From Polis to Ghetto

During the American election contest, I found myself paying less attention than ever to the arguments, campaign slogans, promises and gaffes made by both sides – and I have to admit to having felt somewhat guilty about this at the time. Despite my contempt for mainstream politics both in my own country and abroad, a nagging little voice persisted in scolding me that one should at least study these things in some measure of detail.

On second thoughts, and having perused the election results, I think I should have paid even less attention than I did. As America advances towards Multi-Racial Utopia, the content of the national debates and media circus around its elections is going to become about as relevant to their results as the spectacle of a surfer dancing on the crest of a wave would be to an oceanographer. Political programmes and arguments that might once have been worthy of debate are degenerating into irrelevant entertainment, as demography and caste become the true determining factors.

Exit polls show that 93% of black voters voted for Obama, Hispanics voted for Obama by a huge 75-23% margin, and that even the Asian vote went 73% to Obama. The Republican attempts to “reach out” to Hispanic voters with Spanish-language ads, the threat posed to black interests by mass Hispanic immigration, and the screwing over of Asians by the racial spoils system – all of these pale into insignificance before the simple fact that the Democratic Party is the party of America’s non-white minorities, and they are ethnocentric enough to vote for it accordingly.

In comparison to this, the white majority – which voted 59% for Romney and 39% for Obama – might appear to be playing by the old rules (in its naively non-ethnocentric way) to a much greater extent. But it too is divided by a kind of social-ideological caste system (the “Brahmins” versus the “Optimates” and “Vaisyas”, to use Mencius Moldbug’s term), which in part hinges implicitly on race – i.e. whether or not one is allied with the foreign demographic tide presently destroying America’s old ethnic makeup. As Bishop and Cushing explain in The Big Sort, the ‘liberal-conservative’ political divide has already hardened into segregated neighbourhoods and tribal closed-mindedness – and thus we can safely surmise that regardless of the concrete political programmes and debate performance of election candidates, many white Americans would no more vote for the “enemy” side than swallow a pitcher of rat piss. And yet the American media continues to obsess over debates, gaffes, slogans and so on, as if these things will actually sway the minds of a majority of the electorate – as if they are the wave rather than the surfer.

As de Benoist argues, a true democracy depends on a true nation, i.e. a people who have a common cultural identity and can conduct national debates around shared values; in contrast, democracy in multi-ethnic societies (Afghanistan, America) is a sham determined largely by ethnic tribalism. The United States today fights wars in the belief that its democracy is superior to all other forms of government; but how long before this confident myth of American democracy goes the way of, say, China’s ruling Communist ideology? If and when this happens, the American state – unlike the Chinese – will not even have a clear national identity to hold it together.

The Case For Open Borders

Originally published here on 5th April, 2010.

Most people on the Alternative Right are decidedly not in favor of our open-border policy in the United States. They complain of the program of race replacement, foreigners stealing our jeeeebs, committing crimes, and generally lowering the property values in the joint. I sympathize with these arguments, but, personally, I hope we make allowances for the kind of immigration I like to date. You see, I belong to an oppressed sexual minority: American men who prefer foreign women. There is power in naming things, and so I'll just come out and say it: I am an American xenosexual man.

It took me a while to come to realize my sexual preference. It was never conscious until fairly recently, and I figure it's time for me to come out of the closet, so my xenosexual brothers won't feel alone. It isn't a realization that I'm particularly happy to have had, as it makes life in the Republic incredibly inconvenient. In my long and sordid career as a bachelor, the only women I have been able to maintain a romantic relationship with have been at least raised in other countries.

I'm sure this statement is causing American female upper lips to distort into a snarl. "Oh, another insecure man who is intimidated by an empowered woman!" -- this is how it usually goes. This sentence captures, in essence, what is psychologically wrong with American women for a man of my sexual preference.

First of all, the facts are wrong. If I were insecure, I wouldn't have written this. Also, the women I've been able to deal with for longer than a year or two had job titles like, "SAW gunner," "machine learning engineer," and "scientist." These are very likely to be considerably more "empowered" job titles than anyone reading this in a high moral dudgeon will ever achieve. If you disagree, and think your job is much more awesome than these, I suggest you take it up with the SAW gunner. Secondly, one of the excellent things about foreign women is they rarely try to cut your metaphorical testicles off with ridiculous shaming language. American women by contrast, don't seem capable of communication without bagging on some poor man. Being an unpleasant, confrontational, sarcastic grouch seems to have become a sort of gender duty of American women. The rest of the world sees that as bad manners. Finally, the dribbling self-entitlement and totalitarian-princess gall of it all. Why should anyone care if I won't date American women? It is simply my preference: as worthy of respect and approbation as the preference to not date any women. I count many American women as close friends, confidantes and family members. I love American women! I just don't want to date them.

Other varieties of women don't get so upset about men not liking their kind so much. As a social experiment, I once told a beautiful and talented Russian girl I had a problem with depressing crazy drunkard Russian girls. She agreed with me that most Russian girls are crazy, depressing and drink too much, pointed out the good sides of Russians (hotness, passion, femininity), and noticed that she's actually not really so Russian: she was from a tribe in Russia known for its cheerfulness and moderation. This anecdote illustrates an important difference between domestic and imported females. When faced with an outcome they do not like, American woman will become disagreeable. The foreign woman will become more feminine and seductive; a tactic I have few powers to resist. Since I am not a masochist who enjoys being menaced by angry harridans with rolling pins, this causes me to like the imported models better. I know, I know, my sexual preference is weird and kind of hard to wrap your brain around, but I can't help it. Like many men who were afflicted with a non-standard sexual preference, I'm pretty sure I was born this way.

While my preference is intensely emotional, being wrought in my own sense of extreme heterosexuality, I also look at it as intensely logical. I buy and sell for a living. American women are a bad investment. You see, I'm a very busy man: I'm trying to build a business, create American jobs and generate wealth to help bail us out of the horrible mess we are in. American women get upset when you're not paying attention to them, and do things like start an argument about where to put your goldfish. Foreign women do things like try to help when you are busy.

Many American women are also wrapped up in status monkey games (muuuust get big house) and the consumer gerbil wheel. Even if I were to find an American woman who makes the kind of dough I do, she'd likely spend the pair of us into penury before I am able to hire anybody. Foreign women generally come from less prosperous nations, and so they're less interested in purchasing an enormous McMansion and stuffing it full of plastic tchotchkes along with a couple of neurotic crotch fruit. Foreign women believe in thrift, rather than conspicuous consumption.

American women also tend to believe in deeply unattractive insanity like "gender as social construct feminism," astrology, socialism, putting unsightly tattoos all over their bodies, and moral relativism of all kinds. I have yet to figure out why anybody would contract any kind of alliance with a moral relativist. Foreign women have seen these bad ideas disproved on a daily basis in their lives in less civilized nations, so they believe in things like common sense. I know this probably seems incredibly selfish of me, and perhaps some people think I should be a good fellow and pay more attention to where I put my goldfish, but as a productive member of society, I feel it is my patriotic duty to do my bit to help solve the economic crisis. I figure the slouchy hipsters with nothing better to do can go argue with American women about their goldfish to keep them happy while I'm off doing useful work.

American women have a weird relationship with sex. They're known the world over as loose women. Yet, sex with an American woman is a study in time-motion efficiency at best. Back in my academic days, I once taught an Italian grad student how to pick up girls on the internets: probably the only useful thing I ever taught anybody in an academic setting. Being Italian, he quickly became better at it than I was, but after his first couple of successes he came to my office with a troubled brow. "Scott, what is wrong with American women? I don't want to brag, but I am good at sex. These women, they don't come when I fuck them." It took considerable powers of persuasion to convince him that the average American female needs to be worked over with power tools, months of therapy, and various acts considered signs of deviant madness by the American Psychological Association 50 years ago, in order to experience authentic genital quakes with someone else present in the room.

This isn't just the anecdotal evidence of a couple of science nerds sitting around the synchrotron, there have been scientific studies done on this subject. The vaginal orgasm is observably going away, both in the United States and Western Europe. There are certainly exceptions to all this, but the vaginal orgasm is so elusive among American females, it is widely considered to be a myth among the educated classes. Everywhere else in the world, it's considered the normal way of conducting business. I have no idea how this came about; ideas I've come up with include epigenetics, poisonous feminism, hormonal imbalances, outbreeding depression, and inability to relax. Some researchers have pointed out that a likely cause is improper sex education that focuses on the clitoris...  Basically, American women jerk off too much to derive any pleasure from normal, or even heroic heterosexual, intercourse. A parsimonious explanation, somewhat borne out by my personal investigations into the subject.

Apparently most American men don't mind that their snuggle bunnies might as well be doing their taxes while they drill for gold, or else they enjoy the manly hobby of weilding power tools even in the boudoir, or perhaps some enjoy dictating Tolstoy with the tips of their tongues every night. Well, that is their preference. While power tools and Tolstoy have their charms, I like the old fashioned kind of sex better, and the imported models are the ones dishing it out.

And what of poise, style and feminine grace? Most of you Americans won't know what I am talking about here, because you haven't been around enough foreign women. American women do things like eat while they're walking down the boulevard. Foreign women know this is horrifically gauche, to say nothing of fattening, so they don't do it. Foreign women are too busy trying to balance a plate on their head to shove cupcakes in their mouths while they walk about.

Fashion? Foreign women unashamedly wear dresses. American women wear clothing designed to disguise the fact that they are actually female. American women ... they do not sashay or glide like the old fashioned foreigners do: they gambol and gesticulate like something out of the ape cage at the zoo. When they're trying to be "feminine," an American woman will do something like deploy her decolletage like a couple of battleship cannons. While I guess there is something appealing about gratuitous baboon displays of secondary sexual characteristics, it's a rather crude gambit to my rarified xenosexual senses. A foreign woman can dangle her shoe at me with a naughty smirk, and I will forget all about the battleship cannons seated at the bar next to her. Granted, most American men seem to prefer to be bludgeoned with female battleship cannons; I know I'm the weird one here. Maybe the dress thing is atavistic , or maybe it's because I understand how fermentation works that I don't care for girls in pants. I guess most American men prefer that women wear the pants.

The dimensions of modern American women are worth a mention. The average American woman is 5'4" and tips the scales at 164lbs with a 37" waist size. Being a squirrely little man of the exact average height and weight for an American male, I only have a 31" waist, and so, well, I have to admit, the average, um, "curvy" American woman is certainly of a size that I find rather intimidating. By my calculations, that puts the average American female at approximately 39 percent bodyfat. Normal would be something like 16 percent, yielding a surplus of 38 lbs of fat per woman. There are about 150 million American women, giving us a grand total of 5.7 billion pounds of unsightly excess lard. To get an idea of how obscene this is, 7lbs of fat are about equivalent in energy expenditure to a gallon of petrochemical fuel. Each Saturn-V rocket, the awe-inspiring monstrosities that hurled 1960s era Freemasons to the moon, contained only 960,000 gallons of fuel. Waving my hands over the stoichiometry, this means there is enough excess libido destroying pork butter on American womanhood to power 5900 or so manned moon missions. While American men may like their women on the chunky side, I consider it incredibly wasteful that all this high fructose corn syrup goes to expand female waistlines when it could be used to power space ships to the moon. No, no, I prefer the old fashioned kind of females who have bellies considerably smaller than my own; you know, like the foreign ones.

Then there is the idea of physical fitness among American women. Foreign women define physical fitness as being slim and feminine. American women think it is OK to be as fat as they like, so long as they can run a marathon or go on grueling hikes in the woods. Well, that's OK I guess; physical fitness is important, but if you're carrying around 30lbs of lard, I'm still not going to find you as attractive as a skinny but lazy Romanian or Vietnamese woman. Since I'm trying to find a date, rather than looking for someone to plough my fields, serve as an emergency food supply, or staff a private army, the whole fitness thing isn't so important to me as the aesthetics of slender arms and waists.

I'm pretty sure there is a hormonal component to the whole thing. Look, for example, at these American movie stars of yesteryear, Hedy Lamarr and Lillian Gish below. Beautiful, feminine, wholesome even, and dripping with estrogen. This is the kind of woman that appeals to xenosexuals like myself; they used to make them right here in America, back when Americans actually made things. Now we must make do with imports.

By contrast we have Erin Anderson and Anna Paquin (technically Kiwi: humor me) below, rated 14 and 79 in this year's "Top 99 most desirable women" by Ask Men. They both have the hatchet jaws, neanderthal brow ridges and beady eyes of a male to female transsexual. These physical features are caused by male hormones like testosterone. What could be going on here? Phthalates? Birth control pills? Virilization through yoyo dieting? It is a long story how this works, but even kids notice that fat ladies often have mustaches. Could it be a side effect of female hypergamy as F. Roger Devlin and the notorious Roissy have posited? Meaning, do women who have sampled too many Vienna sausages on the peen chuckwagon develop some sort of endocrinological issues? Or perhaps because modern American women are encouraged to compete and fight like a man, their adrenal glands have released enough androgens to visibly change them. Think about that for a minute: American feminism might have changed women physically.

I'm nothing like an endocrinologist, and I've never done the calculations to see if this could theoretically happen, but the adrenal glands do release testosterone, and the adrenals are used a lot more by disagreeable grouchy American women than feminine foreigners. American men have been looking pretty testosterone deficient in recent years; perhaps they are seeking out something they lack? By contrast, I have an endocrinological disorder cursing me with a high level of testosterone; it comes from my birth into the violent working classes and is exacerbated by my habit of eating too much red meat and lifting enormous barbells in the gym. As such, I don't care so much for the Popeye chin on the ladies. I like the ones with nice oval shaped faces and soft neonatal features, like Hedy Lamarr (who, by the way, was also a certifiable genius).

Numbers 14 and 73 most attractive women in the world according to dystopian universe of Ask Men

The irreplaceable Roissy posted a sociological article about Kazakh perceptions of different nationalities of women that sums it up better than I ever could. Borat's description of American women:

American woman is described in quite contradictory way. Most amazing is a negative estimation of her appearance. There are many variations on this topic: not well-groomed, not stylish, does not dress well, not fashionable clothes, not ironed shorts and T-shirt, sleepers, put on bare feet, elderly woman in shorts, emancipated woman, for whom it is not important how she looks, a girl without make-up, happy fatty woman, stout and shapeless person, a short hair-cut, a knapsack, waddling walk, tennis shoes, dentures, plain, manlike, unisex.

Borat speaks the truth; no political correctness there, and Borat's women folk won't menace him with a rolling pin for noticing the obvious. "Not that there is anything wrong with that," as Seinfeld put it. Different kinds of men have different preferences and all that. If you like "stout and shapeless persons," all the more power to you.

It doesn't matter to me where they're from. I don't discriminate against foreign women by race, color or creed: every variety of imported female I know of is better on average than the domestic kinds. Now that America consists of all sorts of racial types, you can no longer tell a foreign woman by an exotic complexion. But we xenosexual men will be able to tell. My F.O.B.-dar is so finely tuned, I can spot a Russian, Eritrean or Serb at 50 paces, and I'll know if a Korean in America was raised in Los Angeles or is from the old country long before she opens her mouth. They seem to do a decent job of finding me as well; perhaps they notice my surfeit of self-respect compared to other American men -- that's how I spot my xenosexual brothers.

So, immigration haters, give a care to your less fortunate xenosexual brothers. Would you condemn us to a lifetime of loneliness, or force us into the arms of women we don't find attractive? I suspect American male xenosexuality might be a bigger phenomenon than was heretofore realized, so I encourage the lot of you to come out of the closet with me. I know Derb is on board. So are such notable conservatives as Fred Reed, and Roissy; even Mel Gibson -- men who have seen a bit of life, and know what they like.  Open wide the gates!

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

Not an American woman

Post Scriptum: No American women were harmed in researching this essay, despite what they may say.

CGI Nordicism

Colin, Andy, and Richard discuss the recent deadly shooting in Connecticut and why the "gun control" debate is less about guns than it is about race, demography, and geography.  They then turn to Peter Jackson's Hobbit, and ask whether CGI ruins Nordicism.

Please visit Vanguard's new home.  Also, please consider supporting the podcast--we need your help! 

Podcast Powered By Podbean

In Defense of Laziness

We are told, by those who were not there at the time, that the founding fathers valued hard work and that the way to get ahead in this society is to work hard.

What does it mean, to work hard? When you sit at a desk, does it mean you push down on the pencil harder? Well, no… it means that you spend a lot of hours doing your task, and that in theory you pay attention and do it halfway well.

And yet, no one has stopped to think how working hard could be a bad thing.

The problem with hard work, other than the kind of work where you can space out, like farm labor, is that it takes over your brain. It’s like a form of inertia. When you have a hammer, everything is a nail. When you work hard, the only solution is more hard work.

Not working smarter, not eliminating excess, not rethinking the mission to be more efficient. Just grind! Ignore the rest of your life. Ignore your sentiment, your humanity, your family and your need to develop as a human being. Show up every day and push paper, people and pencils around until you get what you want!

In offices, schools and commuter vehicles across America, melancholy eyes turn to the window and watch the blue sky, out there so close you could touch it, waiting in a pristine state of beauty. It surrounds us, yet by our own rules we stay in here and it stays out there. Misery perpetuated.

This is not to be construed as opposition to a job well done. A job well done is a situation where you set a goal, recognize the “fullness” of the task as involving far more than mediocrity, and then apply yourself to conquer the obstacle. Harvest season is one of these, or writing a book, or building a house.

These tasks showcase more of the rhythm of life. Rest, then a task, with contemplation followed by diligent action, but nothing more. No immersing in work as a way to run away from your problems. No weltering in money so that you can claim you’re living the good life. No lording of titles, prestige and accomplishment in the small as an egotism that replaces the need to have a soul.

America and our brothers and sisters in Europe grew because we understood not hard work, but hard tasks. We aimed for the job that needed doing-well, and not the easy job that we could grind away at without thinking. We surged into new fields of the arts, sciences, philosophy and learning.

After that was done, the imitators showed up, probably the result of a population boom thanks to all the wealth received from our technology and learning, and they started imitating what others had done to succeed. Except that instead of reaching into the task and finding the goal, they took a surface look and saw method.

Thus the aggressive and war-like stance of a job well done got replaced by the job that would never be done. Show up, be there a lot and make a lot of noise, and then get paid. Create reams of paper that no one will ever read again. Grandstand, pass out business cards, deduct your false teeth and join a professional association.

If anything is killing the West, and making us vote against ourselves, it’s our misery. We work hard in a perpetual wartime mode, struggling for a victory that will never come. We hate ourselves, and imagine the natives in the tropics have answers we don’t.

After all, they’re not working hard and then looking out their windows balefully at the blue sky and wondering what they’re missing.

The Acceptable Enemy

When living in China a European cannot fail to be struck by the country’s intense nationalism; especially as it contrasts so sharply with the mixture of fear, disdain, and indifference towards national sentiment that prevails in the modern West.

When a drunken Western tourist was caught on video attempting to assault a Chinese woman in Beijing, the result was uproar on the Chinese internet and a crackdown on foreign residents by the government; contrast this with the reaction of the British establishment to the actual rapes of English girls by Pakistani gangs, which was mainly concerned with not appearing “racist” to the compatriots of the offenders! A long list of similar contrasts could be made for almost every aspect of national life, and it would make for depressing reading indeed.

The Chinese state relentlessly promotes its national interests abroad, often whipping its citizens into a frenzy of public outrage whenever these are thwarted; meanwhile, America and several European countries pour away blood and treasure in foreign wars for the sake of humanitarian abstractions. The highly educated graduates of China’s best universities are if anything more nationalistic than the general population; whereas the dull-witted holder of a third-rate humanities degree in a Western country sees it as a mark of his social prestige to spit upon the patriotism of the “ignorant” lower classes.

Although the sight of Chinese fenqing (“angry youth”) snarling anti-Western slogans is undoubtedly not a pretty one, those of us who lament Europeans’ lack of national consciousness may be tempted to watch with a certain admiration and a despairing glance hindward at our own deluded “cosmopolitans.” After all, we know that the Chinese (like most non-Europeans) would never assent to their people’s demographic replacement by foreigners; and that alone makes their nationalism infinitely more sensible as a survival strategy than the self-destructive ruling ideology of the West. Moreover, many of us have long believed that our progressivists and multiculturalists do their evil out of guilt, self-hatred and “ethnomasochism” – afflictions of the mind refreshingly absent from non-European nations like the Chinese.

One might ask, “How can the Chinese be so full of national pride – even national arrogance – while Europeans are so self-abasing and masochistic?”

The answer, as I have come to see it through years of acquaintance with both Chinese and Europeans, is a counterintuitive one. It is that the Chinese, at some level, consider themselves inferior to Europeans; and in contrast, at some level, our “liberal” and “multiculturalist” Europeans still assume that they are the most superior race on Earth.

To defend this argument we must first remove the mask from the apparent national pride of the Chinese, to expose the (rather badly hidden) resentments and inferiority complexes underpinning it. It is true that, if asked for the basis of his national self-esteem, a Chinese will almost certainly cite the long history and rich culture of his civilisation; and indeed, had he been born two hundred years ago, we could take him at his word. But ever since the stagnation of the last imperial Chinese dynasty, and its overthrow from within in favour of modern ideologies (first nationalism, then communism) imported from the West, nowhere has traditional Chinese culture suffered such rending criticism and brutal desecration as in Mainland China; and as a result, the attitude of today’s Chinese towards their own heritage is still a decidedly ambiguous one. It would be no great exaggeration to say that it is treated as a set of museum-pieces, to be waved around as objects of pride when in the company of foreigners, but excoriated as relics of “feudalism” when said foreigners have left the room. At the very least, we can say with certainty that the conviction of the Chinese that their civilisation is superior to all others vanished a long time ago.

Rather than the positive achievements of Chinese civilisation, the true foundation of modern Chinese nationalism is an entirely negative one: “national humiliation” or guochi, meaning the century or so of external defeats and internal collapse that traditional China suffered after coming into contact with the modernised nations of Europe (and later, a modernised Japan). The more recent loss of faith in the future communist utopia (which, however mistaken, was at least a positive ideal) has meant that this collection of grievances is now perhaps the only thing holding the Chinese people together under their present government; and it has hence become all the more important that it be assiduously passed down to each new generation, resulting in a predictable mixture of inward status paranoia and outward nationalist arrogance. If a Chinese reacts with hysteria to even light criticism of his country by a European, it is not because he truly thinks that his country is wonderful and beyond criticism; but rather because where the European might see two people debating as equals, he sees a nightmare image of a proud and bullying foreigner looking down on his country from a position of superiority.

John Derbyshire, far more familiar with China than myself, describes this phenomenon thus:

“[A] burning, aching sense of racial inferiority. … [The Chinese] actually did create a great civilization, and believed it was the only one in the world; but it collapsed in a cloud of dust as soon as the white man touched it — a trauma from which the mainland Chinese have not, even now, really begun to recover. How could they? The communists work hard to keep that trauma alive, nursing and tending it with all the patient assiduity of hothouse gardeners. They have to — it's all they have going for them.”

Of course, it is not necessarily wrong that the Chinese should use such a powerful lever to mobilise their own population; and nor can it be supposed that they will never find a way back to a true appreciation of their traditional national culture. Indeed, the future of China is in far less doubt that that of Europe; but that is not really the subject of this essay. Of the Chinese, let us only further note that their ressentiment over past humiliations by Europeans are to a certain extent those of the global South as a whole; and what we say about the sources of their national feeling may apply in greater or lesser measure to blacks, Muslims, Mexicans etc, all of whom are noted by us on the Alternative Right to show a much higher level of nationalism than Europeans.

But we must now explore a truth of far more relevance to our own cause – namely, that the supposed “masochism” and “self-abasement” of our own elites rests on a European superiority complex and implicit idea of white supremacy that, in its essential substance, has changed very little from the days when Europeans colonised other races in the name of “civilisation” and “progress”.

It is strange that so many traditional conservatives and nationalists in Europe have persisted in attributing guilt, self-hatred and excessive humility to the most visibly smug and arrogant caste of human beings ever to walk the earth, our progressivist elites. To those of us on the Alternative Right, it is obvious that this parasitic class prizes social status above race and nation: if they profess to dislike white people, they are referring only to the “unenlightened”, “racist”, “conservative”, “tabloid-reading” classes of native Europeans seen as possessed of lower social status than themselves; and if they indulge in racial self-reproach for the benefit of minorities, it is only so that they can better criticise these perceivedly nationalistic classes of Europeans, who threaten them in a way minorities do not. Their self-flagellating humility is no less superficial (and misleading) than the arrogant bluster of the Chinese.

But while their hypocrisy is common knowledge, what of the racial pride underpinning their apparent supplication and tolerance, which so often goes unnoticed? One of the more obvious examples of this, which has been commented on before, would be the “liberal” assumption that we should throw open our gates to foreign peoples out of noble-minded charity – a piece of pompous claptrap that betrays its origins in the propaganda of the “white man’s burden,” which once exhorted us to colonise the same foreign peoples in the name of the same noble-minded charity.

But there is no smaller measure of racial pride in modern demands for Europeans to criticise their own heritage and “enrich” themselves through diversity – demands which, as every right-wing nationalist knows and complains, are never made of non-Europeans whether in Europe or in their own homelands. But the true significance of this is that Europeans, and Europeans alone, are supposed to be enlightened and civilised enough to cast aside the barbarism of national traditions and loyalties; we alone are supposed to be able to shed our own culture like a skin and see things with an objective eye; and it is we who are entrusted with the mission to lead the world by sacrificing our own interests (or at least those of our lower classes) to create the City on the Hill, the harmonious multi-racial society. There is a fairly straight line of continuity from such progressivist swill back to the old colonialist pretensions of Europeans, and perhaps all the way back to medieval European Christendom’s self-idealisation as the Kingdom of God on earth.

The only difference is that this racial arrogance has become far more obviously self-destructive to Europeans than once it was. The kind of pride that European elites once felt in possessing a true religion and superior culture now lies in possessing the ability to extirpate one’s own base racial instincts; an inner struggle that is closely associated with the struggle of progressives everywhere to overcome, marginalise and demographically replace their lower middle- and working-class European populations. Non-Europeans, predictably, are not held to the same standards of “civilisation”; their alien cultures must be preserved as props to demonstrate the cosmopolitanism of progressives, or else as sticks to beat those Europeans who are not yet cleansed of “racist” original sin. It is easy to see that in the progressivist narrative of good and evil, white people alone are the actors; non-whites are those acted upon, either with tolerance by white “saints” or wickedness by white “sinners”, and their own duties or sins simply do not count for very much. (Even a black “saviour-figure” like Obama is little more than a public litmus test for the progressivist moral rectitude of his white voters.)

Now, the fact that our enemies are in reality arrogant rather than self-abasing may be a matter of some indifference to us; but the fact that the European populations they rule are full of the same toxic pride as themselves most certainly is not. It is because Europeans are so proud that they have never yet accepted the call to self-defence; and they would perhaps have to be pushed onto reservations in their own countries before they adopted the present attitude of the Chinese.

In particular, those of us who seek to rally Europeans to a simplistic racial tribalism (i.e. that practiced instinctively by non-Europeans) always seem to founder against this sort of pride. Europeans (who have dominated the globe for some five hundred years) are used to being told that their destiny is to lead the world, sacrifice themselves, build the shining City on the Hill; they cannot easily stomach the humiliation of “taking their own side” in the same way as non-whites! While multiculturalism is a piece of white racial arrogance hidden under a tissue of guilt and self-abasement, white racial tribalists advocate an egalitarian ideal (“all peoples, including Europeans, have the right to self-preservation”) swathed in unflattering views of non-whites that are essentially superficial to the doctrine. One reason why this ideal remains anathema to most Europeans is that it slights their pride: while progressives present a worldview in which white people are the only actors, this is reversed in the familiar narrative of the “rising tide of colour”, whereby foreign immigrants become the primary actors; Europeans are shifted into the role of those threatened, those besieged, those acted upon – at best, those who react.

Of course, we who oppose the progressivist desecration of Europe can only say what we find to be true; we cannot and should not make undue concessions to foolish complacency; and if any one catalyst is to eventually arouse resistance in Europeans, it will be the demographic invasion of Europe by the peoples of the South. But we only hobble our own arguments when we try to induce in our people the siege mentality of the Chinese, by painting some external enemy as the devil incarnate (as, for example, Faye does with Islam in Europe) alongside which our own elites appear merely as fools or collaborators. In reality, no external enemy would have been capable of reducing us to our present state were it not for the deliberate and hostile acts of European elites against their own populations; and if it is that we hold back from fully excoriating them for their crimes because they are members of our own race, let me say only that they have never yet extended the same courtesy to us!

Attacking some external “Other” only affronts the pride of Europeans by suggesting that they are (heaven forbid) threatened by non-whites, and allows progressives – those bullies par excellence – to pose as the benevolent defenders of “minority groups.” But if we reserve our antagonism for Europe’s own ruling caste (a logical counterpart to the Traditionalist attack on their false gospel of secularised Christianity), they can only respond by defending their own privileges and parasitism.

Thus I suggest that if our movement has need of an “Other,” the most deserving candidates are our European progressive elites themselves, who have been the direct cause of so many of the evils that have befallen Europe (I do not speak only of mass immigration and multiculturalism). We should excoriate them and their ideology, on moral grounds, without mercy; “progressive” must become a dirty word, befitting the foul thing it describes. This is not an apology for sickly lamentations along the lines that “we have brought everything on ourselves”. “We” are not “the white race as a whole” but those who wish to defend and restore Europe, while “they” who rule us are a separate ideological caste at war with the majority of Europeans; they evidently see themselves as such, and it is no innovation on our part to designate them accordingly. A major practical advantage of this line of attack is that the unspoken racial pride of our people, which sees only the heroism or depravity of white people as worthy of note, is not yet ready to accept any external enemy.

Europa Nostra!

Génération Identitaire, recently gained worldwide attention, with their "Declaration of War" video, and their occupation of a mosque at the historically important location of Poitiers. They are an organization filled with youthful energy in a state that has accepted multiculturalism and embraced its doctrines. I conducted an interview with Arnaud Delrieux, one of the leadership cadre of Generation Identitaire, an interview that serves as an introduction to the very interesting views of young French people fighting for their right to live as a homogenous community in their country.

Identitarianism, nationalism, communitarianism, socialism? How would you describe identitarianism to a non-French person?

There is no “identitarianism.” Génération Identitaire is not a club for ideologues fantasizing about the “Grand Soir” (the general upheaval to come) or “glorious tomorrows.” We are young and pragmatic, both in our methods and worldview. This does not, however, keep us from having an ideal: we want to live in peace on our land according to our identity, like every people has the right to.

The 20th century was the century of ideologies – Liberalism, Socialism, Communism, Nationalism, all of which failed. The 21st century is the century of identities. Indeed it is the very substance of the European people that is threatened by the steamroller of globalization, invasion-migration and multiculturalism. Sovereignists have missed the boat by a longshot: it’s no longer the power or sovereignty of nation-states that’s in jeopardy; it’s the very identity of our friends, our families and our kinfolk. On the ethnic scale, because of the effects of migrant submersion on demographics, and on the cultural scale, because of the uniformization of different ways of life. In addition to this, European nation-states, prime inheritors of the Jacobinist ideas of the French Revolution, were the first agents in the destruction of popular traditions, deep rooted cultures and spiritual mass movements which fortified and irrigated European societies. No ideological recipe forcibly applied by these nearly extinct fossils can protect us anymore. The people have to take their fate into their own hands: time to wake up!

A nation can rise from the ashes of war or economic crisis, but it cannot survive the disappearance of its own people. There are 10 to 12 million Muslims in France and around 15 million immigrants, African and Muslim for the most part. It is the foremost political problem. Our fight is one for survival. We do not want to disappear, we want to live, and we want to be actors of our history and not simple bystanders. We do not want to become the Native Americans of Europe.

All of our political vision must be rethought in the light of this reality. We must take this reality and draw adapted political solutions from it, not twist it to meet some preconceived dogmas. We do not have any fixed answer to all the problems faced by the French and European people. However, we have adopted basic principles that serve as a compass in the ongoing storm. First we consider that ethno cultural homogeneity of a people is the foremost condition for social peace. Multiculturalism spawns “multiracism”: just look at Lebanon, Brazil, South Africa, etc. Then, we believe that Europe is our chance: if the European people were united, we’d be invincible. I’m not the one saying this, the strategic analysts working for the White House are: they call our continent the “heartland,” that is to say the heart of the World. Finally, we are rabid defendants of direct democracy, federalism and localism. Of course I’m not talking about the so-called European “federalism,” which is in reality nothing more than technocratic centralism in disguise. By “federalism” I mean “unity in diversity.” Localism is the relocalization of economic activities, political power and people. Like the Americans say: “small is beautiful!” But small is also stronger: countries like Switzerland, who frequently engage in direct democracy, show us the way.

Identitarianism: is it a movement? A party? An association? How would you describe it?

Génération Identitaire is a combat community. “Community” because we are more than a political movement: we are a clan within which rules the spirit of mutual assistance and solidarity. “Combat” because, when facing those that promote migrational policies that are criminal towards the European people, the struggle must be universal: beyond the political realm, we have a vocation to fight on the social and cultural ground. As Frédéric Mistral said: “it’s not about having an electoral majority, it’s about rebuilding a people!” We are an avant-garde of popular awakeners, not small time politicians hidden behind their necktie.

We are one of the three pillars of Le Mouvement Identitaire, founded in 2002, which assembles Bloc Identitaire, a political party and networking tool, the association Les Identitaires, which organizes every summer the Camp Identitaire, a place of political and militant formation, and Génération Identitaire, a combat community, which brings together the young identitarians of francophone Europe. We are a political oddity in a political landscape as fossilized as the one in France: the three pillars of the Mouvement Identitaire are structurally independent from each other, they therefore act freely whilst respecting a political line common throughout all the Mouvement. “Unity in diversity” is the creed of our mode of organization: federal and autonomous breaking from the centralization typical of traditional political formations in France.

Génération Identitaire recently made itself known to Europe with its "Declaration of War" but also with its action at the Poitiers mosque. What are the consequences of your success?

If you’ll allow me, I’d like to come back on the occupation of the Poitiers mosque you were talking about.

With this successful first action, Génération Identitaire showed in what way our combat community was legitimate on the political scene: we are awakeners and we give a hard kick in the nest of political correctness and its ability to impose, beyond the debate itself, the very terms of that debate to the political class and the media! In that sense, we are stingers, we lead the way. What can still be saved in France depends primarily on the capacity for a non-electoral structure like ours to engage in direct contact with the French people through shock actions with high media repercussions, which are our trademark. For example, no less than 250 news articles, excluding the appearances on nightly television news broadcasts, followed the occupation of the Poitiers mosque. Showing the way, being role models, is our prime ambition. Through these kinds of concrete actions, we sow the seeds of the coming reconquest. We are a beacon towards which a certain number of young people will turn when the extreme ethnic and political polarization of French society will lead to the return of political and social mass movements.

This can no longer be considered metapolitical as inspired by Gramsci, for whom political victory could only be achieved through cultural victory, this is supra-political! For now, we are the minority of dissidents, the militant elite, which doesn’t know fear and doesn’t give up. Even more than that, we shift the frontlines and further our ideas! More than any poster campaign ever will. In French political life, there will definitely be a before and an after “Poitiers.”

Since then, our numbers grow and we receive much support, and it does indeed require a lot of work. We’ve received many donations, letters of support from around the world (United-States, Québec, Latin America and all over Europe), new members, orders for books and stickers, etc. For the first time since the appearance of the Identitarian political tendency in 2002, our militants have been echoed around the world. The occupation of the Poitiers mosque has amplified a tendency started by the broadcast of our “Declaration of War.” Since it was posted publicly, we’ve seen Facebook pages for “Génération Identitaire – Germany” or “Génération Identitaire – Italy” appear. The German page for example has as many “likes” as ours… The Declaration itself was subtitled in many European languages, and the view count for the one subtitled in English has even shot past the one for the original video. Our lambda was picked up all over the continent and we are currently brainstorming on how to make the best of this growing success, especially in Germany and Austria which are both very promising countries. The young German identitarians even had their first public action when they interrupted, pacifically and musically, the Intercultural Festival in Frankfurt. I’ll take this opportunity to salute and congratulate them!

The weekend of the occupation of the Poitiers mosque, we received around 2000 emails of support, orders for material, and people wanting to become members! The person in charge of mail pulled a few all-nighters to answer everything and the person in charge of mailing everything spent days doing so… This shows that our cause takes precedence over anything else in our life. We can proudly say that we were not overwhelmed by our success: everyone has a task and performs it seriously. It’s a big job, but we do it proudly and happily because we never could have hoped for such a huge success a mere two months after our creation… It’s our biggest pride.

Is there a chance Génération Identitaire might be disbanded and outlawed by the French government?

The French laws that allow groups to be outlawed are mostly targeted at terrorists and private militias. Faced with the lack of sufficient judicial reasons, the President of the Republic gave up on disbanding us, to the great dismay of so-called “anti-racist” associations and sectarian groupuscules of the far left. The threat of disbandment was only meant to intimidate us. Much like the judicial supervision imposed on our four comrades under indictment for the organization of the recent occupation of the Poitiers mosque and which prevents them from leaving their district, meeting up with other militants present in Poitiers and participating in any political activity related to the identitarian movement. “France, the country of human rights,” that’s for illegal migrants and delinquents, not for young patriots! However, what doesn’t kill us makes us stronger. The success of the Poitiers action gave us the most important media presence the Identitaires had ever known since their creation in 2002. Our enemies gave us a big hand and for that we thank them with all our heart.

They can try to intimidate us, but they can’t dissolve the rage within our hearts. No one can disband passion, no one can disband youth. In the upcoming months, you will keep on hearing from us. Facing the political elites that have declared war on our people, we won’t back down!

When you say “Europe,” what do you mean?

I’m not talking, of course, about the European Union. Europe is a community of civilization and culture. As Europeans, we are all inheritors of Rome, Athens, Sparta and Christianity. As Frenchmen, we are in a good position to discuss this. Indeed, there is no such thing as a “French race”: we are a mix of different European ethnic groups, be they Celtic, Latin or Germanic. Europeans have to be aware of that which has bound us for 30,000 years now, ever since our prehistoric ancestors painted on cave walls what they saw around them: all over Europe we find the same patterns, the same animals, the same beliefs. Throughout our history, every spiritual, cultural, economic, social and political movement that has appeared in a European country has had its equivalent in neighbouring countries.

Because we have the same identity and we are faced with the same problems (mass-immigration from Southern countries, pressure from Islam, American hegemony, proletarization at the hands of globalization), me must adopt a common front. The case of Tunisian refugees after the Jasmine Revolution is telling: because of the lack of common agreements with France and its other neighbours, the Italian government steered the flow of asylum seekers towards our country. This cannot be permitted to happen again.

For thousands of years, we’ve shared common grief, common hopes and sometimes common fights despite our internal quarrels. You Greeks are in a good position to acknowledge this: the Persian invasion of the 5th century before Christ took place when your great nation was torn up internally by rivalries between cities that language, culture and spirituality united, but faced with a greater enemy you raised the banner of Hellenic unity. In 1571 at the Battle of Lepanto, Europeans united once again against the common enemy: the Turks. Now Europe must unite once more through a common political construction that respects differences: we are for a Europe that respects nations and local identities, we fight for a Europe with 100 flags! Against the Europe of merchants and bankers, against the integration of Turkey in the European Union, we must come together and bring forth a powerful Europe that will hold fast in the face of all imperialisms. In friendship with our Slavic and Russian brothers we must clearly state: no Allah, no America! Europa nostra!

I have a perception of France as the European country that went the furthest into multiculturalism, is there any way to reverse this?

Of course! Where there’s a will, there’s a way.

History is full of surprises. No one can predict what will happen tomorrow. What I can tell you is that a growing majority of French people, and especially young French people, share our sentiments and our rage. According to two recent polls, 76% of French people believe that “Islam progresses” too quickly, close to half of our countrymen consider it a “threat” and 52% of the population think that “there are too many immigrants in France.” Since the 80s, according to all of the analysts and polling institutes, this general sentiment progresses at a swift and uninterrupted pace. The silent majority of this country is with us, and when the ethnic rupture will be felt by a growing number of our compatriots, fear will definitively switch sides. Nothing can defeat survival instincts. Like one of our main inspirations, the famous Provençal poet Frédéric Mistral, said: “To help us we have, in addition, the cry of blood and land, which may be gagged but never silenced.”

Concretely, if an ethnic conflict were to break out tomorrow in France, which we want to avoid at all costs, it’s obvious that we would not sit around with our hands in our pockets and would actively defend our families. We do not condone violence, but we embrace force when necessary. The French may be lulled into inaction by consumerism and made docile by the necessity to earn a living, but they still remain a warrior people, which, after enduring humiliations without lashing out, always end up overthrowing its tyrants in a way that serves as a warning to all those that would be tempted to see them in chains again. Such is the history of our country since its inception. For example, we switched without any form of transition from absolutist monarchism to the “reddest” of republics, which took a toll on the country. France was also one of the last states of Europe to adopt social protection laws, much later than Britain and Bismarck’s Germany, but these laws are the most advanced of their kind in our country. If you look even further back, you’ll see that even the religious conflicts were the most violent in France. A thing is certain, for better or for worse, the French people are frondeurs [rebels] and they will have the opportunity to demonstrate it again. Militants of the longest memory, neither optimistic nor pessimistic but simply realistic, we are confident in our people!

We are in the same situation as Lenin who, in January 1917, said: “We may not see the decisive battles of the coming revolution”… A few weeks later, the Bolshevik revolution broke out in Russia. Once the gears are in motion, there is no stopping the machine.

One of your slogans is “0% racism, 100% identity.” Would you accept immigrant communities that preserve their identity on European soil?

“0% racism, 100% identity” means that we respect the right for all to defend their identity… in their own country! In short “everyone at home.” This slogan means that we are opposed to any form of imperialism. Our only International is that of the people struggling to retain their differences: from the natives of the Mexican Chiapas to the Karen in Burma, without forgetting the Serbs in Kosovo and the Christians in Lebanon. We seek with this slogan to point out to those who still doubt it that Europeans are now an endangered ethnic group, much like native tribes everywhere that western bourgeois Third-World advocates love to patronize, without realizing that, one day, they themselves might become the minority on their own land… Above all, “0% racism, 100% identity” means that our political engagement is not motivated by the hate of others but rather by the love of our own. However, this love can become war if it has to: we love our people and our land as much as we refuse to let anyone hurt them.

Also read Roman Bernard's report from the recent Bloc Identitaire Convention.

Detroit's Destiny

This article was originally published 23 March, 2012.

Remember the time you were in class and knew the answer to a question posed by your teacher, but didn’t raise your hand out of fear you might be wrong? Or the time you had a crush on a beautiful girl, but were too afraid to ask her on a date because she might say ‘no’?

Well, we are reaching the political equivalent of that moment—where that self-induced fear and trepidation which precludes us from doing what is rational and natural because of the negative consequences we perceive could arise from such action—with the impending financial collapse of Detroit.

“Impending” is the wrong word. “Imminent” would be, too. “Inevitable” is the apt word.

Why the insolvency of Detroit has been an inevitability now must be stated, because others will raise their hand and supply the wrong answer. The American Thinker will try and blame Democrats and Unions without mentioning that America’s most livable big city, Pittsburgh, is filled with both.

Free Republic won’t allow anyone to even mention the word “Black” in the strange color-blind world the owners of that site have cultivated (with a religious zeal and intensity normally seen in a cult).

Beloved conservative economist Thomas Sowell can state it is due to “liberal social policies,” without acknowledging these same policies are in place in cities that attract corporate investments, like Portland, Seattle, Boulder, and Denver. Others will state that a city under “total Democrat hegemony” for 50 years was bound to collapse, maintaining a desire to stay color-blind even in the face of economic Armageddon.

Michael Barone, famous for stating that Hispanics will save the Republican Party, was in Detroit during the Black riots of late July 1967, still the worst riots this nation has ever seen. He wrote an article for the American Enterprise Institute stating how his politics were shaped by this event. Considering that he advocates the continued mass immigration of a people who in 2006 marched in major American cities waving the Mexican flags defiantly, we have to wonder what exactly Barone learned.

The Weekly Standard published Matt Labash’s ode to Detroit’s collapse back in 2008, where he only in passing pointed out the racial significance of a city’s collapse. (In 1960, Detroit was 76 percent White. Though at the time Blacks represented only 24 percent of the population, there were responsible for 65 percent of the violence crime there):

Somewhere along the way, Detroit became our national ashtray, a safe place for everyone to stub out the butt of their jokes.

It happens, though, when you're from Detroit. In the popular imagination, the Motor City has gone from being the Arsenal of Democracy, so named for their converting auto factories to make the weapons which helped us win World War II, and the incubator of the middle class (now leading the nation in foreclosure rates, Detroit once had the highest rate of home ownership in the country), to being Dysfunction Junction. To Detroit's credit, they've earned it.

How bad is Detroit? It once gave the keys to the city to Saddam Hussein.

Over the last several years, it has ranked as the most murderous city, the poorest city, the most segregated city, as the city with the highest auto-insurance rates, with the bleakest outlook for workers in their 20s and 30s, and as the place with the most heart attacks, slowest income growth, and fewest sunny days. It is a city without a single national grocery store chain. It has been deemed the most stressful metropolitan area in America. Likewise, it has ranked last in numerous studies: in new employment growth, in environmental indicators, in the rate of immunization of 2-year-olds, and, among big cities, in the number of high school or college graduates.

Men's Fitness magazine christened Detroit America's fattest city, while Men's Health called it America's sexual disease capital. Should the editors of these two metrosexual magazines be concerned for their safety after slagging the citizens of a city which has won the "most dangerous" title for five of the last ten years? Probably not: 47 percent of Detroit adults are functionally illiterate.

Precisely what caused all this mess is perhaps best left to historians. Locals' ideas for how it happened could keep one pinned to a barstool for weeks: auto companies failing or pushing out to the suburbs and beyond, white flight caused by the '67 riots and busing orders, the 20-year reign of Mayor Coleman Young who scared additional middle-class whites off with statements such as "The only way to handle discrimination is to reverse it," freeways destroying mass transit infrastructure, ineptitude, corruption, Japanese cars--take your pick.

We no longer have the luxury of such utopian dreams of taking our pick when it comes to placing the blame for Detroit’s monumental collapse; we must deal with the facts as they are and point out that Detroit has become the best friend of budding photographers hoping to publish the next best-selling coffee table book because it is a city that most resembles the dangerous foreign landscapes pictured in National Geographic. (For an actual coffee table book on modern Detroit, check out The Ruins of Detroit, by French photographers Yves Marchand and Romain Meffre .)

Detroit is 82 percent Black. The Great Migration to Detroit of Blacks from the South (exacerbated by Henry Ford’s promise to hire 10 percent of his employees from the Black population) inexorably created White Flight from that city, turning the city once known as “The Paris of the West” into the American version of the Paris Suburbs. Much of the rest of the city been torn down due to neglect.

Detoirt's Woodward Ave. (from The Ruins of Detroit).

That Democrat hegemony bemoaned for ruining the city has been overwhelmingly Black for 40 years, starting with the election of Coleman Young, the first Black mayor in the history of Detroit. The mass exodus of people from the city was primarily White back in the 1960s and '70s (which turned a majority White city into the majority Black mess you have now), but is currently a torrent of Black people fleeing in hopes of finding a place to live with a national grocery chain.

White people fled Black crime then; Black people flee Black crime now.

Mike Brownfield of The Heritage Foundation has said Detroit is “a liberal’s worst nightmare,” but fails to point out that it is Black people fleeing a liberal Black cityto the tune of a 25 percent population decline in 10 years.

What are you afraid of saying Mr. Brownfield? Why can’t you just say Detroit is in trouble because of its majority population (why doesn’t the Detroit Free Pressever run an article that asks, In changing world, Detroit remains overwhelming black?)? Why can’t Dr. Sowell? Why can’t The American Thinker? Why can’tNational Review?

The decline of Detroit (and America’s major cities such as Baltimore, Milwaukee, Memphis, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Cleveland, Newark, New Orleans, Atlanta, Birmingham, Chicago, etc.) is completely racial in nature. Michael Walsh of National Review laments that “some day, we’ll all live in Detroit” without mentioning the fact that Detroit’s lily-white suburbs--where the White descendants of the War of Detroit (the 1967 Black riot) retreated to--are perhaps the nicest in America.

Conservatives must understand that is the Black residents of Detroit who have helped depreciate what was once some of the highest property value in the country to the majority of zip codes in America with the lowest property value.

The Black press seems to understand understands this: The Atlanta Post published a story in 2010 stating that to Abandon Detroit = Abandoning Black America; Detroit post-1967 is a direct representation of Black America.

One mustn’t forget that every student in Detroit now eats for free (courtesy of the state) so that the stigma of being on the free lunch program won’t affect the self-esteem of Black children. As of 2009, more than 300,000 Black residents of Detroit were on food stamps, which equates to 38 percent of the citizenry. One can only guess what that number is now.

With news that Detroit could run out cash by December, Mayor Dave Bing has had to announce massive cuts to the city that contradict the USA Today’s triumphant, front-page, above the fold claim in October of 2011 that Detroit was back! from a few months ago. The Detroit Free Press reported:

Delivering on his pledge to avoid an emergency manager, Mayor Dave Bing said today he will lay off 1,000 employees, implement a hiring freeze and increase his demands on unions to accept 10% pay cuts and deep concessions in health care and pension benefits.

This follows an earlier proclamation from Bing that stopped garbage removal, police patrols and other government services in 20 percent of the city. Who can forget that more than 100 Detroit Department of Transportation bus drivers refused to work and stayed at the Rosa Parks Bus Terminal because of rampaging Black youth (who have helped earn Detroit the honor of America’s Most Dangerous City) attacking them.

That same bus system is so unreliable that LaWanda Flake, a disabled mother of six, recently bartered her home on Craigslist for a van to get her children to school on time. That house once belonged to one of the top Mo’ Town artists (The Supremes), but has since come to represent how quickly property depreciates once Black people assume control of a city.

If Detroit fails, then the unthinkable could happen: Michigan recently passed a “financial martial law” bill which allows the state to assume control of a bankrupt city. Once Detroit fails, an Emergency Manager will put in charge of the city and The American Interest warns us a 21^st Century version of a “Plantation” will be created in America:

That’s not the only problem: if the review determines that the city is broke, white Republican officials could end up making decisions that change the fate of a predominantly African American city — imposing cuts in employment, pay, benefits and services that will affect almost everyone who lives in Detroit.

Detroit Free Press columnist Jeff Gerritt lays out what the governor will face if the takeover goes forward:

“Plantation” is a word he’ll hear a lot — in fact, Councilman Kwame Kenyatta already invoked it to describe what would happen if the state took control of the city’s finances in an effort to keep it from running out of money by spring…

Nothing happens in this region outside the context of race. Our often-painful history is the oxygen we breathe, even when we choke on it. We’re all finding it a little hard to breathe just now.

“Plantation” is the wrong word. On actual plantations, people worked. In the case of Detroit, the White Republican “owners” will labor away on behalf of their "slaves."

As Black people flee Detroit and head into the prosperous lily-white suburbs surrounding the city, they ensure that the middle-class areas will continue to shrink.

The classic 1980s film Robocop teased at that truth when the CEO of OCP said, “Old Detroit has a cancer. That cancer is crime.” In Hollywood’s Detroit, multi-racial gangs, made up primarily of White males, prevailed.

Detroit faces a dual problem of spiking murder rates and a police force that is either incompetent or, increasingly, absent. This has led many residents to take the law into their own hands. The Daily reports, in an article entitled “911 is a Joke”:

Justifiable homicide in the city shot up 79 percent in 2011 from the previous year, as citizens in the long-suffering city armed themselves and took matters into their own hands. The local rate of self-defense killings now stands 2,200 percent above the national average. Residents, unable to rely on a dwindling police force to keep them safe, are fighting back against the criminal scourge on their own. And they’re offering no apologies.

Black dysfunction has, ironically, realized the dream of Reason magazine and Anarcho-Capitalists—a laissez-faire city with few government services. In Detroit, the dream is a nightmare.

In the span of only a few months, two of the former industrial giants that represented America’s once mighty manufacturing base will have become virtually insolvent. Sad that 72 percent Black Birmingham, Alabama, was responsible for the bankruptcy of Jefferson County.

Now, it is precisely those who comprise the 82 percent share of Detroit’s population that will be responsible for the financial ruin of that city, because they were incapable of sustaining the civilization that was left behind to them.

Only a few people will raise their hand and give the correct answer as to why "the Motor City" is finally out of gas.

To admit that Detroit is a failure because of its majority population is not possible in the political climate of 2012 America. To do so would undermine the political aim and drive of what this writer has dubbed “Black-Run America” (BRA).

This does not mean that Black people run actually America—far from it—but that America (corporate, religious, government, legal system, entertainment, etc.) is run for the advancement of Black people, and that to publicly say anything negative about Black people is, more or less, against the law of the land.

The National Question can’t be properly answered until we have the courage to proclaim the truth of Detroit’s demise. "Liberalism," "socialism," the "Democrat-controlled political class" are all partial, insufficient answers at best.

It’s about race, stupid.

Abraham Lincoln, Gangnam-style

Andy, Colin, and Richard discuss the most-viewed YouTube video of all time, "Gangnam Style," Korea's surprising pop culture sensation, and how it might prophesy a post-PC future. They then turn to Steven Spielberg's latest film, Lincoln, and how it relates to the liberal destiny of America.

Podcast Powered By Podbean

Superiority through Equality

In earlier years, I was influenced by my peers (who repeated what they saw on TV, in rockstar/moviestar interviews, and heard from their teachers) to think that all conservatives were evil or at least a secular equivalent of it - greedy, selfish and cruel.

With that as our perceptual filter, it was easy to see people like Ann Coulter as not only somewhat vile, but also as pandering to the dumbest and lowest instincts of humanity. To be seen reading Ann Coulter was like admitting that you weren’t sure what letter comes after “R” in the alphabet.

With more experience of the world, I see Ms. Coulter as straddling several worlds: she wants to be a foremost conservative thinker, but wants to be a popular one, so she preaches a simplified version of reality with abundant humor and vitriol in order to engage the herd.

This makes her, like many of us, a person with two masters - reality and popularity. Our entire society is based on this concept and it does us no favors, yet we cling to it because we fear that turning against it will make us social pariahs. And then where do we find clients, lovers, friends, favors and bowling buddies?

I take the social risk of reading Ms. Coulter because unlike many conservative commentators, she advocates for conservatism as a practical idea and is not afraid to point out the insanity of liberalism. She seems to have more going for her than our academics who focus on details. Sometimes the truth is crude, vitriolic and funny.

That being said, I have to take her to task for her recent column, which is so correct that it misses the bigger point:

This is not to diminish Reagan. It is to say that Romney wasn’t the problem.

To the extent Republicans have a problem with their candidates, it’s not that they’re not conservative enough. Where are today’s Nelson Rockefellers, Arlen Specters or George H.W. Bushes? Happily, they have gone the way of leprosy.

Having vanquished liberal Republicans, the party’s problem now runs more along the lines of moron showoffs, trying to impress tea partiers like Jenny Beth Martin by taking insane positions on rape exceptions for abortion — as 2 million babies are killed every year from pregnancies having nothing to do with rape. – “Romney was not the problem,” by Ann Coulter, November 21, 2012

She is absolutely correct in that there was nothing wrong with Mitt Romney and, in fact, he represents the greatest of conservative attributes and a new plan for conservatives, which was to try being actual conservatives instead of neoconservatives/neoliberals/RINOs (these terms all mean the same thing).

However, she missed the bigger point: this is a culture war, and it’s not being fought for culture itself.

It’s a struggle by individuals to appear better than others.

In that sentence is revealed not only American politics, and European politics, but all politics in egalitarian regimes. When we’re all the same, we have to differentiate ourselves.

How do we do that? By having better opinions than those of others. By being more altruistic, more egalitarian and more compassionate in appearance than others.

We’re not being altruistic, egalitarian and compassionate for those we claim to help. No — this is pure show business. We are trying to appear better than others so we can be more popular and succeed more.

It’s what celebrities do. If you’re a celebrity, you don’t go down the street to help Mrs. Smith whose husband just died and left her with three starving kids. You go to the darkest corner of the earth, find an orphan with war wounds and hopefully AIDS, and try to “help” that poor soul in front of the cameras. The show must go on.

Democrats have won over a huge portion of our population because our society is unstable and thus, people live in fear. They don’t have any power. They perceive that they can have power by joining the Democrat gang by having the right opinions.

It lets them look down their nose at someone who is socially acceptable to mock, namely Christians, whites, rednecks, poor people, the “uneducated” (which they mistake to mean “the dumb”) and so on.

Republicans are losing because they have not found a social higher ground that makes Republicans appear more educated, intelligent, powerful and ultimately compassionate, although they are.

The election of 2012 was lost in the media, in academia and in popular culture. (This side-steps the issue of Romney’s 47%, who are still bad news, but a result of the phenomenon of white liberal altruism, not a cause of it.)

Democrats have successfully portrayed Republicans as the party of greed, stupidity, poverty, ignorance and cruelty. A compliant media, desperate to do whatever’s popular, and a lost population who just want some political power of their own, have been complicit.

The result is a whole country brainwashing itself about Democratic ideas — which provably do not work — and varnishing itself with self-praise about how enlightened it is.

That’s the next crusade we must undertake: deflating the Democratic self-image, and replacing it with an image of the conservative as the only option for thoughtful and realistic people.

War Games

Colin Liddell, Andy Nowicki, and Richard Spencer discuss the fantastical invasion depicted in Red Dawn, Israel's quite real war in Gaza, as well as the soon-to-be-shipped inaugural issue of Radix.

Show notes: 

RadixJournal.com

VanguardRadio.net

Vanguard on Twitter: @VanguardPodcast 

Paul Kersey, "I Would Have Done It About Mexico"

Pat Boone, "God Bless Israel"

Richard Spencer, "Why Israel Loses Asymmetric Wars"

Podcast Powered By Podbean

Tom Wolfe's "Back to Blood"

Schopenhauer says there are three types of writers. The first write for money; the second think so that they may write; the third type write because they have thought of something that needs saying.

For five decades now Tom Wolfe has been that writer who brings up what we need to think about, but would rather push to the back of the queue so we can get on with life. He takes our sublimated doubts and fears and, like a like a man finding a loose rope emerging from the edge of a circus tent, he gives a hearty yank to see what collapses.

Among his themes are three important ones for a modern era: first, how underneath a surface of normalcy there are many outsiders; second, how people rank themselves through status and identity; and finally, above all else, how people can become instant exiles through faddish shifts in fashion or trend.

The two men locked eyes for what seemed like an eternity…Triceratops and allosaurus confronted each other on a cliff overlooking the Halusian Gulf… until the big americano looked down at his wristwatch and said, “Yeah, and I gotta be outta here and back on the site in ten minutes. You got a problem with that?

Nestor nearly burst out laughing. “Not at all!” he said, chuckling. “Not at all!” The contest was over the minute the americano averted his eyes, supposedly to look down at his watch. The rest of it was double-talk…trying to save face. (649)

In these lines of pursuit, Wolfe’s books are equal parts sociology and morality play. One of his first epics, The Pump-House Gang, provided an archetype for outsider literature to follow, besting the Chuck Palahuniaks and S.E. Hintons of the world with a story of a dissident group of outsiders and what that revealed about those who stayed inside. His most famous work, The Bonfire of the Vanities, showed Wolfe exploring how attitudes toward popular notions of egalitarianism determined rank in the new social hierarchy.

In many if not all of his fiction works, a protagonist or other is forced into an outsider role by something he or she did that offended the mob of others waiting in equality for a chance to pounce and thus, perhaps raise their own equality level a bit. Back to Blood is no different. The theme of this book is the clash of cultures, and how no matter what your background, you’re faced with a difficult choice between assimilation and identity.

While most reviewers praise Wolfe’s somewhat dramatic, beat-influenced experimental and bombastic writing style, this reviewer is glad that Wolfe has reined it in. Instead of focusing on the wordplay, he’s written some great scenes that would be equally at home in the theater or on the screen. These characters struggle with the concept of identity, and from that, a sense of the what-should-I-be-doing-with-my-life morality that common sense needs. He shows people in progress toward something they don’t understand, when they really want to figure out how to be themselves.

Naturally, this touches on some difficult areas and Wolfe does not spare us. His writing would seem polemic if it were not for the well-researched, diligently observed construction of an arabesque of details, and the accuracy of his many insights. Another recurring Wolfe theme, which is the failure of modern art to be anything but a theoretical object because it is devoid of meaning, features heavily in the plot but is done adroitly with characters offhandedly observing how strange and worthless it all is, at least once it gets in their way.

Wolfe is careful to spare no one. White Anglo-Saxons get a fair treatment in this, down to the ugly roots of a culture in freefall in which sex, drugs and megalomania have replaced any kind of actual goal. The ugliness of politics, the viciousness of cities, and the immensely fickle nature of people also get center stage. He has toned down his tendency to wallow in these situations, and instead lets them pass like pictures at an exhibition, leaving a lingering impression that our brains chew over for the next week or so.

A phrase pops into his head from out of nowhere. “Everybody…all of them… it’s back to blood! Religion is dying…but everybody still has to believe in something. It would be intolerable — you couldn’t stand it — to finally have to say to yourself, ‘Why keep pretending? I’m nothing but a random atom inside a supercollider known as the universe.’ But believing in by definition means blindly, irrationally, doesn’t it. So my people, that leaves only our blood, the bloodlines that course through our very bodies, to unite us. ‘La Raza‘ as the Puerto Ricans cry out. ‘The Race‘ cries the whole world. All people, all people everywhere, have but one last thing on their minds — Back to blood!” All people, everywhere, you have no choice but — Back to blood! (22)

What will make Back to Blood controversial is its theme: people are giving up on the politics of a hopelessly confused society, and reverting to their ancestral cultures. Borrowing a little bit from Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations, but setting it within the collapsing American nation-state, Wolfe also infuses his fiction with an almost Biblical sense of identity as the root of morality. His characters cast about looking for not just a role model but an actual culture, and this makes all of us unsteady as this book challenges our notions of what the future will look like.

Democracy of the Dead

Traditionalists of the Alternative Right, or New Right, often find themselves bewildered when trying to explain how it is they consider themselves right-wing given what most people think when they think right-wing. There’s a feeling somewhere inside of us saying, “These are our people. With just a little nudge they might see the light.” But at the same time we embrace causes associated, for decades now, with the Left, such as: drug legalization, environmental concerns, anti-globalization, and crusades against factory farming that likely drive them away.

For myself, I know a mainstream conservative can bring me to the brink of an aneurysm through their habit of parroting the views of a handful of “conservative” TV and radio personalities, views that actually lead to the polar opposite of what were once regarded as conservative positions. Thus, nativism has been replaced by (legal) mass immigration, and isolationism has been replaced by military adventurism, almost always in the interests of the sacred economy. How then can the New Right and conservatives be considered teammates in any way?

To gain some perspective, and hopefully unravel this mystery, I looked to the wise conservatives of the past. In stumbling across this famous quote by the great 20th century writer and social critic, G.K. Chesterton, I may have arrived at an answer:

“Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of their birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death.”

All joking aside about the time-honored practice of Democrats casting ballots on behalf of dead folk, what Chesterton describes here is at the root of what separates the Right from the Left. The very fact that I looked to Chesterton for answers is what makes me a right-winger. The Right, in any of its permutations, is the voice of the dead: be they Orthodox Christians looking to their saints for guidance, a Russian recalling the heroes of the Great Patriotic War when resisting NATO and Western financial powers, or a conservative looking to America’s Founding Fathers when evaluating the missteps of today’s USA. In all of these cases we seek answers from the dead, or more pointedly, the exceptional dead.

Many of the Left will balk at this, no doubt. What of their reverence for Martin Luther King, Jr., Cesar Chavez, Chairman Mao, and Karl Marx? There is no denying these were Leftist heroes, but is the love for these men a Left thing or a Right thing? I would submit to you that the moment a black mother of a reckless, teenage thug invokes the memory of civil rights crusaders, in hopes of setting her child upon a more fruitful path, she takes a giant step rightward within the embryonic black American nation. So, too, a Chinese man who might recall the idealism of those who participated in their Long March when confronting material excess by an emerging class of Chinese hedonists.

The irony here is just beautiful. As Leftists, their job was to sweep away any signs of the past, bulldoze into a flaming pyre the memories of those “Dead white men,” or the cultural equivalent, even if in doing so they murdered the living who actively honored the dead. To the Left, those men and women who have passed into legendary status, their world, their culture, and those who revere them are mere obstacles on the road to a temporal paradise. The thug and hedonist mentioned above are not Leftists by virtue of some membership card of a Leftist organization but because of their disregard for their dead in the interest of their individual pursuits.

In a twist of perspective, this special relationship to the dead is likely the reason the Right is often associated with pro-Life movements. Could it be, on some level, that their reverence for the dead instills a sensitivity toward life? You cannot have a class of noteworthy dead without vibrant life, where the living may thrive and possibly become celebrated. How many of us, who were once Leftists, turned rightward once we had children of our own and were confronted by this truth? We knew they’d probably end up average but still imagined greatness for them. Small wonder, then, that the Right tends to be religious. The afterlife is not theory or belief to them, it is fact! Heroes, now dead, still live among us.

In contrast, the Left makes shallow stabs toward individuality just for the sake of being an individual. This might help them stand out from mom and dad at the next holiday gathering, but it isn’t likely to help them work their way into a nation’s conscience. At the core of their half-hearted efforts lies a bland world of fear, where life is stamped into conformity via media, prison, rifle, bulldozer, and bomb. To the Left there is no room for exceptionalism. Can a bundle of chemicals and electronic nervous impulses, that defines human life in their eyes, really be that great? This would disrupt their paradigm of the same, the Dreamland of Equality.

The Right celebrates life and accepts natural death in a conflict-ridden world, honoring those who have lived as lions. The Left forces unnatural death and encourages a lamb-like existence, stamping out those who refuse to conform to the promise of an imaginary Utopia. Herein lays the source of the rift between the factions claiming to be right-wing. We are all, to some degree, infected with the Left.

The Leftism is exposed in you, Likudniks and American conservatives, when you so callously shrug your shoulders as your bombs drop onto innocent civilians who didn’t have a thing to do with any homemade rockets launched from that land that is really just a concentration camp for non-Jews, complete with barbwire, concrete fences, armed watchtowers, spies, checkpoints, etc. You are not defending anything; you are stamping out that which stands in the way of your sub-celestial paradise. A paradise that can be developed into magnificent beach-front property once those pesky Arabs have been removed and a healthy injection of U.S dollars starts to flood in. On the contrary, it is the Palestinians who are standing for their people, their ancestors, and their land, which was stolen from them. They are the Right in this equation, you, the Left.

Beware, too, those of you on the New Right. How many of you wish to employ the crushing power of the State in order to impose your version of Heaven? Consider an alternative. Construct a world where those who have lived the life of the hero are forever heard. At this very moment Leftists are rewriting the voices of your heroes while you did – what? – expanded your iTunes library? Redecorated your home? Spent countless hours commenting on your friends uploaded Halloween photos? That’s what I’ve been doing. When we allow meaningless comfort and trivia to get in the way of ensuring ourselves or our possible offspring, real life, we too become the Left.

The desire to expose the seductive pull of the Left’s soulless egalitarianism is what calls us to the Right. Conquering that Hellish impulse within ourselves is what may ultimately unite us. None of this is possible without also listening to the voices of our dead.

Goldenball

Colin Liddell and Andy Nowicki join Richard to discuss, first, the 2012 election aftermath and liberals' new fondness for demographics and, second, the film Skyfall and the James Bond mythos.

UPDATE: In this podcast, a transcript of comments made by Patrick Buchanan is quoted that has been revealed to be fraudulent. Everyone involved regrets this.    

Podcast Powered By Podbean

The Bible as the Word of God: Looking Backward

Introduction

What follows is Parts B and C of my final assignment in THL106 New Testament Studies. I have corrected one punctuation error and one typo; otherwise what follows is identical to the paper I handed in on 14 October 2011. I have, of course, left out Part A, my Initial Thoughts on the Bible as the Word of God, simply because you will already have read it.

Please feel free to grade this essay in the Comments. If and when my grade appeal is decided by Charles Sturt University, I will post the official result there. But don’t hold your breath waiting!

Reflections on Biblical Criticism:

1. Historical Criticism

For most of my life, appeals to historical criticism of the Bible were an easy sell whenever I turned my mind to the Christian faith. I grew up in post-war, small-town Ontario where Anglo-Saxon Protestantism in all of its varieties was abundantly present. Unfortunately, in retrospect, English Canada was signing its own spiritual death warrant through the progressive separation of the spiritual from the secular realm.

The working assumption of the Canadian WASP (as with his American, English, and Australian counterparts) is that most of life can be managed (if not always explained) without reference to God. My own upbringing incorporated that background assumption and informed my studies in both modern history and law. The secularized methods of those academic disciplines reinforced an ethnocultural bias towards agnosticism. No doubt such predispositions reflect, inter alia, the impact of the “higher criticism” on Anglo-Saxon Protestantism over the past two centuries.

Had I been asked, my younger self would readily have acknowledged the value of “a range of techniques to increase our understanding of the social and cultural world of the New Testament and further our understanding of the New Testament itself.”[i] I took to heart the argument—made by über-agnostics such as Bertrand Russell—that the search for the historical Jesus was pretty much a waste of time and that his contemporaries were doomed to disappointment when he failed to return before “this generation” had passed away.[ii](Matthew 24:34) To my callow mind, the New Testament, no less than the Old Testament, was obviously a historical document. As such, it could best be understood by employing techniques such as source, form, and text analyses sensitive to the cultural setting within which the original text was written and received.

My attitude towards the agnosticism built into the scholarly traditions of historical criticism has changed radically in recent years. I am now convinced that there is solid historical evidence that the Bible story is both beautiful and true. I first recognized the sacred significance of Scripture only when a new hermeneutic revealed to me that Christ did, indeed, “burst into history” in AD 70 in a manner and form visible to every reader of the Word of God. When I was a teen-ager, Russell convinced me that there was no historical or archaeological evidence for the events at the cross or the resurrection. But there is one decisive historical event which lends powerful support to the credibility of the biblical narrative tracing the rise and fall of Old Israel and the birth pangs of the New Jerusalem. Both the Old and the New Testament prophesy the destruction of the Temple in the Day of the Lord which marks the end of Old Israel. Even Josephus, a contemporary Jewish historian, confirms that the fall of Jerusalem was accompanied by the heavenly signs and wonders promised throughout the New Testament by Christ and the apostles.[iii]

2. Rhetorical Criticism

In effect, my encounter with preterist interpretations of the biblical text swept away the theological presuppositions which underpin contemporary WASP agnosticism. Historical criticism, when married to a futurist eschatology, rests upon a scholarly methodology that must mistake trees for the forest. This is particularly apparent in the field of rhetorical criticism where futurist presuppositions regularly distort the meaning of New Testament texts such as Paul’s letters.

Gooder defines rhetorical criticism as “the study of how texts use either ancient or modern rhetoric (the art of persuasion) to convince their readers of a particular point or position.”[iv] The crucial issue in rhetorical criticism, one might think, is to identify the point or position that Paul is attempting to convey to his audience. In Romans 8:19-23, for example, Paul reminds his readers of a shared knowledge that, “the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.” In the context of imminent expectation, his goal is to persuade them to “wait eagerly for our adoption as sons” when a new creation is born.

On the face of that text it seems that Paul expects something momentous and world-changing to happen during the lifetime of the people then present in his audience. Mainstream rhetorical critics, on the other hand, presuppose that, two thousand years later, we still await that momentous event. Accordingly, they focus on the issue of how an “implied narrator” structures and develops an argument for an “implied” audience rather than on its operational significance for an actually existing first-century audience. Not surprisingly, therefore, the rhetorical critical approach often—ahistorically—“seeks simply to discover how a passage persuades in our modern context, regardless of how its author intended that it would persuade.”[v]

How then can we discover what Paul meant to say? Perhaps we should turn to narrative criticism as a way of situating Paul’s letters in the narrative structure of the Bible as a whole.

3. Narrative Criticism

Futurist eschatology presupposes that the biblical narrative is a very long story without an end. One notorious consequence of that presupposition is that the meaning of Revelation must remain utterly obscure, literally until the end of time. But this should not be an inherent flaw of narrative criticism. A preterist hermeneutic allows us to read the Bible as a narrative with a beginning and an end. Moreover, unlike historical criticism which often requires the biblical text to be deconstructed into bite-size bits, narrative criticism can be applied, in principle at least, to larger units.[vi] But, in practice, agnosticism reigns supreme in this sub-discipline as well. Narrative critics treat the Bible as just another literary text subject to the standard forms of analysis which prevail in the study of English literature.

The parts of the Bible which don’t “tell stories,” as such, are assigned to other sub-disciplines of literary analysis. When a particular story is selected, the original author, like the original audience, is not the focus of attention for the narrative critic. Neither the Gospel writers nor the early church community is recognized as a character or participant in the cosmic drama which unfolds between Genesis and Revelation. Indeed, the idea of providential history is altogether beyond the ken of narrative critics who mine the Old and New Testaments for its wealth of individual narratives on which their analytical skills can be practiced.

Strangely enough, narrative criticism robs the Word of God of the mythic power it exercised over the hearts and minds of the European peoples in the two millennia which followed the dramatic consummation of the promised new heaven and a new earth in AD 70. That long span of time encompasses the rise and apparent fall of Christendom. In the history of the Anglo-Saxon peoples, in particular, the Bible story was inextricably bound up with the foundation myths of the English nation. More widely, as a sort of cosmic fairy tale, the Bible story gave the breath of life to the medieval imagination throughout Europe. Postmodern narrative criticism treats the Bible story as if it were a cadaver freshly delivered to the literary morgue.

Now that narrative critics have embalmed the text of the Bible, it is the job of the so-called ideological critics to ensure that the cold corpse of Christendom never rises from the dead.

4. Ideological Criticism

My experience in this (and the Old Testament) course has left me with a jaundiced attitude towards biblical criticism as practiced in academe. Ideological criticism is the reduction ad absurdum of postmodern biblical studies. For generations now, the higher criticism has sapped the spiritual foundations of Anglo-Saxon countries by cultivating a professionalized agnosticism in the study of the Holy Scriptures. But the postmodern academy has outdone its predecessors by opening its doors to any and all groups determined to deconstruct what little remains of the spiritual dominion of Christendom. In reading about this movement, I found myself seeking space for resistance.

Accordingly, I was very disappointed not to be able to discuss “postcolonial” criticism in the class devoted to it on the timetable. In particular, I wanted to practice the “retrieval hermeneutics” which is said to have “unearthed the imaginative ways in which…the victims of European colonialism” used the salvation history of the Bible “to justify both their resistance to colonial rule and their defence of their disparaged culture.”[vii] Sitting as the sole Anglo-Saxon man among the Tongan, Korean, Negro, and Arab students in this class, I often wonder just who in the quondam “Anglo-Saxon countries” has become the colonizer and who the colonized? Just who are the “beneficiaries” and who are the “victims” of the “reverse colonialism” so ardently promoted by the Uniting Church and United Theological College in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ?

Surely such a neo-communist campaign to open Australia’s borders, clearly intended to force the integration and indiscriminate mixing of disparate population groups long separated by geography and culture, flatly contradicts the Word of God. Did not the apostle Paul tell us that God made “every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live?”(Acts 17:26) Only a neo-orthodox, Anglo-Saxon Christian brand of ethnotheological biblical criticism seems likely to ask much less provide satisfactory answers to such questions.

Towards Anglo-Saxon Ethnotheological Criticism

Is it really so obvious that European Christian missions to Africa, Oceania, and Asia were simply a manifestation of “Western imperialism,” as charged by “postcolonial” critics? Perhaps the work of Christian missionaries was the logical corollary of the dominion theology implicit in the preterist notion of fulfilled eschatology. Perhaps England was bound to spread the Word of God to the ends of the earth in fulfilment of the Great Commission. (Matthew 28:18-20) Perhaps Anglo-Saxon Protestants need a biblical hermeneutic which can “draw attention to God’s presence in their own religious traditions,” now endlessly disparaged by Third World “postcolonial” critics (a label which is both disingenuous and self-serving in the extreme).

Allegedly “postcolonial” critics are among the beneficiaries of “the rising tide of colour” now transforming every Anglo-Saxon society into a colony of the Third World.[viii] They are also the theologians most committed to a futurist eschatology looking forward to the “liberation” of the Third World. They claim that the “pure gospel” must be freed from the distortions imposed by “the vested interests of Western denominationalism and cultural imperialism.” Sooner or later, in their own defence, Anglo-Saxon Christians will be compelled to look backwards to the Word of God to find a renewed ethnotheological warrant for their survival as one of the nations baptized by the holy, catholic, and apostolic church.

I believe that there are a few hermeneutical principles that Anglo-Saxon Christian men can usefully deduce from this course. The first might be that while the Bible may have been written for us, it was not written to us. The New Testament was written in the first instance for a first century audience for whom the “end of the age” was still to come in AD 70. A second hermeneutical principle follows from the example provided by the feminists, blacks, queers etc, all of whom insist that we must determine what the Bible story, in whole and in part, means to us.

It follows that Anglo-Saxon Christians, no less than blacks, queers, and women alienated from their menfolk, need an ethnotheology able to disclose who we are, where we came from, and where we are going. A preterist biblical hermeneutic wedded to an Anglo-Saxon ethnotheology would reinvigorate the dominion theology which inspired the old Anglo-Saxon province of Christendom to become the heart of a great civilization stretching to the four corners of the world.

United Theological College has taught me something about the depth of resistance likely to confront efforts to renew the Old Faith among Anglo-Saxon Protestants. Clearly, a host of institutional, ethnic, and political interests are now deeply invested in the futurist eschatology which underwrites currently hegemonic forms of biblical criticism. Students who question the ruling orthodoxy pay a social price; they also risk formal disciplinary proceedings.

I speak from experience. For daring in lectures, tutorials, and public seminars to question the Uniting Church’s doctrines (in what I trust has been a persistent but courteous, informed, and articulate manner) on matters such as the role of women in the clergy, feminism generally, the dogma of racial equality, and supersessionism, I have become the subject of a investigation by the Charles Sturt University ombudsman. Formal written complaints of “racism,” “sexism,” “anti-semitism,” “holocaust denial,” and “supremacism” were lodged against me by an individual student, the student association, and several staff members. Some called for my removal from the college.

The heavily ideological character of the compulsory celebration of racial, religious, and ethnic (but not, apparently, intellectual) diversity practiced here at UTC has convinced me that patriotic Anglo-Saxon Christian men are now an oppressed and marginalized group. There are far too many other peoples ready to exploit the over-developed and now maladaptive Anglo-Saxon tendency to direct Christian charity to out-groups in preference to their own kith and kin. Faced with the theological tyranny of contemporary Christian humanism enshrined in ecclesiastical institutions such as the Uniting Church, Anglo-Saxon Christian men badly need a biblical hermeneutic, perhaps even a liberation theology, of their own.

---

[i] Paula Gooder, Searching for Meaning: An Introduction to Interpreting the New Testament (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009), 5.

[ii] See, Bertrand Russell, Why I am not a Christian (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1957), 16.

[iii] Quoted in, Eusebius, The Church History (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2007), 88-89.

[iv] Gooder, Search for Meaning, 71.

[v] Ben Witherington, III, in ibid., 79.

[vi] Elizabeth Struthers Malbon, in ibid., 83.

[vii] RS Sugirtharajah, in ibid., 176.

[viii] Cf., Lothrop Stoddard, The Rising Tide of Color (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1920).

The Ultimate Secession

There’s a lot excitement right now about the recent outbreak of petitions on the White House website calling for secession. The latest news says there are petitions now for all fifty States, with Texas already collecting over 100,000 signatures. Wow!

On the surface this is fine. It’s even harmless fun. Nothing will come of it from this White House and it’s good to see people mentally moving in the right direction, according to my worldview.

Some of these people claiming to be for small government are finally realizing this worthy goal isn’t best achieved by slashing budgets of a gargantuan bureaucracy and military empire by a few percentage points, but by actually reducing the size of the body of humans being governed. Maybe we can best defend our freedoms by keeping our leaders within tar and feathering distance, and seeking fair trade arrangements with our neighbors instead of directly invading entire regions of the globe or indirectly funding gangs of murderers who will blow things up for us. It might be worth a try, right?

Alas, I have my doubts about these petitioners. Have they seriously asked themselves how they arrived at this point in the first place? Furthermore, are they honest enough with themselves to answer this question correctly?

If I was a betting man I would guess that something approaching 90% of these new secessionists think all will be hunky-dory if we could just get some good, honest people in office; the kind of people that might populate Mayberry or the cast of “Leave it to Beaver.” We’re talking the kind of leadership composed of men and women who revere the Founding Fathers, the U.S. Constitution, Jesus, and apple pie. Then I would immediately place another bet that says these guys will be in the exact same position 50-100 years down the line – corrupt government, corrupt elections, obscene displays of corporate power over the interests of the average man and woman, tensions over mass immigration, cultural erosion, and rampant consumerism, followed by cycles of recession or depression, and so on.

You see, secessionists, the problem lies not only with the politicians and who just won the race for the White House, the problem is you and your unwillingness to come to terms with what America, as you have learned to think of it, leads to.

If you ask the typical flag-waver what makes this the greatest country on God’s green Earth, they’ll likely answer something about democracy, or the “American Dream,” or our supreme respect for the individual. If we really value the individual above all things, as most Americans do, and you combine this with the “American Dream,” that is - the race to acquire more and more money, then surely you have no issue with the fact that the individuals with the most money are using the power that comes with that money without regard to you or the common good. We must respect their individuality, after all!

Once this reality slaps you in the face you begin to see that individuals simply don’t matter, only individuals with wealth - lots of wealth - matter. When you scratch your head over it for a bit you can't honestly believe your view of the world is equal in weight to those of Warren Buffet, George Soros, or Lloyd Blankfein on that magical November day.

The sad reality is, if you were in their boots you would be doing the same thing – hiring lobbyists to get your way with lawmakers, flooding the labor pool with Third-world immigrants, outsourcing when you can’t feasibly do the mass immigration thing, buying judges, crushing small business competitors with the aid of government, and so on. Subconsciously, I think this is the reason you didn’t string them up on lamp posts generations ago. Because THEY are YOU! - only successful.

So why are some Americans finally feeling the first stirrings of that righteous rage? Could it be because we, as a mass of people inhabiting this land, are beginning to realize there is more than one nation here and these nations have nothing to do with that American Dream? Do we even understand what a nation is?

When pressed we all understand what a nation is because it is something established by Nature. It is the ultimate expression of relatedness. It is what you seek when you seek comfort – where you buy your home, where you shop, where you send your kids to school, and where you play. Doing those things outside of your nation feels alien. Enormous propaganda, marketing, and public school indoctrination efforts have been expended trying to convince the people living here that you are all “One nation, under God,” but the truth is you’re not. This multiculturalism is really multinationalism. The same dangers you see with the United Nations being a one nation/one vote, worldwide democratic institution that could curtail your freedoms of speech, religion, or self-defense, based on the whims of the Third-world, is right here, right now, in your own land!

If you really think anything will change by Texas, or Kansas, leaving the Union and returning to 1950’s America, think again. What you are suffering through now is EXACTLY what America and Americanism leads to. If you are thinking in terms of artificial borders you’re wrong. Multicultural Texas will still ultimately mean multinational Texas, and Nature will again urge it to splinter.

Secessionists, a nation is not a proposition and it is not an arbitrary set of borders. It’s not a set of laws on paper and it’s not a TV show from the 1960’s. A nation is a people – a people with a common language, a common set of morals, they share common ideals (what a neighborhood should look like, what art belongs in a museum, and what art belongs in a landfill). They have common heroes, and a common religion. That’s right. Evangelicals and Mormons could be two separate nations. They might both adore Thomas Kincaid calendars and speak English, but that all falls apart when one of them starts passing laws about what a real Christian is.

Have the courage to face the flaws of your Founding Fathers and the system they put in place. They were only human, and worse, they were humans that sought to overcome Nature. The Laws of Nature, however, stand whether we like them or not. Building a system, or tearing one apart, in accord with this reality is where we should begin.

The Meaning of an Enemy

This new book is an outstanding study by Andrew Fountaine of the causes of Britain and Europe’s decline. It was originally serialized in Combat, the newspaper of the original British National Party, of which Fountaine was the President, from 1960 to 1965.

The original articles were ‘rediscovered’ by Bill Baillie of the Nation Revisited website and myself. They soon appreciated that what lay before them was an explanation, which was both historical yet prescient, of the greatest tragedy to beset Europe: The destruction of its spiritual unity that existed for over a thousand years and its replacement by carefully nurtured enmities between the leading European nations, specifically between Britain and Germany.

Fountaine traces the decline of European power and the rise of liberalism from the fall of Rome to Rhodesia’s brave but ultimately unsuccessful attempt to preserve itself under Ian Smith. (There is also an Appendix in the book by the publishers which deals with the betrayal of Rhodesia.)

The career of Winston Churchill is detailed; from his dishonourable conduct as a war correspondent in the Anglo-South African War, his mishandling of the Dardanelles offensive in WW1, his craven acceptance of American terms at the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922, his fanatical campaign for war with Germany in the 1930s, his disastrous invasion of Norway in 1940, and his obsession with area bombing that led to the destruction of Dresden in 1945.

Andrew Fountaine also examines the influence of the Freemasons and international Jewry who were prominent in the French and Russian Revolutions. But he puts most of the blame on the spirit of surrender that grips Western man. He compares it to the Aztec myths that led to their conquest by Hernando Cortez. The Emperor Montezuma was so convinced that the end of his empire was preordained that he was psychologically beaten before the final battle began. He argues that liberal democracy is similarly infected with submissiveness and calls for its total rejection.

His belief in European world hegemony may seem shocking to modern readers but Andrew Fountaine was born in the reign of George V and brought up to cherish Western values. He fought for General Franco in the Spanish Civil War (1936-39) and refused to compromise with communism. He opposed the multiracial agenda and predicted the non-European invasion that we are now suffering. But for all that he was not a racial bigot. He drove ambulances for the Ethiopians during the Second Italo-Abyssinian War of 1935-36. And he became a Lieutenant Commander in the Royal Navy during WW2 and was the gunnery officer on the aircraft carrier HMS Indefatigable. He was wounded in a kamikaze attack by the Japanese in April 1945.

He believed in leadership: “Race accounts for much, for strong race often produces great leadership. Yet it is not all. The leadership is all, though it varies according to national and racial character.” Andrew Fountain’s worldview will inevitably be compared to Oswald Spengler but he was influenced by the more optimistic Francis Parker Yockey who saw hope for the future amongst the ruins of Europe after WW2.

Readers will note that some words used by the author are no longer in common usage. A good example is his use of ‘coloured,’ which was an acceptable description of ‘black’ or ‘Afro-Asian’ people fifty years ago.

The Meaning of an Enemy is published by Ostara Publications.

Looking Backward: The Bible as the Word of God

Introduction

Well, it’s not going to cost me three hundred bucks but I am appealing my pass (PS) grade in THL106 Introduction to New Testament Studies. That was one of the courses I took in second semester 2011 at United Theological College (UTC)—before I was suspended for expressing views deemed to be “offensive” to female and ethnic students.

Alt Right readers may recall that I was convicted of blasphemy in an inquisition lasting almost a year. As a consequence, the guardians of the academic cult of the Other barred me from UTC classrooms for the whole of 2012.

Adding insult to injury, the College endlessly procrastinated before posting my final grade in THL106. Repeated enquiries regarding the delay were ignored by both the course coordinator and the College Principal. Only last week—over a year after I handed in the final assignment—did I discover that I had been given a bare pass (PS in officialise).

Up to at least mid-year, the grade was still listed as pending on my transcript. Sometime between then and early November, somebody somewhere entered my unit result online. I received no notification, either by letter or by email. I can’t help but see both the inordinate, unexplained delay and the derisory pass grade as part of the “hostile learning environment” custom-crafted for anyone exposing academic “anti-racism” as a genteel code word for anti-White bigotry.

With plenty of time on my hands, appealing the grade seems well worth the effort. Especially since Charles Sturt University, the mother institution of UTC, charges only the cut-rate price of $65. The fee is not a bribe, however. Au contraire, I’ll get my money back—if the appeal succeeds. Of course, I’ve already had a brush with the CSU brand of politicized justice, so I can’t be confident that I’ll get a fair go.

But, in my own experience as a working academic, it was standard operating procedure in examiner’s meetings to query a student’s grade in one course if it seemed out-of-line with his grades in other courses. In my case, my pass grade in THL106 stands in stark contrast to the Distinction and High Distinctions I received from lecturers in other courses—awarded even after clashing with them in classes and seminars.

I can’t be sure what caused the lecturer in THL106 to lose his academic cool. He was a casual appointment more than likely influenced by his full-time colleagues to regard me as a thought criminal both before and after I was suspended. The nature of the final assignment in THL106 provides another clue as to what may have clouded his professional judgement.

In the subject outline and in class, the lecturer made it clear that the final assignment was to be a personal statement about the central faith assertion that the Bible is the Word of God. In responding to that invitation—indeed, order—to get things off my chest, I fear I may have fed him far too much red meat.

By the end of the 2011 academic year, it had become perfectly clear to me that the multi-racial classroom at UTC is a base camp for combatants in the cultural war being waged against my people in Australia. My final essay simply applied that personal insight to my experience in the New Testament Studies classroom.

Unfortunately, after inviting me to give him my best shot, the lecturer refused to man up and take it on the chin. Instead, I believe, he took the coward’s way out: sending me a cyberspace raspberry, months after the University had already pulled me out of the ring.

As a small counter-strike in the culture wars at UTC, I am bringing my grade appeal into the public arena. I invite Alt Right readers to read the two constituent elements of my final assignment: first, my Initial Thoughts on the Bible as the Word of God; and, second, my Concluding Reflections on the Higher Criticism (i.e., the governing methodology of Bible Studies at UTC).

I ask readers to assess both pieces in the light of the guidelines for Assessment Item # 3 as excerpted below from the Subject Outline. Part One is appearing today and Part Two will soon follow. Having read both, readers may then, if they wish, grade the assignment out of 40.

I had already completed two assignments in the course before handing in the third essay. Each of those received a Credit grade. (I wasn’t happy about those grades either, but that’s another story). Accordingly, I had accumulated 42/60 marks already (i.e. 21/30 + 21/30). To receive a PS grade, my final assignment (which I never got back) must have received a mark somewhere in the range 8/40 to 22/40.

Readers can judge for themselves whether the final essay was worth any more than 22 marks, or even as much as 8. If nothing else, the exercise should provide readers with an introduction to what passes for academic theology these days.

Here are the guidelines for Assessment Item # 3 in THL106. (Immediately thereafter readers will find my first stab at thinking about the Bible as the Word of God and the lecturer’s comments on my initial thoughts):

Assessment Item # 3

Task

There are three parts to this assessment item. Each part is to be included in an essay to be submitted at the end of the semester. In this essay, you should attempt to integrate your understandings of biblical interpretation as they have developed during the semester.

A. Initial thoughts. By the end of the second week of semester, write about 500 words in which you reflect on the classic faith assertion, "The Bible is the Word of God". The first

tutorial discussion should help you to identify some of the issues which you will want to include in this section. Make it your own statement, in which you set out how you see the Bible at the start of your studies this semester, and how you currently approach the task of interpreting the Bible. You should submit this statement to the lecturer in week 3, to receive informal feedback and suggestions about issues which you may wish to "flag" for special attention during the -semester.

B. Analysis of methods of interpretation. You should begin to accumulate material for this assignment from week six onwards. Then, as you come into the final weeks of the semester, you should write about 1,000 words in which you explore and analyse four methods or approaches to interpretation which have been studies in this subject. In each case, you might explore questions such as:

1. a. In what way(s) is this method or approach important?
2. b. What is positive and affirming, for you, about this method or approach?
3. c. What is challenging or problematic, for you, about this method or approach?
4. d. What questions do you have regarding this method or approach?
5. e. How might this method or approach be used within your cultural context? Would it cause difficulties for people within that context?

You may not be able to address every one of these questions to every one of the four methods or approaches chosen. You should exercise you(sic) discretion to highlight the questions and issues which are most significant for you, in each case.

C. Closing reflection. After you have completed the above two parts, you are ready to write a concluding section to the essay, of no more than 500 words. In this conclusion, you should comment on the initial thoughts which you wrote early in the semester, noting where your ideas have changed, been challenged, or been strengthened. This is to be a personal reflection in which you analyse your learning during the semester. In it, you might state whether there are aspects of your initial statement with which you now disagree; positions which you now hold more firmly; statements about which you have made discoveries; matters about which you have additional questions; and so on. This reflection will be assessed on evidence that indicates you have been thinking critically about your position, i.e. you have been judging, re-assessing and evaluating your thinking.

Rationale

This essay will require students to reflect on their learning during the semester and integrate material covered in the subject with their own understanding of scripture.

In the second week of semester the class discussed the Basis of Union for the Uniting Church in Australia as a starting point for our initial reflections on the topic. I did, in fact, use section 5 of that creedal statement as the launching pad for my own argument.

The Bible as the Word of God

The Uniting Church’s understanding of the relationship between the Bible and the Word of God appears to reflect the combined impact of the Reformation and the Enlightenment: churches have become private, voluntary associations; the Old Faith has been pushed out of the public square and religious experience is confined to the private, inner life of individuals. The Bible, accordingly, is no longer the sacred charter of an ecclesiastical authority presiding over a way of life, a communion, and faith practiced in public and in private by all manner of men and women. For the Uniting Church, the Bible is merely the medium through which we hear witnesses to the Word of God, the divine Logos incarnate in Jesus Christ. Accordingly, this liberal theology no longer views the Bible as a warrant to baptize all the nations so as to expand the spiritual dominion of Christendom to the ends of the earth.

The combination of an individualist soteriology with the social gospel now characteristic of mainstream Christianity is bound up with a futurist eschatology which treats the biblical narrative as an unfinished story that will end only with the Second Coming of Christ. Moreover, given the diversity of forms and genres in the Bible, individual members of the Uniting Church are free to give more weight to the testimony of some witnesses then they do to others. Needless to say, the “traditional” Protestant attitude towards the role of tradition as an aid to understanding the Word of God complicates matters, further distancing us from the possibility of seeing the unity inherent in the story told by the Bible from Genesis to Revelation.

In fact, the now-dominant tradition among both Protestants and Catholics holds that the parousia is an as-yet unfulfilled prophecy. Those who look to Christ’s Second Coming sometime in our future are unable to make coherent sense out of either the Book of Revelation. Nor can they account for the time-texts elsewhere in the New Testament suggesting that Christ would return on a cloud of glory before the present generation of those listening to him had passed away. But, as Dicker points out, tradition is never “completed and dead,” it always remains “alive and growing.”

In recent decades, the preterist tradition has emerged out of the Christian underground to endow the Word of God as found in the Bible with new meaning. Preterists contend that all of the biblical prophecies concerning the last days and the coming of the Kingdom were fulfilled with the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in AD 70. The Old Covenant creation that came into being in Genesis comes to an end in that eschatological event. In Revelation, John proclaims that Christ is “coming quickly” to inaugurate “a new heaven and a new earth” to replace the “first heaven and the first earth” then facing imminent destruction.

For preterists, the Kingdom of God is a presently existing reality here on earth. Within that Kingdom, the biblical Word of God commands the church to extend its spiritual dominion over all the nations in a world without end. The Bible is “one story (with many subplots inside the overarching plot)” in which “new covenant” principles can be found “early in Genesis—the gospel is revealed before the fall—and the last of the ‘old covenant’ shadows pass away, in finality, at the end of Revelation.” Within the preterist tradition, therefore, the Bible is recovering its former status as the foundation charter of the new covenant creation, not as a fossilized text, but as the seedbed for the living, growing Word of God.

Lecturer’s Comments

OK, Now you need to make explicit what you think and why.

With a reflective essay I need to hear your voice   While I may infer your opinion from this, [in] this type of essay—admittedly rare in academia—I need to hear your explicit opinion as in ‘I think” or ‘I believe’…

My Concluding Reflections will appear in Part Two. Feel free to hurt my feelings when you assess this piece in the Comments. If and when I receive a decision on my Application for Review of Grade, I will post the result in the Comments following Part Two.

Right now, I’m ready to kiss my sixty-five bucks good-bye but, who knows, the Alt Right commentariat may change the course of academic micro-history in an obscure college down under. You can be sure that the UTC faculty will have an opportunity to read your comments.