dying and trends such as rampant illegal immigration further balkanize Americans along racial lines (which is a good thing). In a citizenist campaign, we would be forced to denounce any type of racialized thinking and give lip service to Christian fundamentalism if we would have any hope of fending off the attacks of the donor class and attracting the base. Those are items that are a bridge too far for us and it would only alienate a significant portion of the people who are interested in our cause for the right reasons.

The formula for UKIP’s success is they actually believe the bullshit they preach about wanting a normal liberal democracy with less immigrants living off welfare. That is not what we want and is incredibly foolish to demand that Identitarians stop promoting our own ideology and instead, advocate a non-racial political agenda that none of us actually believe in. It is one thing for the Freedom Party in Austria and Front National to moderate their nationalism, actually attain power, and see results of their dediabolization, which also doesn’t call for them to act like idiotic, bible-thumping patriotards. It is quite another for us to do the same, achieve little success, and end up acting like and being labeled idiotic, bible-thumping patriotards. I’d rather be smeared as a Neo-Nazi.

The success of UKIP and other right-wing populist parties in Western Europe is a positive sign for our people and the policies they want to implement would alleviate the non-White swamping of our ancestral lands. But if we want to preserve White identity, we have to do more than win elections—we have to offer a metapolitical view of the world that counteracts the liberal mindset that dominates our people and guides our philosophy once we grasp power.

And in America, it is pointless for us to see their success and try to emulate their tactics over here. America is a different place with a completely different set of circumstances. We should not waste our money and resources on fruitless electoral politics. We should focus our energies on developing ideas, culture, and groups that present an alternative view of the world and create a sense of community for those who share our beliefs. With that strategy, we can create the root for our renewal and develop the resources and manpower to take on larger projects, such as electoral politics, when the time is right.

Until that time, we can only cheer on the developments in Europe and carry on with our metapolitical endeavors.

No Comments on UKIP and the Sailer Strategy

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

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

 

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

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

Mr. Millman says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mencken wrote in his Notes on Democracy:

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

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

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

No Comments on Is H.H. Hoppe’s Idea Of Monarchy Spreading?

The New Libertarian Hegemony

For the past 20 years, non-aligned rightists in America—paleoconservatives, paleolibertarians, traditionalists, nationalists, et al.—have focused on the malevolent and all-powerful *neoconservatives* as their chief enemy. (And for good reason.) Readers of noted publications and websites have been treated to long chronicles of how the neocons undermined the “Real Right” in America. As we await a fresh recounting of the time Harry Jaffa scuttled Mel Bradford’s nomination to the National Endowment for the Humanities, I must point out that this familiar narrative is quickly becoming outmoded. The neocons no longer control the movement operationally or ideologically. In fact, they’ve largely been displaced by libertarians, who, in their way, are even worse than the neocons (yes, worse.)

For the past 20 years, non-aligned rightists in America—paleoconservatives, paleolibertarians, traditionalists, nationalists, et al.—have focused on the malevolent and all-powerful neoconservatives as their chief enemy. (And for good reason.) Readers of noted publications and websites have been treated to long chronicles of how the neocons undermined the “Real Right” in America.

As we await a fresh recounting of the time Harry Jaffa scuttled Mel Bradford’s nomination as chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, I’m forced to point out that this familiar narrative is quickly becoming outmoded. The neocons no longer control the movement operationally or ideologically. In fact, they’ve largely been displaced by libertarians, who, in their way, are even worse than the neocons (yes, worse).

Put simply, the Dubya Era is over. Enthusiasm for foreign interventions to bring democracy to Third World nations has dried up among the GOP rank and file. Moreover, the desire for a strong state apparatus and the willingness to compromise with the welfare state is the complete opposite of what the conservative movement now advocates. The proposed intervention in Syria failed to get off to the ground largely due to Republican opposition, and many conservative legislators are now actually intent on eliminating some government programs (rather than just talking about it to get reelected).

So how is this a bad thing?

Besides the opposition to needless foreign intervention, the conservative movement is now more thoroughly libertarian than when it was a hodgepodge of neocons, paleocons, libertarians, and other political misfits. There’s no room for dissident thought, and the movement has become an unwelcome place for those who think differently about race and the future of America. And in a way, the libertarians’ ideology is far more removed from what identitarians believe than that of the neocons.

And libertarian power in Washington is growing with each passing day.

Edward Luce, a columnist for The Financial Times, sympathetically declared that “[t]he tide is rising for America’s Libertarians.” According to data provided by the Cato Institute, more than a third of Republicans now identify as libertarian, and almost a quarter of all Americans do.

Is this all because libertarians assure Whites that America will not turn into the hellish world of Elysium? Is it because libertarians promise to keep jobs here domestically and curtail immigration? Is it because libertarians craft policies that actually serve the interests of Middle America (unlike the two dominant parties)?

Sorry to burst to your bubble, but it’s none of the above. To Luce, it’s because they strike at authority like no other ideology does at the moment. In truth, the authority that libertarians oppose is not really state power so much as the power of tradition.

Gay marriage does not increase freedom, it only increases the control the state has over relationships. Legalized hemp does not hurt the state, it raises more revenue for it and offers the masses yet another distraction from reality. No serious figure actually wants to eliminate free trade, but removing the few restrictions on it only increases the disenfranchisement of White America and leads to more dependence on the state as jobs disappear.

Do you believe that libertarians actually care about issues affecting White interests? Do you think that Ron and Rand Paul are secret White nationalists?

To be frank, the Pauls and the libertarians would rather accumulate Bitcoins and promote enterprise zones in Detroit ghettos than preserve their people. Who knows what Rand and Ron really think, but effectively they have the same views on race as your average Sociology professor.

Don’t believe me? Look at the policies that a prominent libertarian thinks “the Liberty movement” should focus on in 2014: Drug Legalization, Gay Marriage, Economic Choice, and Bitcoin. (Yes, these are the issues libertarians really care about.)

“Economic choice” that allows for more instant gratification, legalized weed that allows for more instant gratification, and gay marriage that allows for . . . well, delayed gratification, I suppose. Judging by this list, Libertarians are shouting “Bring Us the Last Man!” at the top of their lungs.

At least the neocons had some sense of a higher ideal and celebrated the warrior spirit (if only for Zionists). Instead, libertarians just want to make sure you can vegetate on your couch without fearing that “the feds” might ruin your good time. Ain’t that America?

Again, the great irony of this “libertarian” program is that its policies attack tradition much more than the state. Libertarians are no longer paleolibertarians; indeed, the paleolibertarians are no longer paleolibertarians. Lew Rockwell, the man who probably penned the Ron Paul Newsletters and published Jared Taylor on his website, now publishes shrill screeds about rising fascism. (Taylor has beeb scrubbed from LRC’s archive, so Lew can better refashion his image as a Catholic universalist.)

Ann Coulter was somewhat correct when she dubbed libertarians “pussies.” Instead of focusing on issues that matter to White Americans, like employment discrimination laws, they continue to focus on pot legalization. But, in a way, libertarians aren’t pussies; I believe that they focus on these issues precisely because they care more about attaining freedom from tradition and cultural mores than almost anything else. They really don’t care about employment discrimination laws—in fact, some libertarians think that one of the few responsibilities of the state is eliminating racism.

Even when you might hope that the libertarian love for freedom would lead them to allow discourse on racial topics, they, once again, manage to beat expectations! Alexander McCobin, the President of a large and well-funded libertarian group known as Students for Liberty, responded to Coulter’s “pussies” accusation by essentially reaffirming the label. He even included a helpful guide for conservative movement groupthink:

We know what’s up for debate, and so we also know what’s not. The justifications for and limits on intellectual property? Up for debate. Racism? Not up for debate. Deciding which government agencies should be abolished, privatized, reformed, or maintained? Up for debate. State-sponsored discrimination against individuals based on their sexuality? Not up for debate. Austrian versus Chicago economics and their responses to Keynesianism? Up for debate. Ann’s claim that liberals are out to destroy the family? That’s so clearly absurd that it’s in stand-up comedy territory.

So the next time you want to talk about the future of Occidental civilization with libertarians, please try to relate it to the causes of the business cycle.

It’s worth noting that McCobin’s group is currently engaged in promoting liberty in Africa by giving away the books of Frederic Bastiat and Milton Friedman. Maybe this will convince Somalis that they are actually living in a limited-government utopia! (Even David Frum, who in 2004 co-authored a book entitled “An End to Evil,” sounds more grounded in reality than your average DC libertarian.)

As we’ve seen, the neocons’ policies in the 2000s led to the creation of a small, though passionate, opposition within the Right; and the enemy-of-my-enemy mentality that prevailed allowed for a certain openness to radical ideas. It’s worth noting that Richard Spencer worked within the movement during the Bush era, and The American Conservative regularly published Steve Sailer.

But the libertarians seem to be the only group that has actually benefited from these years of opposition. And the examples of Jack Hunter and Jason Richwine illustrate this point.

Hunter, as it has been well documented, used to be quite open about his views on race and immigration. He was a columnist (under Spencer) at TakiMag, and there was no hint of political correctness about him.

In an emasculating and widely mocked confession in Politico, Hunter declared that he had only pretended to be a racist. While the assault on him last summer forced him out of Rand Paul’s office, Jack managed to recover and now has an editorial position at the conservative media site Rare. When he was initially attacked, libertarians took to social media to declare #GotYourBackJack, and Hunter still enjoys considerable support, in spite of his past truth bombs.

Why? Because Jack groveled, fully recanted, and proved his bona fides by providing off-the-shelf libertarian commentary. While he might have lost some of his standing, Jack remains a major player in libertarian circles due to the fact he’s now 100% politically correct. (His current message is that libertarians need to be pro-gay marriage, pro-weed, and pro-life to win over more voters.) Essentially, Jack’s survival strategy has been to become a political eunuch.

On the other hand, Jason Richwine has experienced a quite different fate. As a researcher for The Heritage Foundation, and co-author of its study of last year’s amnesty bill, Richwine found himself under attack over his Harvard Doctoral dissertation. In it, he merely pointed out that Hispanics, on average, have lower IQs than American natives and that their mass migration into the states would have a negative effect on America’s average IQ.) This is, in a way, far less radical than what Hunter had said when he “played” a racist.)

Richwine’s dissertation bore the seal of Harvard University, but that wasn’t enough to save him when he faced a brutal assault from both the Left and Right and was forced to “resign” from Heritage. Conservatives didn’t start a hashtag declaring they had his back, and he never received a cushy back-up job after he was purged. Richwine also never groveled, and his Politico op-ed, unlike Hunter’s, reaffirmed his past research in an articulate and unapologetic manner.

But the ideas Richwine raised are no longer allowed in conservative circles, and it is likely that he will never have a job connected to the movement again, despite his credentials and skill level.

The libertarian takeover clearly spells out to identitarians that the conservative movement is no place for us. The libertarians, in a way, hate us more than they do the progressives (with whom they share a common soul).

But with every development comes new opportunities. If anything, it is past time for identitarians to stop focusing on electoral politics and donating to candidates they think might be closet WNs. They aren’t. And even if they were, they would be banished immediately by both the system and the party that put them in power.

It is time for us to focus more on culture and building communities with racially conscious Whites that would allow us to embark on our own path. We cannot rely on Conservative Inc. to change its ways and to suddenly nominate Jared Taylor as the Republican candidate for President. It will never happen. And we have to develop our own strategy for supporting our cause.

Libertarians are not our allies, and they support the destruction of our identity. Why should we want to be in the same movement with these pussies anyway?

No Comments on The New Libertarian Hegemony

On the Bridge Between Two Interesting Years

“What we will likely see in 2014 will be an even more complete alignment of the mainstream Right on the Left, which will leave a bigger and bigger space for us.”

2013 In Retrospect, And My Predictions For 2014

All clichés aside, the world has become too unstable to make precise predictions for a whole year. Looking back at the one that has just finished, it seems that at any point of it, it was close to impossible to foresee what would happen a month or sometimes even a week from then.

Not only because history is, by essence, the realm of the unexpected— Edward Snowden’s confessions were sudden and unforeseen, but they nevertheless strongly affected the relations between the United States, its European satrapies, and the other world’s powers, chiefly Russia and China.

But even for phenomena that had begun much before, 2013 has been full of surprises. Take Syria. Western chancellories had been pushing since 2011 for a war on Damascus’s legitimate government, and 2013 looked like the “right time” for yet another war in the Middle East.

Bashar al Assad was promised to a fate similar to those of Saddam or Gaddafi, but Syria’s strongest ally, Moscow, managed to overturn the moral advantage in favour of the opponents of a war. The official —Western — narrative was that a brutal, oppressive Syrian military junta was massacring innocent “freedom fighters” by the thousands along with their wives and children. The truth — that if there had to be a “good side,” it was al Assad’s government and not the cannibal, Christian-slaughtering terrorists fighting on behalf of foreign governments — played a role in Putin’s moral victory against the pro-war coalition.

By the time when Putin published his decisive letter in the New York Times, the knowledge of the atrocities committed by the so-called “Free Syrian Army” was too widespread in the West for Western governments to gain wide enough support for a new Near Eastern entanglement. In that propagation of the truth, the Internet’s role was important, though not predominant.

Still, what a difference it made with much more evident manipulations that have occurred since the end of the Second World War. While the Western media and political elite were praising Mao when he died in 1976, those in the West who were questioning the official narrative were inevitably depicted as “conspiracy theorists.” Though the mainstream media keeps being dominant, its hegemony has begun eroding somehow.

Which brings me to the rough predictions I would like to make for 2014. If political repression against dissidents — even benign ones — is an indication, we will likely witness a worsening of the situation in the West. 2013 was an instructive year in that respect. In America, two important political purges occurred on the mainstream Right. Jason Richwine’s firing from the Heritage Foundation for daring to discuss the cognitive level of Hispanic immigrants to the United States proved to those who were still deluded about the Republican establishment that “Conservatism” will be of no help against the subversion operated by the egalitarian Left.

Jack Hunter’s resignation and vain apology after a media campaign revealing his “racist” past also proved that “Libertarianism” will, likewise, align itself with the Left on the selective “freedoms” it advocates: issues like gay marriage, cannabis legalization, mass abortion and euthanasia will be fine, but the disturbing questions raised by Murray Rothbard on the banking system or Hans-Hermann Hoppe on state-enforced third-world immigration and integration will somehow remain unanswered. For good.

As grim as these developments are, they offer an opportunity to our movement. The utter inability of mainstream “conservatism” to challenge the liberal Left’s intellectual and cultural domination means that increasingly, the only force standing in the way of the egalitarians will be us, and only us. Hence the growing interest of the mass media for White nationalism and traditionalism, as was illustrated last year by MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow’s report on the National Policy Institute and Richard Spencer.

What we will likely see in 2014 will be an even more complete alignment of the mainstream Right on the Left, which will leave a bigger and bigger space for us. As I had noted in an article entitled “Rearguard Action and Vanguard Politics” last year, which was dealing with the anti-gay marriage demonstrations in France, these obviously history-losing events led to the creation of more radical movements, especially since the more mainstream personalities dropped out as soon as they were attacked. Eventually, only the more radical were standing.

Here at RadixJournal.com, we’ll ensure that those right-wingers who have become uninterested in tepid publications like the National Review will find a new voice, eager to really deal with the issues of our age.

No Comments on On the Bridge Between Two Interesting Years

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