Radix Journal

Radix Journal

A radical journal

Tag: Whites

Redefining Brave

But we live in a different age and the conception of bravery has changed to mean simply “being yourself”–as long as being yourself means conforming to politically correct thoughts on race, gender, and freedom of course.

America is a country that is big on the word brave.

We even like to fashion ourselves “The Home of the Brave,” and we frequently give everyone–from sports stars to cancer survivors–that honored label.

This is in spite of the fact that the only current way Americans would’ve earned the status of brave in centuries past is to fight tribesmen in the mountains of Afghanistan. That’s because it was primarily tied to martial skill and valor by our ancestors and very few Americans can actually say they have participated in situations where they exhibited those virtues.

But we live in a different age and the conception of bravery has changed to mean simply “being yourself”–as long as being yourself means conforming to politically correct thoughts on race, gender, and freedom of course.

Sure, we still call the soldiers who fight needlessly in far-away lands brave and the masculine conception of the ideal still lingers around in our society–but less than 1% of America’s population will have any chance of engaging in state-sanctioned martial valor.

Not like that will stop our society from appropriating the term and using it to let people congratulate themselves for existing as obedient drones.

We can see this when the residents–and former residents–of one of the largest cities in America describe themselves as “Boston Strong” just because one bomb went off in their city, which resulted in a lockdown of the entire metropolitan area to track down the most unintimidating terrorist in human history.

Thus enters in the new, feminine conception of bravery that celebrates the individual freeing themselves from the “shackles” of old norms and conforming to the West’s new morality.

And you can be brave while parking your ass on the couch and not having to lift a muscle – because you just have to be yourself!

The culture certainly reinforces this with a popular song by Sara Bareilles that only asks its listeners to be “Brave.”

Backed by a saccharine piano line and having the same effect on testosterone as a gallon of organic soy milk, Bareilles‘ conception of brave is not that of martial valor but that of existing as the last man. It’s easily read in the song’s lyrics that the “brave” theme is coming out of your closet to announce to the world that you are a freak and an outcast.

Here are some choice lines that solidify that impression:

You can be the outcast /
Or be the backlash of somebody’s lack of love /
Or you can start speaking up

Nothing’s gonna hurt you the way that words do /
When they settle ‘neath your skin /
Kept on the inside and no sunlight /
Sometimes a shadow wins

Fallen for the fear /
And done some disappearing, /
Bow down to the mighty /
Don’t run, just stop holding your tongue

The video reinforces this theme by having fat schlubs and losers (like that inane “Happy video, which must constitute some type of trend) awkwardly dancing around in public places as an act of defiance against fascist cultural norms.

Watch for yourself:

There’s little wonder then that the songwriters behind this song intended it to be, in their words, a “a real civil rights anthem at a time when there are no civil rights anthems and there’s a giant need for civil rights anthems.”

Because there is always a need for more dogmatic songs instructing White Americans to break away from Tradition. And that’s what the song is ultimately about—breaking away from Tradition. That’s what it means when society tells you to be brave. Strike down the customs of your ancestors and embrace the existence of the Last Man. “You can be an outcast,” because we’re now all outcasts in the eyes of our ancestors.

And the purpose of this song is to further subvert the meaning of “brave” to suit the needs of a consumerist society that just wants to sit on its ass and eat Cheetos all day.

Bravery no longer has to mean real men fighting and dying in combat – it now means some obese fairy dancing around in a mall on his way to buying the complete series of “Sex and the City.”

The shame is that this song and other filth like it are played everywhere you might go. The bar, the grocery store, and even the gym (as gyms rarely play music for you to hit PRs with anymore) will all have Bareilles’ voice chanting for you to become the Last Man. It’s hard to create a revolutionary mindset within a culture that promotes such limp-wristed schmaltz.

That is why the creation of our own forms of culture is so important.

Culture conveys values and attitudes far more effectively than any kind of political sloganeering. Pursuing the creation of what you might call a “subculture” within North America that exists outside of the confines of mainstream society and reinforces the traditions and the values of our ancestors is just one way we can immunize ourselves from the culture of the Kali Yuga.

Luckily, there are already groups dedicated to this task.

Otherwise, we can continue to watch as more words get redefined to mean something contemptible to us.

No Comments on Redefining Brave

STIHIE: Postmodern Debating

What’s happening in college debate is insane.

What’s happening in college debate is insane. Judging by the recent flare up surrounding black debators hijacking the events to become two hours of blasting white privilege, it seems oration has now become how many postmodern buzz words can you say in three minutes.

Take a look at this example from this all-black, female debate team that went on to win this specific competition:

And it’s not just blacks who are doing it. White liberals are also cashing in on the trend and reaping the same rewards:

Putting aside ideology, how could any serious person think these hyperactive college students are learning the art of persuasion and argumentation?

But these young fools aren’t really our enemies–they’re merely tools used by larger forces pursuing the destruction of our civilization.

No Comments on STIHIE: Postmodern Debating

The Other Eurovision Story

But inspiring might not be quite the word to use for the song “My Slowianie”(English translation: We Slavs). It’s a Polish rap song with all of the potential meaning that conjures up.

While this year’s Eurovision gave rise to the new face of European Decline, Conchita Wurst, the story of Poland’s entry that might be just as interesting—and far more inspiring.

But inspiring might not be quite the word to use for the song “My Slowianie” (English translation: We Slavs). It’s a Polish rap song with all of the potential meaning that conjures up. The song itself is an ode to the beauty and rapacity of Slavic women and the English version bears the title “Slavic Girls.”

The music video is quite the piece of media. It begins with the producer of the song, Donatan, awaking with four Polish girls dressed in urban garb in a traditional, rural house. They are then taken in by two elderly farmers who then get an unexplained and unnamed Polish farm goddess (not literally, she looks like one though) to dress them in a traditional Slavic outfits, them to churn butter, and adopt a typical rural lifestyle.

Ok, there’s also an incredible amount of cleavage in the video and at one point the female butter churners gobble down a thick, white substance. It could be called soft-core porn if it wasn’t so over-the-top and hilariously goofy.

There’s also the singer of the song, with the stage name of Cleo, who portrays herself as a feisty Slavic female with a blackish singing voice and dance moves you rarely see dressed in a Eastern Europe folk costume.

Which is what comes to the intriguing part of the song: is this the Kali-Yuga appropriating traditional European culture or traditional European culture appropriating the Kali-Yuga?

This is a (slightly) serious question. Sure, the song can be seen just as pure entertainment and a sign that Poland has a remarkable sense of humor for what chooses to represent itself.

But the fact that the creator of the song (the rap producer Donaten) is an advocate of pan-Slavism and has expressed interest in paganism gives this composition more weight than just a boob fest wrapped in Polka gear.

While it would be preferable if the artist did not resort to Negro cultural forms to express European identity, it still does not overcome the fact that this song makes traditional white femininity cool and sexy. Yes, the butter churning is cheesy and there might just be a little too much tit action for good taste, but those don’t hold back the overall gist of the work.

Even Cleo’s aggressive, black inspired dancing and singing does not offend and rather makes whiteness edgy and unapologetic. White identity is too often construed as the definition of uncool and unhip. Here the hot, Slavic girls turn that notion on its head and express their own sense of cultural identity in a context that made them the fan favorites during this year’s Eurovision.

We have to start expressing White identity in a fashion that is cool and appealing to a broad spectrum of people. I’m not saying that “My Slowianie” should be the example for future projects, but it does point towards a future where it may be possible.

And here’s the music video in all of its busty, butter churning, Polka-infused madness:

No Comments on The Other Eurovision Story

New Vistas for American Renaissance

For more than 20 years, American Renaissance and Jared Taylor have set the standard for a White consciousness movement. Others have undertaken this mission: William Pierce, Revilo Oliver, Willis Carto, among them. But Jared has been most successful in adhering to the norms of modern political organization. AmRen has, for two decades, focused on a few key issues that are (or should be) harmonious with “American values”: free association, the legitimacy of group interests, and the scientific study of genetic differences.

For more than 20 years, American Renaissance and Jared Taylor have set the standard for a White consciousness movement. Others have undertaken this mission: William Pierce, Revilo Oliver, Willis Carto, among them. But Jared has been most successful in adhering to the norms of modern political organization. AmRen has, for two decades, focused on a few key issues that are (or should be) harmonious with “American values”: free association, the legitimacy of group interests, and the scientific study of genetic differences.

Jared has also avoided the obsessions and crankiness that have, unfortunately, characterized much of American racialism.  (I have long been under the impression that many in alternative or dissident movements like to indulge in their own marginalization, perhaps out of a desire to shock for shock’s sake, or as a preemptive excuse for failures in life.)  With Jared and AmRen, there is a certain radicalness in mainstreaming, in presenting ideas that have world-changing consequences in packages that seem mellow and respectable.

American Renaissance’s 2014 conference took place just outside Nashville, Tennessee, in comfortable Montgomery Bell State Park.  It marked the 20th anniversary of AmRen events, a fact that was mentioned only briefly by Jared, perhaps not wanting to dwell on the past. Fittingly, the conference marked a certain milestone.

This had something to do with the contingent of scruffy leftists that protested for an hour or so on Saturday afternoon. It was hard not to chuckle at their signs, which sported crudely drawn swastikas, and their chants, which were a mixture of vague physical threats, vague Marxism, and vague demands for liberal tolerance. Nevertheless, their presence made the conference feel relevant and “real,” not merely academic.  (The Forces of Diversity were significantly fewer than last year, probably due to the fact that their previous protest failed to persuade state authorities to shut down the 2013 event.)  

For me, the real milestone was the speeches themselves. Indeed, as I listened, I sensed that an evolution of sorts was taking place. The talks of Jack Donovan, RamZPaul, and John Morgan—as well as Alex Kurtagic’s speech in 2012 and my own in 2013—all presented racialism “in a different key.” Perhaps they even presented a reversal of some of the rhetoric that informed AmRen gatherings of the past two decades.

But I’m getting ahead of myself.

The Scientists

Saturday morning began with the always entertaining John Derbyshire, the kind of man we all wish had been our professor in anthropology or the history of science in college.  But I’m afraid I wasn’t able to detect much of a through-line in this year’s presentation. It struck me as wandering romp through Chinese history. Interesting at times, but never necessary.

The next speaker, Douglas Whitman, who presented on the biological reality of race, was a revelation.  Whitman’s talk was stimulating, sensible, and generous (though he did twice refer to “those slimy Marxists!”). The revelation was Whitman himself. He struck me as the kind of man, Henry Harpending is another, who could be of tremendous value to our movement. He possesses academic authority (he’s a professor at Illinois State University); he clearly cares about his race and civilization; and he is a “happy warrior.”  He also gave us a great slogan for a T-shirt: “Society is a racial construct.”

The Way of Men

It was with Jack Donovan’s talk that the “evolution” was in full effect.  It’s worth noting that Jack Donovan has never identified himself as a “racialist,” “White nationalist,” or “White advocate”; and he is more often attacked as a “self-hating homosexual” or a “misogynist.” Certainly, much about his personal history has rubbed fundamentalists the wrong way…  But even the most truculent paleoconservative would struggle to deny that Jack’s talk was insightful and masterfully composed.

One dominant mode of thought in American racialism, and AmRen in particular, is that Blacks and Third World immigrants are “unassimilable” and, if they are present in large numbers, would destroy American society as we know it.  This is certainly true. But such a view fails to help us understand why our current demographic disaster is happening and why Whites are so incapable of resisting it.  Jack suggests that the problem is not simply “foreigners” but the very structure of American life—and how this has been psychically internalized by White people. The modern American White man is a “free agent”: a man who has little loyalty to his place, friends, co-workers, and likely has never met his neighbors. (We can all see a little bit of ourselves in Jack’s description.)

Loyalty limits your options. Loyalty to no one opens your options.  You become a mercenary… . “Discrimination” becomes a dirty word… not because it is evil, but primarily because it is unprofitable.

Jack argues that White dispossession is predicated on Whites’ own embrace of the mentality of the consumer, the careerist, and the money-accumulator. His indictment is thus not simply of “socialism” (the perennial bogeyman of the American Right) but “capitalism,” or more precisely “capitalist man.”  And it is capitalism—debt, shopping, buying and selling—that has become the American elite’s favored form of social organization. As Jack states, “Hopeless people without dreams”—without identity, without a history, and without a future—“are easy to control.”

In a moving coda, Jack observed that the ultimate outcome of American meaninglessness is not just the obsessed shopper and salesman but the hipster and SWiPL.  These are people whose identity is irony, whose dress, language, and tastes are in sarcastic quotation marks. (Imagine a smirking hipster sporting a lumberjack beard, drinking a Pabst Blue Ribbon beer, wearing ‘80s Rayban knockoffs, and a T-shirt featuring an Atari game from his childhood.)

Contemporary racialism certainly has its share of ironists, those whose activism amounts to gawking at the latest Black-on-White criminal outrage or debating the best way to pick up unstable women at bars. Jack proffers radical “sincerity” as the alternative. Leftists of the last century discriminated between the armchair Marxist and the writer who was “committed” (“engagé”) to revolution. We should do the same.

Life as a White Minority

Jack was followed by three speakers who reported on White racialism in other lands. The first was Philip Craik, who discussed the community of Orania on South Africa’s northern Cape. Orania is an enclave that is exclusively for the Boer people, the “White Tribe” of Dutch Protestants who trekked through Africa and settled in its southern region in the 17th century. Orania represents a distinctively post-Apartheid survival strategy for Boers: it is a secure community that is semi-sovereign and could be compared to a state or municipal government in America: its restrictions are something like citizenship, and it governs and regulates construction and economic activity.

Orania “just works”: the entrepreneurs who created it turned an abandoned settlement into a thriving farming town. But at the end of the day, Orania remains under the dominion of the South African government, and thus the African National Congress. I was surely not the only one who imagined that little Orania might be too tempting a prize for the ANC to seize and plunder if the opportunity arose. I was also surely not the only one who wished that Craik had spent less time recounting the history of the Boers and showing us an Orania promotional video, both of which we could have found online, and instead talked about various survival strategies for Whites as racial minorities.

Nationalism and Beyond

Next came John Morgan, a “citizen of the world” in the best sense of the term: John is an American who created a Euro-centric publishing firm, Arktos Media, which was based in India and now operates out of Hungary. Last winter, John had the opportunity to speak to protestors—and ultimately revolutionaries—from Ukraine’s Euromaidan movement to remove Victor Yanukovych from power.

Whatever one might think about Maidan, the Right Sector, and Svoboda—I must admit that I am not sympathetic—John had a chance to become, in a small way, a part of history; and the Traditionalism (with a capital T) that Arktos advocates became a part of history, too. As John relates, “The political struggle is an outward form of a cultural struggle.” As America is dominated by a religious culture that is “thoroughly corrupted by liberalism, thoroughly moronic, or both,” Morgan suggested that we look towards Eastern Europe as a source, or at least as a model, of authentic nationalism.

There were two things that were conspicuously absent in John’s talk. (Yes, I know it is unfair to criticize a speaker for what he did not say. ) The first was Russia, and in particular the development of the country over the past 25 years—from leading a “Communist” empire that was, to a large degree, an expression of traditional Russian imperialism to the humiliation of the 1990s and, most recently, to Russia’s reentering the geopolitical stage as the preeminent counterweight to U.S. hegemony. Surely this is more lasting and consequential than Ukrainian ethno-nationalism?

The second conspicuous absence was a discussion of the problems of nationalism in itself, especially as it has been expressed by groups like Right Sector. No doubt, most in the audience would concur that nationalism is a natural and healthy form of politics for all peoples. That said, modern racialism comes, as Sam Dickson noted in his talk, in the wake of extremely destructive and fratricidal forms of nationalism that arose throughout the 20th century (and, of course, much earlier). However deeply Right Sector might be influenced by Tradition, it is primarily motivated by passionate (and, to a degree, understandable) historical grudges against Russia (as an embodiment of the Soviet Union), Jews, and Germans. Could even the most hard-core fellow traveller really look forward to yet another violent conflagration between White people? Thus, one of our most important tasks—and one for which Traditionalism could be a great aid—is to form a cosmopolitan, that is, pan-European nationalism, an identity that stretches beyond ethnicity, tribe, religious sectarianism, and the disputes that have, from time to time, turned the continent into a slaughter bench. My sense is that in this all-important project, Ukrainian nationalists won’t be of much use.

After John, the English barrister and long-time nationalist advocate Adrian Davies chimed in about developments in Western Europe. Adrian is a talented orator, who can be concise and humorous while speaking extemporaneously. He was rather bullish on the prospects for European nationalist parties in the coming years. France’s Front National, for one, has not only survived the retirement of its long-time leader, Jean-Marie Le Pen, but has actually increased its popularity under his daughter, Marine. Adrian noted that the FN has been successful in finding a new constituency: the working class, which has certainly been affected by the flood of unskilled, Third World immigrants.

It’s worth noting that Radix’s Roman Bernard has been much more bearish on recent trends within the FN. In a podcast following FN’s recent electoral gains, Roman argued that the party hasn’t so much brought its ideals to the working class as it has begun to be defined by the outlook and tastes of this new constituency: this includes dropping the FN’s traditionalist character and even promoting non-White politicians.

Across the channel, British Nationalism is in turmoil. Much of this has to do the rise and fall of the British Nationalist Party: throughout the first decade of the 21st century, the BNP scored a series of electoral coups that seemed to many of us like breakthroughs. But as this decade began, major figures and factions within the BNP lost confidence in its leader, Nick Griffin. In 2013 a new competing party was formed, the British Democratic Party.1

One of the biggest beneficiaries of this disorder has been the United Kingdom Independence Party. UKIP’s platform is “Euro-skeptic” and libertarian, and the party’s identity has become intrinsically linked with its charismatic frontman, Nigel Farage. Beneath the façade, however, UKIP has succeeded by being the Party of general right-wing protest and unspoken racialism (as UKIP’s detractors correctly observe). In other words, much as in America, nationalist energies are being articulated through inherently liberal rhetoric. As Adrian argued,

UKIP is made up of people whose instincts are fundamentally sound… but they are still too obsessed with Anglo-Saxon concepts we need to put behind us: unlimited individualism, the great benefit of unfettered capitalism, etc.

Could UKIP be “co-opted” by the system? Adrian asked a higher-level question, “Can the establishment co-op UKIP and remain the establishment?” Unfortunately, my answer must be “yes.” In 2009, major establishment figures were genuinely disturbed by the Tea Party, which seemed to advocate something like anarcho-nationalism. Conventional Republicans were being reframed as radicals, or were being “dared” into making radical statements by populist forces. The governor of Texas, Rick Perry, went as far as voicing the potential of secession (!). In a short period of time, however, the Tea Party beoame a barely distinguishable wing of the GOP. (Perry now mostly talks about prison reform.)

Predictably, insurgent populist parties—UKIP, the Tea Party, the BNP, the Euroskeptics, und so weiter—ride a wave of negative social mood, but fail to articulate an end goal or real alternative to the current order. UKIP’s guiding fantasy appears to be the good ol’ days of Margaret Thatcher, that is, an earlier stage of liberalism and racial decline. The ability of the established order to absorb such energies should not be underestimated.

Counter Revolution

After our group enjoyed a steak dinner, we were treated to a lecture on the so-called “Dark Enlightenment” by noted YouTuber “RamZPaul.” “Comedic stylings” is probably a better term than lecture, or perhaps “serious comedy.” RamZPaul has the rare gift of timing, and the ability to deliver a joke in a deceptively bumbling manner, à la Bill Murray.

The Dark Enlightenment (which RamZ’s talk equated with “neo-reaction”) is a decisively “alt Right” phenomenon that doesn’t merely differ with policies of the mainstream Right—it opposes the root assumptions on which they are based. According to the DE, all flavors of the American political spectrum—from the Tea Party to Republicans to Democrats to leftists; from Richard Dawkins to Andrew Sullivan to Cliven Bundy—are all fundamentally liberal in nature. They may have passionate disagreements over style, the scope of government and the military, or the role of religion, but these are disagreements over means, not ends. They each hope to inaugurate a society organized by individual rights, the market, and a benign government, in which every person will pursue his or her chosen form of “happiness.” The entire American experiment—from the Declaration to legalized gay marriage—was a liberal disruption of the traditional order of God-Church/State-People. (Martin Luther, it could be said, was the first, though unintentional, “progressive.”)

I often find argumentation like this to shift between profound truth-telling to “all is lost!” fatalism to “I’m more right-wing than you!” geekiness. Perhaps any successful movement needs a little bit of each? Whatever one thinks about DE, the “take-away” is that race is not “everything”; it might not even be the most important thing; it could be that the racial crisis is a symptom of a deeper crisis at the heart of Occidental civilization that has persisted for centuries.

In the subsequent Q&A, I caused a bit of a stir by asking whether liberal universalism was predicated, not simply on Luther, but on Christian monotheism itself. Moreover, as Christianity loses sovereignty in the hearts and minds of European peoples, might this offer an opportunity to rethink our relationship with the “Other”: to view other cultures and races not as more souls/individuals to be converted to Christianity/integrated into democratic capitalism, but to see them as different peoples with their own pasts, destinies, and, indeed, gods. It became obvious that RamZ and many in the audience are not quite ready to follow me down this path … which is fine.

Can We Handle the Truth?

Sunday featured two speakers who have addressed each and every AmRen conference since 1994: Sam Dickson and, of course, Jared Taylor. The centerpiece of Jared’s talk was his claim that White people are not simply motivated by their material interests or greed or ethnocentrism; they possess a moral imagination. That is, they genuinely care about the suffering of others—other people in their race, other people of other races, and even animals and the natural world. This can be, in Jared’s estimation, a wonderful thing; it is a quintessentially White trait that is the basis of a civilization that values recognition and dignity. Jared’s urged us not to simply to view “liberals” as our enemies, but to speak to them honestly and in good faith.2

Sam Dickson closed the conference with a talk on the converse to cliché “truth will set you free”: lies will make you slave. Modern America—maybe the entire modern world—is in the grips of the lie of human equality. For any “conservative” who remains an equality-slave, he can ultimately conserve no great tradition, nor anything of value at all. The concept of race is ultimately that of an extended family, of a people that has interbred for millennia and that has a shared historical experience. If race is meaningless or fraudlent, then why not do away with nation and “family values” as well. If America is simply an accumulation of individuals from around the globe who believe in equality, then what right does one have to prevent any “potential American” from immigrating? Echoing his talk from NPI’s conference this fall, Sam suggests that America has, from its very beginnings, been slave to individualism and an anti-Europeanism that has obscured its racial identity.

As usual, I found myself resonating with Sam’s oration … but afterwards, I began to think that his central metaphor—“Lies will make you slave”—might have masked more than it revealed. Has the American racialist movement been empowered by the scientific study of racial differences? To a certain degree, yes. I have met individuals who have changed their minds as new evidence was presented to them. But such people are quite rare; they have the personality type of the free spirit, scientist, or revolutionary, who takes opinions regardless of their consequences. (I’m reminded of Martin Luther’s famous declaration, “Ich kann nicht anders!”)

But if the history of American racialism has taught us anything, it is that the truth has not set us free—and, furthermore, that truth is always molded, informed, and concealed by political power, social pressure, hopes, and wishful thinking. Martin Luther King Jr. was, from our perspective, never in possession of the “truth,” but he was set free by a “dream”—the idea that emancipating his people would be uplifting to all of humanity. This “dream” has remained powerful for decades, despite the mountains of IQ studies, crime statistics, and evolutionary theorizing put forth by our movement. I certainly don’t mean to say that these publications don’t have value—I’ve been involved in publishing a great many of them—but for us to build a movement and ultimately hold power, the ”truth” is insufficient. It’s fitting that in the second half of Sam’s talk, he discussed creating a master narrative of the White race, involving our connection to the ancients, the age of the cathedrals, and high culture of Europe. With stories like this, what we omit is as important as what we include.

Articulating Racialism

Monarchy … the problems of Americanism and capitalism … race isn’t everything after all … the former Soviet bloc is healthier spiritually than the so-called “free world” …

What’s happening here?

Perhaps the best way to describe this “new key” for American Renaissance is that activists are finding—indeed, forced by events to find–new ways of articulating some of the basic principles of our movement: that race is real, that race matters, and that race is an indispensable component of any form of nationalism or traditionalism. For decades during the Cold War, racialism was articulated as “anti-Communism,” with the Soviet Union cast as a violent, egalitarian superpower. For AmRen, which was founded in the wake of the Cold War, racialism could be imagined as a wing of conservatism or libertarianism: if liberals were dedicated to violating free association and equalizing society, “race realists” could best understand the limits of state power. Each of these perspectives is valid, in its way, but as this year’s AmRen conference made clear, an exploration of new vistas is being undertaken. This is, to a large degree, generational, but not merely so. If the “alt Right”—or Dark Enlightenment or Reactionary-sphere or Manosphere or whatever—is to be successful, it must not merely be dissident; it must be necessary.


  1. This year’s AmRen gathering could have been a BDP showcase of sorts, as its leader, Andrew Brons, was scheduled to appear. But he pulled out at the last minute due to visa issues; the advertised “mystery guest” (who was also not able to appear) was rumored to be connected to British Nationalism.  
  2. Jared’s talk reminded me of an excellent debate that took place between Jared and Sam Francis in the pages of American Renaissance in the mid-’90s, and which inspired, to my mind, one of Francis’s greatest essays.  
No Comments on New Vistas for American Renaissance

STIHIE: Cambridge Grad Stands By Jamaican Rapist Husband

An elite education certainly does not buy common sense as the tale of this one Cambridge University graduate shows.

An elite education certainly does not buy common sense as the tale of this one Cambridge University graduate shows:

A Cambridge University graduate has defended her sex predator husband who told his victim he was raping her because ‘he didn’t get sex from his wife’.

Adriana Ford-Thompson, a York University research and teaching fellow, described her 37-year-old husband Mark Thompson – branded a danger to women by the judge – as ‘gentle, kind and sensitive’.

The environmentalist said the jury had ‘taken my husband away from me’ by finding him guilty, before he was given life in jail for the kidnap and rape of a student and sex attacks on three other women…

Here’s the background on how the couple met and how he viciously attacked the student he was convicted of raping:

Thompson moved from Jamaica to London at the age of 16, where he took up boxing, before heading to Tanzania in 2005 to teach martial arts.

He met his wife while she was over there conducting research and in 2007 moved to York to be with her while she finished her PhD. They married in 2009.

The jury which convicted Thompson heard he put the student in a headlock and dragged her to his van which he had parked around the corner.

He told the terrified young woman: ‘You have two options – you can give me what I want and you tell nobody what has happened, or tonight is the night you die.’

Read more of this story at The Daily Mail if you are so brave.

Oh, and here’s a picture of the happy couple together on their wedding day.

As Gregory Hood wrote, “Marriage is Dead, Long live Marriage.” Once again, this is another example of the insidiousness of interracial marriage and how it has to require a mentally ill mind, like this woman has, to justify and rationalize it. Let’s hope she doesn’t remarry.

No Comments on STIHIE: Cambridge Grad Stands By Jamaican Rapist Husband

The Negro and The Instagram

Last week was quite the time for old, seemingly white men to make racial comments about blacks.

Last week was quite the time for old, seemingly White men to make racial comments about Blacks.

We first had Cliven Bundy discuss the problems of the Negro. The media unsurprisingly convulsed in anger in response. It wasn’t anything you wouldn’t have heard on an average day on Fox or Rush Limbaugh – it was just expressed in a way that made it easier fodder for The Daily Show to mock and made it harder for the conservative media to stand by him.

Then we had the leaked tape of the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers disparaging his girlfriend for associating with blacks (even though she is a mulatto herself). That led to many calling for Sterling to lose his ownership and prompted sponsors to flee from his team.

Both the controversy surrounding Cliven Bundy and that of Donald Sterling present an interesting study of prevalent attitudes towards race by different elements of American society. I would like to call these two views: “the colorblind negro” and “the high-status instagram.”

Bundy represents red state America—the tea party demographic to be more precise. As a cattle rancher living out in rural Nevada, he’s a natural voter for the Republican Party and makes the stereotypical consumer of conservative talking points. He became a cause célèbre of the Right because he withstood the federal government’s entrenchment on his private property and transformed it into the excesses of big government versus the constitutional rights of citizens.

It was somewhat of a farce to begin with and seemed like a situation that could’ve only been dreamed up by Rand Paul’s campaign staff—if it hadn’t actually happened. A rancher symbolizing the entirety of Middle America took on the government to protect the (technically illegal) grazing area of his cows and spit on the regulations aimed to protect an endangered turtle. While an inspiring act to stand up to the guns of the Bureau of Land Management, it’s ultimately an act over cows—nothing more.

But since it had nothing to do with race and was largely an economic issue, the right turned Bundy into a folk hero and made his fight righteous in the eyes of the GOP’s demographic.

Then he used the word “Negro” and compared welfare to slavery. That went over the conservative movement’s red line on acceptable race-baiting and they quickly moved to denounce him. What he said wasn’t even racist and if put in a different context, as Peter Brimelow has pointed out, would’ve been the basis of a Paul Ryan speech on inner city outreach:

“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.

“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

Gregory Hood has correctly pointed out that this is just the all-too familiar conservative line about the dreaded “liberal plantation,” meaning the welfare state that keeps blacks enslaved to dependency.

But we all know that blacks choose to be on welfare because it is better than working at dead-end jobs and blacks instinctively know that as a group, they will never succeed or move up in America’s economy.

Government subsidies sound a whole lot more enticing than a shitty job as a janitor. Speaking of janitors… Bundy kinda likes these Hispanics who are replacing blacks at the low-skilled jobs they used to hold:

“Now let me talk about the Spanish people. Now I understand that they come over here against our Constitution and cross our borders. But they’re here, and they’re people. And I’ve worked beside a lot of them. Don’t tell me they don’t work, and don’t tell me they don’t pay taxes. And don’t tell me they don’t have better family structures than most of us white people. When you see those Mexican families, they’re together, they picnic together, they’re spending their time together. And I’ll tell you, in my way of thinking, they’re awful nice people. And we need to have those people going to be with us – not not coming to our party.”

Once again, Cliven Bundy sounds more like Paul Ryan than Jared Taylor.

And his vision is the same: a colorblind America where every person who works hard, respects the Constitution and goes to a megachurch on Sunday is welcome here.

That vision is a fantasy that is unfortunately shared by far too many whites in this country, but believed by hardly any non-whites. As our country continues to balkanize along racial lines, many conservative whites will keep dreaming that one day non-whites will accept their colorblind vision and finally assimilate into the America of their youth.

That won’t happen – but the idea continues to lie at the heart of the conservative multiracialism that Bundy embraces.

That won’t save him though, and no matter how much he says that Martin Luther King would be on his side or how many irrelevant black conservatives they find to defend him, Bundy is a lost cause.

Even though he could stand up to the assault rifles of federal agents, he couldn’t stand up to the charges of racism.

The case of Donald Sterling, on the other hand, presents a more interesting and less covered view of race.

Sterling is a multi-millionaire who lives in Los Angeles and owns a professional basketball team in arguably America’s most multicultural city. He also happens to be Jewish (he was born Donald Tokowitz), has a mulatto girlfriend, earned a lifetime achievement award from the NAACP for the millions of dollars he’s given them, and the only political candidates he has donated to have been Democrats.

Did I also mention that his sport of choice is the blackest sport, both culturally and proportionally, in America? Even President Obama admitted the fact when he ritually condemned Sterling for his racist comments

In the end, Sterling doesn’t cut the model for who the media would normally deem a bigot – but that doesn’t mean they haven’t noticed his racial views in the past.

Sterling made his millions as a real-estate mogul in Los Angeles. He owes a significant amount of his success to discriminatory practices that barred blacks and Hispanics from renting apartments from his business. He preferred Koreans and whites who he felt were better tenants. His opinions on blacks is that they “smell and attract vermin” and that Hispanics “smoke, drink and just hang around the building.”

He ran his business with common sense racial views that blacks and Hispanics would drive away potential renters and lower the value of the properties he was leasing.

Even how he runs his basketball team reflects that he has a certain understanding of racial differences. In a lawsuit filed by a former player, it was alleged that Sterling wanted a team stocked full of poor blacks from the South with a stern, white head coach managing them. You could say it was like a plantation system, and the left has even appropriated the conservative movement’s terminology to attack Sterling’s management style.

What ultimately did him in was his criticism of his mulatto girlfriend for associating with blacks. It focused solely on how it looks low-class and trashy – he doesn’t mind his paramour fucking them of course, he just doesn’t want pictures of her with them on “the instagram.” The idea is that attractive females (in his opinion, she’s not attractive at all in mine) shouldn’t be seen with black men, no matter how successful they are, because it lowers their status.

Sterling’s take on race is further outside of what mainstream society would tolerate than Bundy’s. As a more cynical and crass version of John Derbyshire’s “The Talk,” Sterling has admitted that blacks generate poor living environments, require the leadership of whites to do anything and should not be associated with publicly if you desire respectability. While Derbyshire’s talk was centered on protecting yourself and your kin from potential threats, Sterling’s views are solely about accumulating wealth and status.

In other words, he’s still a vile human being. Not because he’s an alleged racist, but because he cynically utilizes these views to eke out a luxurious existence and entertain himself through the blackest sport in America. He cares nothing about improving society or living by higher ideals, he only cares about himself.

While his views on race are far more realistic than Bundy’s naiveté, Bundy is the far more respectable character when compared with the odious personality of Sterling.

But both of their views on race are completely wrong. Bundy thinks that if we just stop seeing race and judge people on their “content of their character,” that “the negro” will finally assimilate into American society. Sterling, on the other hand, knows that this is a false notion and non-whites will never assimilate to the status of whites, Jews and Asians – and that’s why he doesn’t want pictures with them on “the instagram.”

Bundy represents an antiquated notion of America that no longer exists (and that’s proven by his ignorance at knowing the term Negro is now considered offensive), while Sterling represents a view that is becoming more prevalent as the upper class attempts to safely navigate a multiracial America and still preserve established notions of prestige (and that’s why he cares so much about his mistress preserving a high-status instagram).

Identitarians should reject both notions. Neither will preserve white identity and both are mental aberrations. Blacks will never embrace the delusion of economic freedom and treating blacks like plantation chattel is utterly vile. The view of Bundy will die soon, but it is possible that the views of Sterling will become more prevalent as more of the meritocracy drop their racial illusions to ensure their own personal security.

But it won’t save them when the non-white hordes they’ve manipulated for years decide to whip out the machetes.

Both views are a result of America’s twilight and reflect the decline in our society. We have to embrace racial views that always place our people’s interest first and never seeks to make our existence as atomized individuals the priority. We have to view ourselves as a collective and attempting to just make our individual lives more comfortable will no longer work. That is the Donald Sterling view of race.

Ethnocentrism is what we should strive for and is an viewpoint that will ensure our people’s survival – not the “colorblind negro” or the “high-status instagram.”

No Comments on The Negro and The Instagram

Un-Happy

Culture is said to be a reflection of contemporary social moods – but if that is true, then we must be living in extraordinarily happy times based on our popular music.

Culture is said to be a reflection of contemporary social moods – but if that is true, then we must be living in extraordinarily happy times based on our popular music.

While I’m predisposed to agree with the assertion that culture does reflect societal tensions, the music of our time does not even come close to that goal. The likely culprit of that is a top-down, commercialization of music that largely determines what new music an individual would come in contact with while out in public or listening to the radio.

For young people who are the primary consumers of pop music, the times aren’t so rosy and there’s serious long-term issues that lie ahead for this beleaguered generation. As if in reaction to this development, the music that is now pumped out on the radio is syrupy, saccharine and happy to the point of obnoxiousness.

And the number one offender of this trend is Pharrell Williams’ song “Happy.” With an incredibly creative title, the song resembles a children’s nursery rhyme with a torturously, repetitive chorus and lyrics that have all the depth of a kiddy pool. Mr. Pharrell has managed to transform the spirit of “emotional pornography” into audio form, complete with a negro musical sheen.

Take a look at the lyrics and marvel at the drivel that is spewed forth by our craftsmen of culture:

[Verse 1:]
It might seem crazy what I’m about to say
Sunshine she’s here, you can take a break
I’m a hot air balloon that could go to space
With the air, like I don’t care baby by the way

[Chorus:]
Because I’m happy
Clap along if you feel like a room without a roof
Because I’m happy
Clap along if you feel like happiness is the truth
Because I’m happy
Clap along if you know what happiness is to you
Because I’m happy
Clap along if you feel like that’s what you wanna do

[Verse 2:]
Here come bad news talking this and that, yeah,
Well, give me all you got, and don’t hold it back, yeah,
Well, I should probably warn you I’ll be just fine, yeah,
No offense to you, don’t waste your time
Here’s why

[Chorus]

Hey, come on

[Bridge:]
(happy)
Bring me down
Can’t nothing bring me down
My level’s too high
Bring me down
Can’t nothing bring me down
I said (let me tell you now)
Bring me down
Can’t nothing bring me down
My level’s too high
Bring me down
Can’t nothing bring me down
I said

[Chorus 2x]

Hey, come on

(happy)
Bring me down… can’t nothing…
Bring me down… my level’s too high…
Bring me down… can’t nothing…
Bring me down, I said (let me tell you now)

[Chorus 2x]

Come on

It’s quite obvious that this song, which was originally made for the children’s film “Despicable Me 2,” has taken on a life of its own and is reflecting much of the feeling that pop music is now trying to convey.

It’s an elixir for the woes that face Millennials face today. Feeling frightened that you can’t a decent job? Clap your hands and be happy instead! Girlfriend left you to hop aboard the cock carousel? Clap your hands and be happy instead! Feeling like you should blow your brains out because you have no purpose in life? Clap your hands and be happy instead!

At least the music video accurately depicts the real people of America with average, fat schlubs dancing in the street to the song to let you know it’s ok to be a hapless loser in life’s game.

In real life, the tell-tale signs of mass unhappiness are on display. Depression, drug abuse, and suicide rates are all rising and the infamous Misery Index is not looking good at the moment.

This song, along with the growing proliferation of “emotional porn,” misdirects people’s frustrations with their lives and society to gooey, feel-good messages. Don’t worry about problems, just watch this video or read this blurb about happiness and magically become satisfied with life. It’s the soft power of totalitarian humanism that mandates cheery thoughts — even though the world around you is going to hell.

Unhappiness with the world is the root cause of revolution, which is why we have garbage like “Happy” blaring at us like the minutes of hate from Orwell’s 1984. But in my opinion, these opiates won’t last long and eventually enough whites will wake up to try to change the world.

Then we can truly be happy.

No Comments on Un-Happy

STIHIE: Libido for the Stupid

In the last decade, the real-state, home-building, and financial industries ran out of enough middle-class buyers to maintain their expansion; they thus looked down market, to a previously untapped pool of “subprime” suckers.   Similarly, as the “higher education” industry recognizes that its certificates can barely guarantee a job folding sweatshirts at the Gap, it, too, is beginning to view the left-quadrant of the Bell Curve as a source of growth.  

A new term should be added to the language.

Emotional Porn
Noun
A form of self-gratification, in which a postmodern White person confuses indulgence in pity or sentimentality with political action.
See Also Upworthy.com, Squee

Exhibit A: “Noah is going to college!”

In the last decade, the real-state, home-building, and financial industries ran out of enough middle-class buyers to maintain their expansion; they thus looked down market, to a previously untapped pool of “subprime” suckers. Similarly, as the “higher education” industry recognizes that its certificates can barely guarantee a job folding sweatshirts at the Gap, it, too, is beginning to view the left-quadrant of the Bell Curve as a source of growth.

And something deeper is at work as well. Americans pride themselves in resisting the two siren songs of totalitarianism: socialism, Marxism, and Leninism, on the left, and fascism, nationalism, and racialism, on the right. America, it is maintained, achieved a glorious “middle-ness,” a free, middle-class society, where government guarantees basic rights and dignities for all.

What this rosy view overlooks is the fact that, for at least the past 50 years, America has pursued a new kind of socialism—one that might be more enduring than the socialism of yore but which is equally unsustainable and equally dependent on myths, lies, and wishful thinking.

Washington is loathe to nationalize an industry; and it has never been willing to redistribute wealth with any seriousness. However, Washington does use its powers and seemingly infinite ability to issue debt to create the semblance of what a society would look like if liberalism and egalitarianism were actually true.

Hence, the government doesn’t nationalize the healthcare industry and provide services to low-income citizens; instead, it organizes an elaborate and unworkable system that putatively helps the poor get health insurance, just like rich people. The government doesn’t directly provide the hungry and needy with provisions; instead it issues EBT cards that allow the poor to pretend that they have credit cards, just like rich people.

Finally, the government doesn’t seek to foster excellence in higher learning; instead, through affirmative-action and the lowering of standards, it creates a parallel universe in which innate cognitive differences and heritability no longer have any effect. Everyone goes to college! And now Noah is going to college!

The average IQ of a person with Down Syndrome is 50; the top one percent have an IQ of 70, according to the Down Syndrome Foundation. Surely, there are ways for such people to live fulfilling and productive lives. To send them to university, however, amounts either to denying the existence of intelligence altogether or else to converting universities into massive day-care centers for every featherless biped with a pulse.

Emotional Porn like “Noah is going to college”—porn that appeals to the American “right” as much as the “left”—gives us a glimpse into America’s peculiar egalitarian imagination, and its libido for the stupid.

No Comments on STIHIE: Libido for the Stupid

White Men Vote Republican Because They’re Suckers

Working-class white men vote Republican because the Democrats have made it clear that they care about representing the interests of everyone but  working-class white men. 

 

Originally published at Jack-Donovan.com

Amanda Marcotte recently wrote that “White men, as a group, vote Republican because they vote their resentments.”

The New York Times article she cited didn’t say or even imply anything about resentment. It did say that straight, working-class white men vote Republican because the Democratic Party has devoted the majority of its resources to appealing to women, gays and the various groups of less-white men who are nostalgically referred to as “minorities.” The Democratic Party has been on the opposite side of issues that working-class white men have cared about for decades, and according to the Times piece, many strategists within the party think it’s a waste of time trying to win them over.

Working-class white men vote Republican because the Democrats have made it clear that they care about representing the interests of everyone but working-class white men.

These guys vote Republican because Republicans actually make an effort to tell them what they want to hear.

Basically, white men vote Republican because they’re suckers.

The likes of Marcotte say that working-class white men are motivated by fear and resentment, but the majority of people who vote Democrat are doing it for nobler reasons.

They’re not. Most of them are voting for their own short-term self-interest.
Sure, there is a small class of progressive white men who make a big show of putting everyone else’s interests first. They demonstrate their moral superiority by standing up — mostly online — for whatever “rights” they believe that women or blacks or illegal immigrants or transsexuals or chickens are somehow entitled to.

Everyone else is just voting for stuff they want.

Women vote Democrat because they understandably want the convenience of being able to kill their unwanted children. They vote Democrat because they want free birth control and they want free healthcare for the kids they decide to keep. Women also vote for Democrats because Democrats offer special programs to help women get education and jobs.

Women have always depended on men for protection, but they’d rather depend on many men than just one or a few, so they are happy to vote for measures to increase “security.” As a group, women don’t like or understand guns, so they vote Democrat because Democrats promise to take guns away from men — usually those working-class white men — and give them to the big group of men in the government.

Men have historically been suspicious of what big groups of men will do when they have all of the weapons.

Blacks vote Democrat because they are smart and racist. They were going to vote for Obama no matter what he did because he was black, and like sensible people they figure it is better to have one of your own in power. Democrats, as a group, are known for caring more about giving free stuff to black people. Blacks are smart, because they know that it is always better to get something for free than to pay for it.

Blacks also know that you don’t need a permit to buy a gun. You just go buy one from that guy down the street and, you know, take care of business. White men are afraid to buy guns without following the rules, so more rules means less white men with guns. This is good for black men, because they like the convenience of being able to wear a hoodie in the rain without getting shot by nervous white men with guns.

Latinos vote Democrat because their families came to America to take advantage of employment opportunities and all of the benefits and protections that America offers to its citizens. They figure more benefits and protections are better than less, and Democrats always offer more benefits and protections.

In places with a lot of Latinos, Democrats say that you shouldn’t have to go through the trouble of becoming a citizen to get those benefits and protections. This is convenient for Latinos who are not citizens, because using a dead person’s social security number can sometimes be inconvenient.

Gay people vote Democrat because Democrats offer gay people stuff they think they want. Aside from marriage and the sadistic thrill of being able to force Christians to make wedding cakes, this includes free healthcare. Free healthcare comes in handy when you’re a man who occasionally has sex with guys he met 30 minutes ago on Grindr, or a lesbian who occasionally gets drunk and has sex with men. (See the first point about women above.)

Transsexuals vote Democrat because they want the government to pay for the very expensive cosmetic surgeries and hormones that are necessary for them to become who they really are. Also, they are confused about which bathroom to use, so they want more special bathrooms for confused people.

(Chickens are not technically allowed to vote yet, but we hear they want to be free range, which sounds libertarian.)

As Gari Day, the white male bus driver featured in the Times article said, “Republicans make you work for your money, and try to let you keep it.”

He probably doesn’t understand how the government can afford to keep giving everyone free stuff forever. He probably does figure that some of that money for the stuff other people want is coming out of his earnings. But he’s not alone in that — I’ve yet to see a successful Democrat turn down a tax break. No one actually wants to pay more taxes.

Aside from voting to keep more of their own money and to keep the guns they bought, a lot of these straight, white, working-class men are not asking for anything. They’re too proud for that.

As old-fashioned voters, they see themselves as part of the government. They’re not just trying to get more stuff from the government and come up with reasons why they deserve it. They’re voting for a society that works the way they think things should work.

And that’s why they’re suckers.

Democratic and Republican politicians, like everyone else, see the government as a way to get what they want. Politicians want power and status. To get elected, they accept money from regular people, from rich men, from businesses, and probably from foreign countries. In return, they promise favors. That’s how the system works.

People who don’t want anything from the government are useless to politicians, because they are difficult to manipulate and impossible to please. The government, like every big bureaucracy, is in the growth business. Making the government smaller isn’t in the short-term interest of any ambitious bureaucrat. Contraction only makes political sense when you’re trying to reduce an opponent’s sphere of influence.

Democrats promise more government, and more free stuff. Republicans promise less free stuff for poor people, and promise to lower taxes in return, but they rarely manage to lower taxes for anyone but rich guys who — let’s be real — were usually born into money and didn’t work any harder than the guys driving buses. Many of the wealthy elite are white guys, true, but they care about as much about the working-class white guys as the Democratic Party leadership.

White men are suckers because they haven’t figured out that the America they believe in is already gone, and that they are the only ones who aren’t asking for whatever they can get while the gettin’s still good. They’ll vote reliably Republican as long as the Republicans keep talking about self-reliance and how things should work, and that will free up Republican politicians to do favors for people who actually want stuff.

No Comments on White Men Vote Republican Because They’re Suckers

Derbyshire After The Purge

Though I do not like to consider myself a sentimentalist, it seems worthy to commemorate the two-year anniversary of National Review’s decision to “sever ties” with John Derbyshire on April 7th, 2012. 

Though I do not like to consider myself a sentimentalist, it seems worthy to commemorate the two-year anniversary of National Review’s decision to “sever ties” with John Derbyshire on April 7th, 2012. The details of what happened and why have been gone over a million times, so if you are unaware, I will direct you to Mr. Derbyshire’s webpage on the matter. Moving right along, it should be noted that it is astounding how much Derbyshire got away with before he was fired. In his own small way, he may have even pushed some unsuspecting readers of NR towards our neck of the woods.

Some talking head at Salon actually got it right, when writing shortly after Derbyshire got fired, that Derbyshire has been writing racist screeds for years. “So why did no one notice until last week?” Even before then, Andrew Sullivan had taken note of Derbyshire dissident attitudes and made a point of trying to embarrass him by posting them on The Dish.

Just take a look at some of Derbyshire best pre-04/12 writing:

He gave explicit support to all ethno-nationalists, so long as their ethnicity is civilized:

Where ethnies are anciently and intricately mixed, as in Northern Ireland, there isn’t much do be done but stagger on under the horrible affliction of diversity, putting up with the occasional massacre. Where a coherent nation can be separated off, though, it should be.
The Uighurs should certainly have their own nation. So should the Kurds, the Catalans, the Scots, the Jews, the South Tyroleans, the Chechens, and any other people sufficiently civilized to run a statelet and sufficiently coherent to think themselves a single ethny. – Give ‘Em a Country, 08/11

He gave a glowing review of a Paul Gottfried book in National Review, with a title that referenced the late Sam Francis, and mentioned that the Paleos may rise again:

It may be that the Old Right will come into its inheritance at last 20 or 30 years from now, in one of the little fragment nations that will emerge when corruption, fiscal incompetence, demographic idiocy, educational romanticism, willful scientific ignorance, ethnic warfare, and missionary imperialism have finally destroyed the United States of America. – Beautiful Losers, 08/09

He spoke well, even poetically, about Jared Taylor:

We don’t shoot our dissidents, nor even exile them or send them to camps. But in other respects their careers parallel those of their spiritual kin living under sterner regimes: ignored by power-seekers, denounced by those who toady to power, swatted down contemptuously by power-holders, disliked by the taboo-upholding generality, and doomed to failure and oblivion unless, by very occasional blind luck, history in its onward march finds itself in step with them.

I still like and admire dissidents. I honor their cussedness, integrity, and courage. I can never stir myself to join them, though. Cowardice? By all means, you can think so. I view it as “insufficiently masochistic.” – The Futility of Dissidence, 02/11

As good as all of his past writing was, the case can be made that it has gotten much better, more radical, since his purge — particularly for those of us who are more Identitarian than Race Realist. Consider how Derbyshire’s pro-Asian writing has slowed to a trickle over the last two years. In 2007, he first proposed his “Arctic Alliance” between Whites and East Asians, and he wrote about it again in 2011. Immediately after his firing, he made a brief mention of it, but has since seemed to have dropped the topic almost entirely.

Instead, he has been focusing much more on Whites and his own sense of Whiteness has gotten stronger. There is of course his involvement with American Renaissance, but even his Takimag pieces have taken a “Whiter” tone. See for example his popular White People Are Pussies article, which ended with:

And we white Americans? Are we the most pussified of all—the pussies of the world?

That’s a thought I don’t want to have. That way lies hard, irreversible ethnomasochism.

It’s a thought that keeps bobbing up to the surface, though, prompted by some news item or image; or out of the blue, as on the radio that time, too publicly for me to disown it.

I must discipline my mind.

It is not quite there yet, but it is getting there. The same goes for his follow up piece, Losing Our Turbulence, where “Our” means “Whites:”

We should expect no turbulence among white people in the near future. Window-breaking there may be, but outside of a few remaining pockets of vitality such as Belfast, it won’t be whites lobbing the stones. Fattened by prosperity, soothed by the welfare state, and cowed by the missionaries of guilt, whites will limit their protests to voting for Tweedledum rather than Tweedledee, to genteel gatherings in rented halls, to comment threads on the dwindling number of news websites that still allow them.

His interest in the welfare of whites is steadily growing, and his ramblings about “NAM”s (Non-Asian Minorities) have become steadily replaced with more existential questions about the fate of Whites everywhere, like the post above, or the more lighthearted, Why Isn’t Racism Cool?

Like many Vdare contributors, he still yearns (and may even believe it can happen) for a day just around the corner when Republicans will become race-realist nationalists, and then save America. This is an unfortunate waste of time on Derbyshire’s part, and quite frankly a waste of his talent. But give it another two years, and he just might get right with the lord.

No Comments on Derbyshire After The Purge

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