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.

The Homo and the Negro

The Homo and the Negro, a provocatively-titled collection of essays recently published by Counter-Currents, reveals one of the more interestingly idiosyncratic, and thus far largely unsung, writers of the far right.

James J. O’Meara has called his own writing style “psychedelic,” and while I don’t know if this is meant to imply the actual influence of LSD in this Detroit-born, Canadian-educated baby boomer’s life, one can indeed sense quite a bit more of a Phillip K. Dick-vibe in his work than anything Evolian or Spenglerian. But maybe that’s just a roundabout way of saying that, while O’Meara has a profound interest in matters of intellectual substance, his writing is at the same time entertaining to read, and not in any way stuffy or stultifyingly academic-sounding.

In The Homo and the Negro, we see this pop-culture polyglot really go to town on various matters, from movies to music to fashion, making frequent reference to masculinity and the current, degraded state of the Mannerbund. His guiding thesis—regarding both homosexuality and negritude (hence the book’s title)—is sure to be controversial, even among much of its intended audience. Yet O’Meara’s accessible and witty prose has an undeniable insouciant charm. At times he even reads a bit like an alt-right version of humor columnist Dave Barry, particularly in one amusing essay in which he conducts a running, and increasingly scathing, meta-critique of another writer’s analysis of John Carpenter’s cheesy sci-fi cinema classic They Live.

I got together with James to run a few questions by him to ask, in the words of the late Gary Coleman, just what he’s talkin’ about in The Homo and the Negro, now available on Amazon and from www.counter-currents.com

Like Jack Donovan in THE WAY OF MEN, you are very keen on a restoration of a masculine ethos in an age of overweening feminism... Yet while Jack (who wrote a blurb for your book) very much favors a return to what could be called the "hardened" traditional manly-man male, you seem to pine for a time when men could be swanky, well-dressed, bookish, and even temperamentally effeminate, without immediately being tarred and feathered by certain know-nothing right-wingers as nancy-boy faggots. Could you elaborate on your view of this matter, as well as Jack's, so far as you know it?

I was thrilled to get a blurb from Jack, as his book Androphlia was the first quasi-mainstream (an actual printed book!) work I found, after discovering the online writings of Alisdair Clarke, that dealt with the same issues, which might be summed up as the non-Leftist or non-gay (hmmm, sounds like they’re synonyms?) sexual deviant. While on the subject of books and blurbs, let me add that I think his comment that reading my essays is “a psychedelic experience” shows a remarkable grasp of what’s going on in them. As I mention briefly in the interview with Greg Johnson at the end of the book, I’ve been very influenced by the work of Michael Hoffman (egodeath.com) on the roots of religion and culture in experiences induced by visionary plants. (As another interesting coincidence, I’ve also been influenced by the work of another Michael Hoffman, the historical revisionist, which the other Hoffman is in a sense as well). Hoffman locates artistic and scientific creativity in moments of what he calls “loose cognition,” in which cognitive networks are loosened and allowed to recombine freely. Rather than drug use as such, however, I’ve adapted—or weaponized for our struggle, as Trevor Lynch would say—Danny Drennan’s online next-day re-caps of episodes of Beverly Hills 90210 (the original, of course) with their run-on sentences and Valley Girl-esque idiom as well as their obsession with pop culture trash that by its very intensity becomes poetry (a notion I owe to England’s greatest living poet, Jeremy Reed)—Hunter Thompson’s Gonzo journalism updated for the 21^st century—my essays on The Gilmore Girls and They Live are exemplars of this, the first in subject, the second in style.

But back to Jack. His more recent work, like The Way of Men, focuses on the question of ‘how to be good at being a man’ (rather than ‘how to be a good man’) and he acknowledges the need for a variety of skills and interests, even for what he calls ’the runt’ who can often make contributions in lieu of brute strength—the blind Homer is one of Jack’s examples.

The ancient Männerbund is very much a key concept in the work of both of us (as it was for Alisdair) and there the issue is ‘what can this person bring to the group’ rather than abstract, media-driven images of ‘what’s manly.’ If you think of the Norse gods, there is Thor, but of course there is also Loki, and even, for that matter, their ruler, the one-eyed Odin. In my essay on De Palma’s The Untouchables, I discuss how the eponymous crime fighters form a modern Männerbund which brings together not just the historical White nationalities, but also a wide variety of types of men, where, as Gurdjieff said about ‘work with groups’, one man helps another, while one man alone can do nothing—eager but naïve Ness is balanced by weary but wise Malone, while Wallace, the runt, not only contributes the way to get Capone—tax evasion, not gun battles—but also, inspired by his affection for Stone, becomes an effective killing machine, as Plato had predicted an army of lovers would be. In the book I also discuss masculine types as different as Noel Coward, Humphrey Bogart, and British war hero “Bunny” Roger, who said “Now that I’ve killed so many Nazis Daddy will have to buy me a sable coat.”

Perhaps this is a good place to point out that I have no particular interest in the ’plight of the homosexual’, which I argue is a Leftist myth anyway. “Gay” is a fake identity, like “the closet”, to enable homosexuals to join in the rainbow wrecking crew—perfected in the last election, a winning coalition of Negroes, Hispanics, Gay Marriage fetishists and Urban Sluts. This is not Leftist identity politics. This is the Rightist notion of how to create a great culture, and historically this has been done by Aryans in the form of male groups held together by bonds of affection. The Judaic notion of “family values” impedes that, by making all male ties suspect. It’s the effect of that on society in general—as we see in today’s thuggish, “no homo” culture—that is important, not taking pity on some sniveling queen in a closet demanding “my rights!” The Judeo-Christianity of the American Right not only prevents them from fixing society, it even gradually converts them into admiring it themselves. I’m waiting for the first rappin’ Randian to make his appearance.

One of the more arresting comparisons you draw is the transformation that has taken place in American conservatism, as signified in the fact that William F. Buckley used to be the iconic man in charge of the conservative movement back in the 50s and 60s, whereas today Rush Limbaugh fills that role. What does this transformation signify to you?

Buckley, of course, is not a perfect example. If you read Baron Evola’s discussion, in Men among the Ruins, of the differences between the virile Roman racial type and the almost effeminate Mediterranean type, and then watch the famous slap-fight between Buckley and Gore Vidal—I saw it as a kid, but it’s on YouTube now of course—it’s clear that Buckley is exhibiting the traits of hysteria, melodrama and theatricality, while Vidal, sitting back and smirking, is the calm, reticent Aryan. It’s clear that Vidal is the real American patrician, Buckley the jumped-up Irishman whose father paid for the right schools. Yet Vidal achieves his effect by mere words—the typical runt. Ironically, but significantly, although Vidal called Buckley a ‘crypto-fascist’ his Judeo-Christian family values “conservatism” became more and more neo-conned, while it became clear to many of us, such as Bill Kauffman, that it was the pagan Vidal who represented the real American conservative or man of the right.

More generally, the same thing has happened in political culture in general. Buckley’s momentary freak-out is now the de rigueur style of political “debate” : shouting over each other’s sound bites, which are meaningless anyhow. Limbaugh’s been at it so long that even he looks and sounds almost Buckley-esque compared to the more recent crop. And not just on the Right! I’ve noticed everywhere there’s a real type that I remember from the Irish wakes of my childhood, uncles and cousins, boozed up and telling one another to “straighten up and fly right” or “git wise to yerself” etc. It’s all blotchy-faced, thick-necked Micks screaming at each other, O’Reilly and Hannity on Fox, that Ed guy and Chris Matthews on MSNBC, and check out the neck on Maddow! The decline of physical standards and intellectual standards goes hand in hand (how ‘gay’ is that?) and also tracks the increasing dominance of the most decadent, passed-their-shelf-date Judeo-Christian notions—the last election was basically gay marriage versus sister marriage.

Yours is probably the only right-wing book anywhere with a section on the importance of fashion... Some will smirk at the inclusion of this subject. Why is it important to you?

Calling it ‘fashion’ kind of builds in the idea of transient and ephemeral. It’s also one of the ways I discuss of how the Left neuters homosexuality while supposedly “liberating” it, by channeling homoerotic interests from culture to “fabulous” things like fashion and decorating. However, viewing clothing and style as smirk-able is the flip side of the same coin. The first generation of Traditionalists included many who, unlike the more abstract and mathematical Guenon, directed their attention to every detail of Traditional culture, including clothing. I’m thinking of Coomaraswamy and Danielou, also Marco Pallis, and especially the not-quite kosher Traditionalist Alan Watts, who devoted a whole book to food and clothing called Does It Matter?, where he diagnoses our (already in the 1950s!) culture of ugly clothes and tasteless food as a “pseudo-materialism” that is actually an airy, disembodied abstraction-ism, rooted in Judeo-Christian body-hate, and contrasts it with “a thorough-going spiritual materialism.” But all of them recognized, to one degree of “seriousness” or another, that “clothes make the man.” Watts pointed out that Japan became mechanized and militaristic after adopting “modern” dress, and answered someone who said “How can I run for the bus wearing a kimono? with the reply “No real gentleman runs for anything, much less a bus.” Both he and Coomaraswamy recognized that Islam, positing the dignity of all men as vice-regents of Allah on Earth, had designed the most dignified of male attire, as homoerotic travelers from Gide to T. E. Lawrence to William Burroughs have discovered. And I would add, that one look at the pasty-faced, red-haired Hasids in their beaver hats and long black frock coats—the secular Israelis call them “the black coats”—tells you all you need to know about who really belongs in Jerusalem.

For a brief moment in the 60s male attire blossomed, but as Watts was already noting, it largely succumbed to a cult of griminess under the influence of Judaic notions of “real” and “authentic”—the fat, hairy Jewish “therapist” in the hot tub as the emblem of “letting it all hang out”—and musical culture moved from White musicians in tight denim or spandex pants to rappers “keeping it real” in baggy pants belted around the knees to exposed flowery boxers—surely the ugliest and stupidest attire ever worn, and the sure symbol of the “no homo” culture endorsed by the Left and Right. By contrast, as I discuss in the book, the real “hard men” of the American West, cowboys and gold miners, cheered Oscar Wilde on his lecture tour and welcomed him as one of their own, recognizing his long hair and velvet breeches as symbols of their shared casual, free lifestyle outside the “family values” world of Victorian labor.

You spend a good deal of time discussing the future of "white music," and you diss (to use a non-white word) Alternative Right writer and music enthusiast Alex Kurtagic's taste in orchestral heavy metal, saying that overall you dig the "futurist" vibe, which sounds cool (puts me to mind of Gary Numan's "Cars"), but what do you mean by it?

Mad props to Alex, of course, for his fine work, both in music and print, but as Nietzsche says in discussing his “untimely meditations,” one should confine one’s criticism to otherwise worthy targets. Here I am influenced by Baron Evola, whose Traditionalism was flavored with an uncompromising anti-bourgeois animus. He opposed the kind of “conservatism” which, like the Buckleys of the world, simply wants to preserve the ways Traditional principles happened to be embodied in their childhood, no matter how decadent or just imperfect, rather than seek new ways to present them for us today; “archeo-futurism” if you will. Let the opera houses burn! Thus, he agreed with the instincts of the “younger generation” that sought more authentic forms of music than Western, equal tempered music, as did Danielou. Unlike Danielou, he opposed the mania for jazz and later “beat” music. Rather than searching for their own roots, as Bartok did, they turned to the alien, dissolute, demonic culture of the Africans. Needless to say, this “turn” was made all the easier for them by Judaics—think, Adorno, and the aforesaid cult of dirty “authenticity.”

It’s a perfect example what I’m talking about throughout the book: a justifiable dissatisfaction with what passes for White culture is met with incomprehension on the Right, leaving the Left to offer the only alternative. It’s the Stupid Party versus the Crazy Party, and the Judaic is always there, blocking the way on the Right, offering the false alternative on the Left.

If one must have “soaring harmonies” etc. then I suggest in the book that we take a look at so-called New Age music, which I analyze as an “implicitly White” format, de-emphasizing Negroid rhythm and exploring new technologies, new instruments and new sound, in the Faustian Spirit of the Aryan race. Varg Vikernes, than whom there is no one more Metal, is the pioneer here, producing from his Norwegian prison what I call Aryan New Age Music; another suggestion is the work of Scott Walker, from wall-of-sound teenybopper hits to his more recent avant-garde productions.

You are strongly opposed to what you call "Judeo-Christianity," and at one point in your book you state a preference for Mithra-worship. I am a practicing Roman Catholic who overall sees the influence of Christianity in the West in a positive, not a negative light. Yet we, and others like us, find ourselves united, comrades in arms, in opposition to the Zeitgeist of our day... What do you make of this "big tent"? How did so many people with such disperate systems of belief get thrown together like this?

A thorny question! Here again, I take my inspiration from Baron Evola rather than Guenon, who had a much higher opinion of Christianity, or at least Roman Catholicism (but perhaps only because he had a loathing of Classical culture, due perhaps to his French schooldays, and on the other hand, thought there were still valid Traditional forms available, though apparently well hidden even from himself, in the 1930s Church). For Evola, just as every nation was a mixture of two or more racial types—like the Roman and Mediterranean types mentioned before—so the Roman Church was the remains of the Roman culture—the “Roman”—with the more primitive and alien Christianity—hence ‘Church’. The history of the West for Evola is the rise and fall of each influence‘s dominance; Catholicism, Empire, Authority on the one side, Protestantism, Nationalism, Free Thought on the other. I’ve simply extended that analysis into the contemporary scene, and address popular culture and even sexuality from that perspective; something not done since Coomaraswamy and Danielou in the first generation of Traditionalists, while the later ones have tended to follow, say, Frithjof Schuon into a haughty isolation involving vague mysticism, Native American-idolatry and dancing naked with little girls. I’ll let my readers decide which path is more productive—and less perverse!

As for Christianity, or Roman Catholicism, Evola eventually decided it was not just decadent but had never even been an authentic tradition in the first place—unlike the cult of Mithras. As Hoffman would say, they switched the authentic entheogenic sacrament of the Mystery cults with a phony “symbolic” substitute for general consumption, hence outgrowing their rival. It’s unlikely the actual Church today would change his mind. On the other hand, and in practical terms of “well, what next?”, the best strategy for Traditionalists, or archeo-futurists, or even pagans, might be something like political “entryism” where we reverse the Church’s infiltration of the Roman Empire and instead infiltrate the Church, gradually taking over and using its powerful existing structure—which olde tymey Protestants say is just paganism anyway—to rebuild the Heathen Imperium. The use of “Anglo-Catholicism” as a “public closet” for Catholics and Anglicans of a homoerotic persuasion—such as the great American architect Ralph Adams Cram and his Boston Bohemian circle, whom I wrote about recently on Counter Currents—would be the model here. The Church was, in the late 19th century and early 20th, a “more respectable” identity, or refuge, for a whole host, as it were, of social deviants; there’s no reason it couldn’t be the same for today’s Radical Traditionalists, as long as we are aware that our enemies—equalitarianism, feminism, etc.—are rooted there as well.

The Great Wordflation

If I could write this article without words I would, because, by employing more of the squiggly little things, I am being complicit in “The Great Wordflation,” that great clogging of the mental arteries, or that stimulus to ignorance that you encounter when you see another yet another 10000-word plus essay on the internet, written by someone with a pen name detailing their personal path to enlightenment.

Matching the great inflation of the money/credit/debt supply and the great outpouring of cheap mass produced consumerism that has characterized our era, we have also seen The Great Wordflation. It seems only fair to assume that they are somehow all marching in lock step towards some mutually agreed cataclysmic point.

Historically there have always been too many words in the world for the amount of sense available, but things were never as bad as they are now. This has had stylistic repercussions, but, much more importantly, it has had an entirely corrosive effect on the human ability to understand the world in a meaningful way.

For centuries words were just air – breathe in breathe out – and carried off on the wind unless you were a Druidic rap artist, but now without such bardic skills they pour forth on Kindles, comment threads, blogs, Facebooks, smart phones (sic), and Twitters. And they even hang around! What’s more, they link to more and more words, and then there are things like Wikipedia and Google so that any fuckwit can find even more words to back-up and consolidate any half-baked notions that have got stuck on his or her sticky little ego.

Then there is the spin that can be put on words. No, I didn’t realize you were being quite so ironic…(yawn!)

This means that no one need ever be wrong again – and that being right is also impossible and increasingly subjective. You can have pure, fragrant crap for brains, in which the most outlandish notions have rooted, stemmed, flourished, and bloomed, and you need never worry because the vast Wordflation has already grown a million fig leaves to cover your ignorance and block out the Sun.

You want to believe that the British Royal Family are alien lizards? Fine! No problem! The Great Wordflation has created a jungle of websites, podcasts, and blogs that water that giant triffid growing out of your head.

You want to believe that we are walking hand-in-hand with our Black and Brown brothers and sisters into a post-racial utopia, while meantime you do all you can to avoid them? Fine. Problemo Nil! The Great Wordflation will bury and caress you with words that will feed your delusion, especially this delusion.

You got a thing about the Jews pissing in every sandwich? What could be more rational and sane when there are apparently vast canopies and cathedrals of words built up on that very same premise? The shadows of such cathedrals also allow a lot of real pissing in sandwiches to go on undetected.

The ancient Greeks, as ever, were here before us. That was why they tried to incorporate infallible mathematics into philosophy and create watertight reasoning patterns which came to be called “logic.” But the big flaw was they still needed words, and words turn.

The Romans, competent rulers that they were, made words relatively scarce while roads, baths, and aqueducts proliferated. The Catholics who followed them used impenetrable Latin and the occasional bonfire to keep the word count low, but then some mischievous German invented the modern printing press, and, with one thing leading to another, mass literacy started to loom. But still words were limited by the cost of books, the turgidness of the still medieval writing style, and the physical effort of blowing dust off tomes and looking up references. Only the more intelligent, studious, and socially parsitical could dabble in this growing evil, and thus it was contained for many years by a thin although often permeable layer from the moronic masses.

But now, thanks to the great technical ‘wordsplosion’ of the last few years – the vast churning out of ever more interlinked articles, cross-referencing blogs, and endless comment threads in which every moron can see magical words appearing on the screen at the ends of his clattering digits – we are now drowning in words, words that cosset lies and anti-truths, words that clog the mind, that needlessly charm or pointlessly enrage, words that stupefy and bore within one or two clicks of vast amounts of porn.

The Zen masters of the East saw this coming (except the porn). That’s why they said fuck the sutras and made their points by sitting under waterfalls and thwacking each other with bits of bamboo, and, erm, chilling out. But our own world is now covered in a fine and ever growing carpet of word-dust, a bit like Pompeii after the volcano.

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.

Elbow Room

It's fascinating to chart the momentum of cultural trends. Sometimes a peek into even the rather recent past can be shocking for what it reveals.

Today, we all "know" (because we've had it endlessly drilled into our heads) that the period of westward expansion was a shameful era in American history, a time when greedy, scheming, and corrupt white men stole the noble and peaceable red man's land and imposed their wicked and vile Eurocentric rule over the sweet-natured, charming, spiritually-pure, and morally-superior indiginous population of North America.

Yes, we all "know" these things... after all, haven't you seen Dances With Wolves? Well, there you go. That proves it.

Dances With Wolves came out in 1991, establishing for good the standard white-guilt narrative that had in truth been rendered innumerable times before and which has been repeated innumerable times since, in books, movies, documentaires, and stale, doctrinaire academic lectures. You know, it's the "white man bad; red/black/yellow/brown man good" template, which prevails to an ever-so tiresome extent all across today's oppressive and intellectually-incestuous Zeitgeist.

Yes, trendy white ethnomasochism is nothing new... and yet, it really wasn't that long ago (1975, in fact) that the Saturday-morning Schoolhouse Rock series-- a consistently liberal children's indoctrination program, sharing much the same hippie-ish vibe of the Free to Be You and Me project of the period-- could offer a song like "Elbow Room," a fun, upbeat, uptempo, unapologetic apologia for the white quest for Lebensraum in the American West. It is, believe it or not, a tune utterly free of any shame-inducement or egregious guilt-tripping of its target audience.

Yesterday, California... tomorrow, the moon! Check it out, Whitey: a time when a national TV program invited you to feel proud, not ashamed, of your ancestors... rock, roll, and remember, fellow Gen-Xers!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfoQBTPY7gk

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.

An Interview with John Bean: Part One

With moves to reboot British Nationalism finally stirring, it is essential that mistakes from the past be avoided and insights gained. Very few people can look back on the chequered history of British Nationalism from the vantage point occupied by John Bean. As a veteran nationalist of over sixty years standing, and a man who has first-hand knowledge of everyone of importance in the movement from Sir Oswald Mosley, A.K. Chesterton, and Enoch Powell to John Tyndall and Nick Griffin, John Bean has seen it all. In this exclusive and wide-ranging interview with Alternative Right he offers his reflections and conclusions on a still sadly unfinished project, namely the preservation of the British race, culture, and nation.

Liddell: First of all, I read your biographical memoir, Many Shades of Black. That was a fascinating account of political struggle from a very human perspective. However, to my mind, there seemed to be a bit of a gap between your fascinating description of life in post-Independence India, where you briefly worked in the chemical industry, and your active involvement in the Union Movement, following your return to the UK. What was the deciding moment or chain of events that turned you onto a nationalist course of action?

Bean: The few months I worked in India in 1950 played a major part in fashioning the mould in which my life-long socio-political views were to be cast. The rather insular young nationalist who had eagerly volunteered for RAF aircrew in March 1945 found that his nationalism had widened to a European nationalism. However, the beginning of this metamorphosis began when serving in the Royal Navy on a former German ship, the Nordmark, in 1947-48. Its wartime function was to supply surface raiders and occasional U-boats and carry Merchant Navy survivors of British ships that had been sunk to internment in Germany. Two of these former prisoners had been contacted by the Royal Naval authorities and came to Portsmouth and spoke of their experiences on board as prisoners. They said that conditions were cramped and although the food was poor it was the same as served to the German crew. Above all they were treated correctly as prisoners of war. For the first time I began to question the image that wartime propaganda had given our recent enemy.

Arriving in India, as a nationalist I was interested to hear the opinions of so many older Indians who wished the British Raj was back, and praised its incorruptibility. In spite of its presence for some 250 years, I found the average Indian did not differentiate between a Briton, Frenchman, Swiss or German: we were all Europeans, all white men to them. Perhaps more important, I was soon conscious of the fact that I was in the presence of a deep-seated culture, but only as an observer and that for reasons I could not then define I would always be an observer, never to be enjoined within that culture. In contrast to the outward looking cultural ethic of the European, ever looking to cross previously defined frontiers, that of India to me at the time appeared as inward looking, each concentrating on his own soul personified by the navel contemplation of Buddha.

On reflection perhaps I was being too simplistic. Not taken into account was the fact that there are greater racial differences between, for example, The Brahmins and the Negritto type Dravidians of southern India than the Norwegians and Sicilians of Europe. Before I am taken to task for confusing the Indian caste system with race let it be remembered that ‘caste’ is of Sanskrit origin and just means ‘colour.’ It was devised by the Aryan invaders from the Caucasus who founded the Indus Valley civilisation around 1500 BC, who the Brahmins still associate themselves with. Returning to India 40 years later I found that my earlier interpretation of the reasons for the cultural differences between the European and the Indian still had some substance – particularly in rural areas – but, sadly, was becoming considerably affected by the materialistic aspects of Western culture.

Liddell: Much of the political activity of Union Movement involved rowdy meetings with heckling, provocative marches, and brawls. This can of course be dated back to the British Union of Fascists versus hard left politics of the pre-War period, with a similar style of street politics continuing up to the National Front in the 1970s. In Many Shades of Black, this 'aggro-politics' often seems to coincide with ethnic tensions in working class neighbourhoods – Irish, Jewish, Black vs. English. In retrospect such violence seems to have contributed to the marginalization of British Nationalism and to have been a major tactical error. Were there any benefits from this kind of aggro-politics? Given the roughness of the areas Union Movement and subsequent nationalists operated in, how avoidable was such an element?

Bean: On my return from India the first few months were occupied with obtaining a new job (still in the paint and resin industry) and establishing a home for our impending start of a family. As a reaction to the stories I had heard in the Navy about the generally civilised behaviour of German sailors during the war, when on leave in early 1948 I had obtained a copy of Oswald Mosley’s “Greater Britain” from New Cross public library. Although impressed with much of its content I did nothing about it at the time. In 1950, four months after my return from India, I contacted the Mosley movement, basically for an update on Mosley’s post-war view. His British Union of Fascists had been disbanded to be replaced by Union Movement. This had gone beyond narrow nationalism to ‘Europe a Nation’. Although then, as today, I thought that a single European government was a step too far, my cultural experiences in Trinidad and more so in India, made the European idea in post-war Mosleyism more acceptable to my own ideas. I joined Union Movement in the late summer. In the autumn for the first time I heard Mosley speak at a meeting held in Kensington Town Hall. Although he had turned 60 he was still a first class orator and held the majority of his 500 audience spellbound. The meeting was held in peace with not even a heckler.

Jeffery Hamm’s League of ex-Servicemen held meetings – mainly but not exclusively in London – from early 1947 until Mosley’s Union Movement was formed late in 1948. Supported by mainly British Fascists, it continued to attract the same pre-war violent confrontations from the Communists and militant Jews. The militant Jewish group was now called the 43 Group (formed in 1943) with the express purpose of rooting out and destroying any Fascist or anti-Semitic elements that reared their heads following the release of Mosley and his support from 18b internment – without charge or trial.

Towards the end of 1949, however, the Communist Party must have received instructions from Moscow that Fascism in Britain no longer posed a major threat to ‘democracy,’ because the organised opposition practically ceased overnight. The pitched battles that were fought in Ridley Road, East London, where no holds were barred by Jew or Gentile, came to a halt. Now this was not good for Mosley’s Union Movement as the publicity that had been created was turned off. It had been a vital tool in attracting not only some of his pre-war supporters, but their sons and daughters in the brave new world of London’s East End at that time. Inspired by Alf Flockhart and Jeffery Hamm, but not directly by Mosley, attacks were initiated against Communists in their stronger areas and against the many Communist controlled ‘Peace Movements’ with a return of publicity as initiators of violence

I supported it and indulged in it to some extent, but it was a fatal mistake. It was repeated by John Tyndall 20 years later with the National Front marches that initially attracted more members, but the attraction of Left wing violence meant that the National Front carried the blame for the violence. Thus the NF carried on the same theme as Union Movement of marching its way into obscurity.

Liddell: Would it be fair to say that British politics has always had a 'physical' side? One thinks of the 18th and 19th century political mobs, the typical unruliness of the hustings, often fuelled by free alcohol provided by candidates, as well as our great tradition of forceful heckling.

Bean: This is true, although it tends to be overlooked by establishment media commentators of today. My experience of the ‘physical’ side of political campaigns in both Union Movement and the first BNP (1960-68) showed that some who had fought the fiercest drank the least in the pub meetings that usually followed an ‘encounter.’

Liddell: You were involved in a fair number of brawls and tussles, often due to attacks from Leftists. You describe these in great detail in Many Shades of Black. Without advocating violence, what practical advice would you pass on to nationalists who find themselves in similar physically threatening situations?

Bean: Unless you outnumber your militant opponents don’t trail your cloak to encourage violence. If you are still in charge of speaker equipment that can overcome opposition chanting then hand over to those who can sometimes control the gathering by humour (which I tried at my Southall election meetings with some success) and not to those who prefer to ‘wind up’ your opponents.

Liddell: Would it be fair to say that overall the Leftists with their superior numbers, covert support from the establishment, and greater ruthlessness came out on top in the street fighting?

Bean: Hopefully without sounding like a bragging football hooligan, I do not recall the militant leftists coming out on top when their numbers were evenly matched. As for ruthlessness, I never met anyone more ruthless than Alf Flockhart of Union Movement – who I did not like – or my own ‘bodyguard’ in the early BNP – who I did like because his ruthlessness was controlled.

Liddell: I get the impression from your book that you deeply regret nationalist politics having taken this course. How much of a dead-end do you think it has been? When did you come to this realization?

Bean: It should be noted that the League of Empire Loyalists, led by A.K.Chesterton, never indulged in any violent actions to gain publicity. They preferred well thought out stunts to gain publicity. These included hiding under the stage at Tory meetings then commandeering the microphone to condemn their betrayal of the Empire, or having one of their members dress up as Archbishop Makarios and gaining access to the 1956 Commonwealth Conference. Several LEL demonstrators were subjected to violence, usually form outraged Conservative meeting stewards. It was, of course, all rather pointless because the electorate had noted that history had already decided that there was no longer any British Empire to be loyal to.

Liddell: Supposing violent street politics had been avoided, do you think the British nationalist movement would have been able to avoid political marginalization and be in a much healthier position today, or would other factors have ensured its marginalization anyway?

Bean: One only has to look at the reasonable progress being shown by Marine Le Pen with the Front National in France to see that if British nationalism had been able to distance itself from violence over the last 30 years or more then it would be more of a threat to the Lib-Lab-Con political establishment. But the latter’s control of the media would probably still have prevented substantial nationalist Parliamentary representation today.

Liddell: One of the most fascinating excerpts in your book Many Shades of Black is when you describe your face-to-face meeting with Sir Oswald Mosley. The two of you failed to see eye-to-eye, and he comes across as rather imperious. Apart from what you mention in the book, what do you remember about that meeting and what other impressions did you have of the man?

Bean: On reflection my tea-time meeting with Mosley at the Eccleston Hotel gave classic examples of the duality of his character. In the preliminary discussion, which centred on my support for European co-operation and even a confederation, he listened attentively to my argument, courteously making non-committal acknowledgements although without entering into any debate. It was when I said that due to his past actions and positions, such as anti-Semitism, and the way he had been woefully misrepresented in the media on so many issues, he had no chance of being elected to any form of power, that he became irritated and changed to the imperious Mosley. Additionally, I had the impression that for him this was a another case of déjà vu where he, an aging man whose contemporary critics admitted could have been prime minister, was being told where he had gone wrong by a political tyro. Immediately after the meeting, in some ways, I regretted this additional disappointment I had given him.

Liddell: If he had ever achieved power, how do you think he would have used it? Would he have been the monster that leftists and liberals assume? What about his anti-Semitism? Was it only opportunistic or did it run deeper?

Bean: Leftists and liberals are notoriously victims of their own propaganda. Mosley in power would not have been a monster, although as a man of decision he would appear to the liberal-left as being somewhat dictatorial. If you read his “Greater Britain”, for his pre-war BUF policies, or “The Alternative” for his post-war Europe a Nation, it is corporatism in general that he was advocating and not ‘Fascism’ in its pejorative sense – certainly not in his post-war writings and speeches. Writing in his autobiography, “My Life,” page 287, this is his post-war reflection on fascism:

“Fascism was in essence a national creed, and therefore by definition took an entirely different form in different countries. In origin, it was an explosion against intolerable conditions, against remedial wrongs which the old world had failed to remedy. It was a movement to secure national renaissance by people who felt themselves threatened with decline into decadence and death and were determined to live and live greatly. Without understanding these three basic facts it is possible to abuse fascism, but not to make a serious reply to its case and its spirit.”

There is no escaping his anti-Semitism in his BUF days, although it could be understood why he became so. When Mosley left the Labour Party in 1931 to form the New Party he had the support of a number of Jewish members – much as Mussolini did in the early days of power in Fascist Italy. As the BUF progressed it came under vicious attacks at its meetings by Communists. In London, Leeds and Manchester in particular, many of these Communist militants were Jewish. This was not unusual but reflected the same political situation on the Continent. With Hitler’s rise to power in 1933 his actions meant that he had virtually declared war on the Jewish people. It is therefore understandable that Jewish money and its reflected power in the media should be harnessed with the militancy of the communists to not only bring down Hitler and his National Socialism, which Fascism had morphed into, but also any party that expressed sympathy towards any aspect of his policies. This included the BUF. Hitler’s intransigence meant that there was no turning back, that war was inevitable, and that Mosley’s BUF could not survive.

Liddell: I also got the impression from your account that he was rather disconnected from the day-to-day realities, although you don’t specifically say this. I believe you also mention that he was spending much of his time out of the UK, in Ireland and France, at that time. And, of course, by background, he was from an upper class family. One of the failings of British nationalism, as I see it, was that at its core it lacked the plebeian touch and tended to rely for leadership on rather aloof scions of the old ruling class, or people from the lower classes who copied the attitudes of the old ruling class. I am thinking here of Enoch Powell and John Tyndall, who whatever their merits, also came across as pompous and distant. An interesting contrast can be drawn with the success of the SNP. Although a civic nationalist party, it has enjoyed great success because its leadership has always been rooted in the common Scottish people. Alex Salmond typifies this. Whatever negatives, he is indisputably one of ‘The People.’ Do you think that British nationalism was to a certain extent hamstrung by the influence of the class system and undue deference to those who had or who affected the manners of the old ruling class? How does Griffin fit into this picture? In my opinion, he’s more of an NCO type than an officer type, which should have been an asset in some ways.

Bean: In my opinion the only one of the people you referred to who was rather ‘pompous’ was John Tyndall. The stiff upper lip appearance of the Leader was everything to him. Perhaps it was his middle class origins, with strong connections to the Protestant church that made him so. He and I always had respect for each other, but he could never understand why I readily turned to humour in political campaigns and kept social contact with many of our activists. Thus, among some compliments, he more than once said that my failing was that I lacked gravitas. He was probably right, although I may have had the plebeian touch, which I did not regret. Like Tyndall and myself, Enoch Powell was a grammar school boy. Of middle class background – mine was the impoverished former nouveau riche – I do not think that his scholarly distinctions, including his love of Greek and Latin meant that he was copying the attitudes of the old ruling class. He certainly was not ‘plebeian’ but he had great appeal with his stand on immigration and withdrawal from the EU from working class people, as manifested in the marches against immigration by such ‘plebs’ as the dockers and the Smithfield meat porters.

Certainly the charge of being ‘distant’ is valid. I noticed this when I had a short conversation with him when he and I were in the hospitality suite prior to appearing on the BBC Timewatch program on the history of immigration in Britain broadcast in April 1995.

Oswald Mosley’s upper class origins seemed only to work to his advantage with the overwhelming support he gained – certainly in BUF days – from the so-called working class. This was due more to his character, his First World War service with the Flying Corps and the high office he obtained in the Labour Party, than his class origins. Pre-war he was closely connected with the party and spoke regularly at indoor and outdoor rallies all round Britain, being injured from missiles on several occasions. As I have stated, post-war he spent much of his time out of the country, first in Ireland and finally in Paris. Overall, I think the class system had little effect in holding back the fortunes of British nationalism.

You are right that the left-wing Alex Salmond who poses as a Scottish nationalist has made great progress because his actions are rooted in the Scottish people. But I would still only rate him as a sergeant, rather than an officer. As for Griffin, only a lance-corporal – but a quick-witted one, particularly where personal gain was possible!

Continue to part two of the interview here.

An Interview with John Bean: Part Two

With moves to reboot British Nationalism finally stirring, it is essential that mistakes from the past be avoided and insights gained. Very few people can look back on the chequered history of British Nationalism from the vantage point occupied by John Bean. As a veteran nationalist of over sixty years standing, and a man who has first-hand knowledge of everyone of importance in the movement from Sir Oswald Mosley, A.K. Chesterton, and Enoch Powell to John Tyndall and Nick Griffin, John Bean has seen it all. In this exclusive and wide-ranging interview with Alternative Right he offers his reflections and conclusions on a still sadly unfinished project, namely the preservation of the British race, culture, and nation.

Liddell: One of the odd political legacies of the BUF and Union Movement seems to be Lee Kuan Yew’s People's Action Party. The party was formed in 1954 by English-educated professionals who had returned from university education in the UK. As you are probably aware, it has a logo that is surprisingly similar to the BUF’s flash and circle logo, and the party members even have the equivalent to the Black shirt, although in Chinese culture, white not black is the funerary colour, so they use white. Besides these possibly incidental similarities the Party also seems to apply the Fascist idea of the corporate state, not to remove social conflict between the classes, as these are not so important in Singapore, but instead to maintain peace between the different races, as this is the most obvious fracture line in Singaporean society. It has also been very successful in doing this and making Singapore an affluent society, which also obviously helps social and racial peace. What is your opinion of specific parallels between the BUF and UM on the one hand and the PAP on the other? Also, what do you think of the political affinities between so-called ‘Communist China’ and the fascist systems of pre-war Europe?

Bean: It can hardly be coincidence that Lee Kuan Yew’s PAP party chose the BUF and UM symbol of the lightning flash in a circle, together with the slogan “Action within social racial unity,” apparently inspired by the BUF’s more snappy “Action within Unity.” According to an article in the Financial Times by John Burton in 2006, Lee acknowledged a design influence from the BUF symbol. He was in Britain 1949-51, where he read Law at Cambridge, obtaining a double first with honours. In his spare time he helped the Labour party in election campaigns. Apart from Labour’s anti-colonialism it seems he was attracted to Fabian socialism, which was reflected in the PAP party policy from 1954 onwards. However, it could be said that Lee was a National Socialist in the literal sense, i.e. a nationalist as well as a socialist. Thus it would have been natural for him to admire Mosley and some of his policies, although not tactful to admit this at that time. With the Malayan, Chinese and Indian racial mix in Singapore Lee tried to create a unique Singaporean identity. His form of national socialism would aid this and counter any threat that could incite ethnic or religious violence. If one can strip away the distortions of what fascism and national socialism originally proposed (distortions mainly created by the wartime brutalities committed in their names), then I would say that ‘Communist’ China of today has moved far away from Maoism and with its control of capitalism for the national interest – as opposed to the West’s globalism – it is more akin to the corporate state of fascism and national socialism. It is a path that India and Malaysia are also beginning to take.

Liddell: I read once that Lee Kuan Yew may have known Mosley. Have you heard of anything along these lines?  

Bean: During the time that Lee was studying in Britain Mosley was living as a semi-recluse in Ireland busily writing his book “The Alternative,” in which he laid down his views for going beyond pre-war nationalism to ‘Europe a Nation.’ A long-term friend of mine and a dedicated follower of Mosley has been unable to establish any documented link between Lee and Mosley. As my friend says, if there had been a link, then Mosley would certainly have mentioned it in his autobiography, “My Life” published in 1968  

Liddell: While you were in the League of Empire Loyalists you net John Tyndall; I think during the North Lewisham by-election. What early recollections do you have of the man?  

Bean: In 1957 I was put in charge of outdoor meetings of the League of Empire Loyalists in their North Lewisham by-election. Among the new young people who turned up to help was a twenty-two year old John Tyndall Although he was a very serious young man, with firm opinions, who did not appreciate my readiness for humour, we got on well. Although being anti-communist, the previous year he had visited Moscow with the Young Communist League. Apparently while there he stuffed anti-communist leaflets, designed and printed by him, under the doors of the hotel. I mention this because it was indicative of an inability to foresee the results of his actions, which in this case could have meant he would be locked up for years by the Soviet comrades. It was at Lewisham that I became aware that, although he was an admirer of Hitler, he had little time for Germany as such – or any other ‘foreigners,’ come to that. Such was his patriotism that I had the impression that secretly he wished Hitler had been British! It must be said that in his later years he regretted his pro-Hitler and pro-British Nazism statements. Having known John Tyndall throughout his political life (and also his family in the early days), I wish to record my admiration for his tenacity in pursuing his fight for his brand of nationalism, for his mental as well as physical courage, and for his honesty in everything he did. It may be hackneyed to say so but in his case it really was “what you see is what you get.”  

Liddell: As you mentioned, the League of Empire Loyalists were famed for their prankish, student-rag-like stunts. You left the group after Chesterton asked you to ‘soot’ the TV commenter Malcolm Muggeridge after he criticized the Queen. You refused to do this, but in Many Shades of Black you also mention that you invited John Tyndall and that he refused. What were his reasons for refusing and did they influence your decision not to perform the ‘mission’?

Bean: My happiest times in the League of Empire Loyalists were spent campaigning in the North Lewisham by-election. After three years of popping out of boxes at opponents’ meetings or awarding a coal scuttle to Anthony Eden for “scuttling the Empire,” I realized that this was not in accord with my growing radical nationalist beliefs. Tyndall had never participated in the stunts and I only asked him to join me in the plot to ‘soot’ Malcolm Muggeridge because I no longer saw any political purpose in these actions and wanted to test him out for his future co-operation with me. JT agreed and gave me his support in our breakaway to form the National Labour Party.

Liddell: Radicalism is often connected in the average mind with extremism. A good example is the term “anti-Semitism.” This has the connotation that it is automatically wrong, and of course certain forms of anti-Semitism would be hard to objectively defend within a context of normal Western values, but a case could also be made that Jewish interests are antithetical to broader Western values and interests. Your earlier mention of “Jewish money and its reflected power in the media,” hint at its separate agenda. Professor Kevin McDonald has done a lot of work explaining the antithetical nature of Jewishness to Western civilization, noting the contradiction of Jewish support for their own ethnostate with their opposition to ethnicity as an organizing value of other, especially White European states. Regardless of tactical concerns about not upsetting a powerful group with money and media influence, do you think there is truth in the idea that the Jews as a group have a clear tendency to undermine White European ethnostates and interests and that this therefore provides a basis for a kind of rational, objective, and even moral anti-Semitism that is distinct from the hate-filled and religiously inspired anti-Semitism of the past?

Bean: I believe that a case can be made that many Jewish interests are antithetical to traditional Western values and interests. The effect of religion is minimal, not least because Christianity has its roots in Judaism. For that reason I have decried the hate-filled and religiously inspired anti-Semitism of the past. The origin of the antithesis between the European and Jewry lies in the Diaspora. In order to survive as small minorities, originally exclusively as a religion then latterly as a people whose beliefs ranged from orthodoxy to agnosticism, putting all Jewish interests first within each host nation of Europe became paramount. Thus over a millennium we saw the rise of powerful Jewish groups that became operative as one international body. With the media power that resultant Jewish money was able to buy, came its antithetical nature to Western civilisation, which you quote above from Professor Kevin McDonald.

Liddell: The above question also relates to a wider problem that nationalism has had: the fact that views that are essentially moderate and reasonable, and which the majority of people naturally support, are stigmatized as somehow “extreme” or “twisted” and “evil.” Why has it been so easy for the opponents of White nationalism to popularize the notion there is “something of the night” about nationalist views? Is it just the media power of the globalists or is it the “Hitler effect”? If it is the second, will time see this diminishing as a factor?

Bean: The ‘Hitler effect’, i.e. ‘nationalism leads to war and genocide,’ does diminish with time and is now secondary to the fact that in addition to many media outlets being owned by globalists, journalists and TV news and documentary programme producers and editors are dominated by the Guardian school of liberal internationalists. This is not just confined to the BBC. ITV News and Channel 5 (owned by porn king Richard Desmond) in the UK frequently outdo the BBC in pushing multiculturalism. Their work is made easier by the tendency of most Brits – and Whites in general – to be particularly hospitable to those who would appear to have fewer advantages in life. The media’s presentation of UK medal winners in the London Olympics is a case in point. Britain won 29 gold. Of which 24 were won by ‘white’ Brits and the remaining five golds won by four black competitors. In no way would I diminish the ability of the non-white athletes, with Mo Farrar and the almost-white Jessica Ennis being outstanding, but the media presentation was that it was a great achievement for multicultural and multiracial Britain. I had to remind a few relatives and neighbours that in cycling, rowing, swimming, sailing and equestrian events – where most of our golds were won – not one Afro-Asian under any flag was present. A gentle reminder that, similarly, there were no whites in the100 metres final hopefully reminded them that the Olympics also emphasised the varying abilities of the world’s races.

Liddell: In Europe, nationalism has been enjoying mixed fortunes from the possibly hollow successes of civic nationalists like Alex Salmond and the limited and now apparently evaporating success of the BNP to more substantial successes of various European nationalist parties. Do you see a pattern that explains the difference between failure and relative success, or is it always a case of very particular specific factors in each country?

Bean: First, I do not consider Salmond to be a ‘nationalist, whether ‘civic’ or in any other form. He is a liberal internationalist with the astuteness of cashing in on many Scots’ national pride, which they feel is dominated by the vastly numerically superior population to their South. He has openly expressed pride in the fact that Scotland’s population has increased solely due to Afro-Asian immigration. The present day failure of nationalism in wider Britain is due almost exclusively to the diminishing support given to the BNP. Its present leader knows this but refuses to step down, which means that because the BNP name is so well known no new nationalist movement has much of a chance of success at this stage.

Liddell: There seems to be something of an Anglo-Euro split, with the globalist tendencies of the English speaking world working against nationalism. Germany is a special case of course, with the legacy of the reaction to National Socialism countering post-war nationalist movements. This Anglo-Euro split suggests that a possible problem is our cultural connection to the United States. How much of a drawback in building an effective nationalist movement is our cultural intimacy with America? Can this ever be countered or will it eventually defeat itself as deeper contradictions arise?

Bean: In theory Nationalism in Germany should have a more difficult task of exerting a greater socio-political influence than the present moribund state of British nationalism because of the reaction to National Socialism. The English speaking world, particularly through American power, destroyed National Socialism as a belief, aided by the ruthless Soviet military machine, which destroyed it even more physically. Nationalists could consider that the ‘globalist tendencies’ of the English speaking world that caused both the pre-war and present day Anglo-Euro split, could be used to our advantage, and not as the present conduit for Afro-Asian immigration and expanding rootless global capitalism. British nationalists even more than the nationalists of the Continent tend to blame America for their woes, not least because it was the prime hatchery for the rise of the international money power. This is quite different from the inventive power of America’s post-Civil War industrial revolution which led to the enormous productive power it still has today. This came from the genius of 18th-19th century European immigration, dominated during that time by the nations of Great Britain, Germany and France. Although 50% of the US population no longer carries the genes of those White pioneers, there is still 160 million who do. I believe it is an essential requisite for American Nationalists to gather strength – and unity – so we can use the English speaking world connections for our mutual advantages.

Liddell: Some nationalists also see the continued existence of the UK as a barrier to nationalism, because it creates a diluted, conglomerate “British” identity that can easily be further diluted. They believe that the break-up of Britain into its component and organic national parts – namely England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland – is a precondition to rebuilding nationalism. In your opinion is this analysis correct and is Britain itself the ultimate barrier to British nationalism?

Bean: I would give considerable weight to this analysis. We should give thought to a British Confederation of the national states of England, Scotland and a united Ireland. The general feeling in Ireland is that our separation in the modern world was a phase that we had to go through to ensure justice and recognition of the individuality of the Irish people. The astounding reception given recently to the Queen in her visits indicates that a return to closer ties would be acceptable.

Liddell: A similar case could be made regarding the European Union, that it is a factor that undermines the organic roots of nationalism. However, if there was enough of an upswell of nationalism across Europe, could the European Union actually help to amplify and consolidate a wider White European nationalism or will the EU always be a force antithetical to European nationalism?

Bean: The objective of the European Union was to form a single socialist state that would act as a major stepping stone to a world government. The collapse of the Euro will come within two years, for the simple reason that you cannot have a single currency without a single government. This has been brought about by the organic roots of nationalism being firmer than the internationalists thought. With the strong signs of co-operation between European nationalists, I would advocate a European Confederation of nationalist states, which I have commented upon in a previous article for Alternative Rights.

Liddell: To finish this long interview, I’d like to ask you a few questions about your involvement with the present BNP, a party which most agree has disappointed if not betrayed the hopes of nationalists. Your role in that party was to serve as the editor of "Identity" magazine, the flagship publication that always contained excellent articles and commentary. This gave you a position of intellectual leadership within the party. What was your editorial strategy or agenda during your tenure there? How did that work with the demands and interests of the party leadership, by which, of course, I mean Nick Griffin?

Bean: I rejoined the BNP in 1999 when Nick Griffin was elected Chairman. I was encouraged by the progress the party began to make and readily accepted his offer to take over the editorship of its magazine “Identity” in late 2002. I edited 70 issues, during which it grew from a 16-page quarterly to a 32-page cultural as well as political monthly, well designed by Mark Collett (who also fell out with Griffin in 2009). “Identity,” without me, was replaced in the spring of 2009 by a badly-written newssheet mainly devoted to drumming up donations. I still retained my membership. I had few differences of opinion with Nick Griffin in the presentation of the magazine’s socio-political content – to which he contributed a regular article. Much of this was concerned with in-depth explanations of the fundamentals of nationalist policies. Where appropriate, I pushed this in the direction of European Nationalism via a European Confederation and through developing the theme of the necessity for the defence of the nations of the white world as a whole and its overall culture, including the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Only once did Griffin tell me “not to overdo it.” Perhaps understandably he did not want to frighten off some of the Little Englanders with their belief that “all wogs begin at Calais.”

Liddell: Griffin is fast becoming the yesterday man of British nationalism, but he must have had some talents and good points to gain the leadership and lead the party in what was for a few years a promising direction. What were his strengths as a leader?

Bean: Nick Griffin wrote some good articles, although they could sometimes be rather repetitive. He also had a good eye (no pun intended) for printer’s errors. I was not over impressed by his public speaking, in that he was too hesitant and often appeared to lack true belief in what he was saying. This was evident in his appearance on the fateful BBC “Question Time” program. However, when talking among individuals he put them at ease and soon got himself accepted and gained short to medium term respect. This ability enabled him to work his way to the top on several occasions throughout his political career, starting with the National Front. No one can deny that an outstanding talent was his ability to get people to donate funds.

Liddell: Although heavily attacked and vilified, the BNP made steady gains on councils, the London Assembly, and in the European elections. Then things started to go wrong. From your point of view as an insider, when did the rot set in and, in your opinion, what were the causes of it?

Bean: With the one exception of when the BNP won an East London Council by-election in 1995, the purpose of fighting council elections was to get a double figure percentage of the vote. A victory was when a candidate beat one of the established parties and came third, or even second. The calibre of the candidate did not matter, because it was most unlikely that he or she would be elected. Those members with professional jobs were unlikely to stand because of the witch hunt that would often be organised by the liberal-left and aided by local and even national media. In no small part due to the new energy put into the Party by a still young Nick Griffin after becoming Chairman, local roots put down in mainly Northern cities and the East End and Essex borderland of London produced gold. The first BNP Councillors were elected in Burnley. By 2007 the BNP had almost a hundred Councillors, if you included a few unelected Parish Councillors. In Barking & Dagenham they had 17. The old established parties, Labour in particular, as it was mainly their seats that the BNP had taken, began to say that the BNP councillors were useless. Unfortunately, the local public began to see that in some cases this was true. Some elected BNP Councillors did not bother to attend even one Council meeting. The great tragedy was several excellent BNP Councillors, particularly the women, such as the highly respected Sharon Wilkinson in Burnley who held her seat to the very end, had lost their seats by 2010. The next downturn in the Party’s fortunes came with the fiasco of Griffin’s appearance on the BBC “Question Time” program on October 22, 2009. He had considerable justification when he complained to the press on the following day that “it was a beat up Nick Griffin program instead of Question Time.” He had opportunities to make some sort of answer to more than four of the 25 ‘questions’ (mainly dressed up leftist slogans), but he seemed more concerned in presenting himself to Bonnie Greer, a US black playwright drafted in for the occasion, as a non-racist nice guy. Not only did this not work, but it was humiliating. Unfortunately, Griffin had no experience of arguing points in a council chamber or, as the diminishing band of veteran British nationalists had, of dealing with leftist hecklers at open air meetings, where interjection of a quick, telling point made or lost the day. The immediate reaction of most members to the “Question Time” kangaroo court was anger. But as weeks passed and families and friends made comments they realised that through its leader, unjustly or not, the Party had been humiliated. The third major cause of the rot that set in with this party which had such a promising future was centred on its incapability of handling finances properly. This was covered in my e-mail letter to Nick Griffin dated August 28th 2010 in which I said that his resignation as Chairman would be in its best interest. I wrote: “The British National Party must be forever grateful for the work you put in over the past decade which lifted the Party out of the doldrums of the latter end of the Tyndall era and has made its name a household word. However, it must be recognised that a major mistake was made by allowing the Midas Agency so much control of the Party. No matter how much one plays with words, the fact is that the BNP now has debts in excess of £500,000, which of course is not all of your making. The Party is haemorrhaging membership and is receiving abysmal voting percentages of 2-3% at recent council by-elections. It must also face the fact that as an unregistered company a court could decide we are insolvent and recommend that the BNP be wound up. “It is highly likely that an opposition Nationalist party will shortly be formed which would draw off more disgruntled BNP members, with the result that neither such a new party nor the present BNP would gain a single Parliamentary seat within the next ten years – and time is not on our side. One step that would halt, or at least limit, this splitting of energies would be for you to recognise the veracity of the adage ‘the buck stops here’ and resign as Chairman of the Party in the near future, as opposed to your intention of doing so three years hence. This would not only reduce the loss of more members, but enable you to regain the respect that we all had for you. Furthermore, it would allow you to concentrate on the North West constituency as the BNP’s MEP and expect the full support of the membership in seeing that you were re-elected.” I received a courteous short reply from Nick in which he said he would reply in detail ‘in the next few days.’ He never did. In December that year I did not renew my membership.

Liddell: Because of the degree to which British nationalism has been hamstrung by the decline of the BNP, there are many who believe a kind of "conspiracy theory" that Griffin is actually some kind of government plant. What is your assessment of the man? Is he a sincere but heavily flawed nationalist or is he something much worse?

Bean: I do not believe that Griffin is some sort of government plant, although I can understand that the results of his actions can make some people believe so. He is a flawed nationalist in that I do not believe that he places his form of nationalism above the need to keep the extended Griffin family in reasonable prosperity.

Liddell: There have been various breakaway movements forming from the BNP, such as the English Democrats and British Freedom. What is your view of these two movements in particular?

Bean: The English Democrats wish to break up the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and as civic nationalists appear to place the Scots, for example, on a par with Third World immigrants. No true nationalist (let alone a European Nationalist) could possibly support them. They have no connections with any past anti-Semitic or racist movement, which they claim is the reason why the BNP vote was always destined to be limited. Yet although they oppose immigration on non-racial grounds – but secondary to their call for an English Parliament – after nearly a decade they still poll lower than the abysmal level of the BNP today. It would appear that their ‘clean image’ has achieved nothing. The British Freedom Party was formed in 2010 and attracted some disillusioned BNP members. Its leader, Paul Weston, is a former UKIP candidate. Understandably, its policy is predominantly anti-EU. On immigration Weston says: “We can have one culture and it’s not important about what colour or race you come from.” The BFP only fielded six candidates in the 2012 local elections, with a very low poll result of 0.6 – 4.2%. It is significant that British Freedom is also closely connected with the anti-sharia English Defence League that has demonstrated in most towns and cities in the UK with large Moslem communities. White Marxists allied with militant Moslems have regularly attacked the EDL demonstrators, many of whom are frequently arrested. Tommy Robinson is currently in prison, having been placed in a wing holding militant Moslem prisoners. Some long-term radical right and nationalist commentators have said that as Weston is Jewish and some EDL marchers have had banners denoting a Jewish Wing, both organisations are ‘tools of Zionism.’ I would point out to them that today my enemy’s enemy is not necessarily my friend. I would not recommend support for British Freedom but EDL serves a purpose.

Liddell: Soon it looks like a new nationalist party is to be launched centred on the group around Andrew Brons. What is your view of this party and its chances? Also, based on long and often painful experience, what essential advice do you have for any future nationalist party in Britain to be successful?

Bean: I must now be the Mr Micawber of British radical right politics in that I still hope that “something will turn up.” We could see a new nationalist party formed very shortly centred on the group around Andrew Brons. However, to be fair to Andrew he has consistently stated that he does not want to be such a party’s leader. He has also made it clear that in 2014 he will not be standing for his seat as an MEP at the European Union elections. In my opinion both decisions are a pity and I do not consider 65 being too old (well, I wouldn’t!). I am not betraying any confidences in saying that the deciding factor is really centred on the sufficient financial backing that is needed to get an embryo party off the ground. Some has already been promised. But no matter how much is raised the main stumbling block that any new party has to face is that Griffin’s BNP holds the centre ground of nationalism. For good or for bad his is the name that is known and there is the awful possibility that we may not have the time for any new party to surpass him in recognition by the British public.

Remaking a People

France’s Bloc Identitaire (Identitarian Bloc) held its convention at the beginning of November in Orange, Provence. This was just two weeks after the party’s youth movement Génération Identitaire memorably stormed the construction site of the Poitiers mosque. Poitiers, located in Central-Western France, is near the actual site of the Battle of Tours (referred to as the “Battle of Poitiers” by French historians) in 732 A.D., when Charles Martel, “Mayor of the Palace,” turned back the Islamic advance in Western Europe.

Because of the scandal aroused by this masterful operation, the convention was overcrowded: 800 people came, and there were of course lots of journalists looking for “proof” of the evilness of the Identitarian activists. So far they’ve been disappointed. The young militants of this ten-year-old party are decent, educated and well-behaved people, instead of the swastika-waving skinheads that the reporters were hoping for.

“Long live our race! Long live the Whites!”

A keynote speech delivered by Mario Borghezio, Member of the European Parliament from the Italian Lega Nord, showed that the “Reconquest” is not a mere slogan. In an inspiring Mussolini-esque performance, he shouted, with a thick Italian accent,“Long live our race! Long live the Whites!” The reception was, to my great surprise, very positive. There were in the audience many people coming from the Left, who were at times highly critical of conservative and Christian speakers, but who totally agreed with the idea that Whites must defend their interests as a race — even if it is at the expense of other races. If anything, this shows that radicalism has a stronger appeal to former liberals than dull, moderate conservatism. The most interesting speeches, besides that of Mario Borghezio, were delivered by young, active militants.

Two round tables were of particular interest: the first one gathered people from all over France, presenting initiatives to assert European identity at a local level. It was aptly titled “Refaire un peuple” (Remaking a people) and several speakers and members of the audience raised the question of the anti-identitarian nature of the modern, managerial Nation-State. A student from the French part of Flanders talked about the mayor of his city erasing the Flemish street names and putting “politically correct” French names instead. For instance, the Zwartestraat (Black Street in Flemish, unrelated to Africa) was renamed Rue d’Alger (Algiers Street in French, in reference to the capital of Algeria). This kind of outrage is possible because in our Jacobin Republic, the local and regional entities are all funded and thus controlled by the state, making of the city a mere administrative district, with unaccountable officials belonging to one of the two main parties. Other activists talked about the necessity of reaffirming the local identity of big cities (Tours, Lyon and, most importantly, Paris), where the indigenous population is being displaced by Third Worlders at a staggering speed, partly because of insane housing costs, endless traffic jams, rising oil prices and crumbling public transportation. Those who manage to stay in Paris have to cope with crime and the ubiquitous imposition of globalist propaganda that negates their very right to exist.

The irrelevance of the Nation-State 

The other interesting round table brought together young men from all over Europe, with, among others, a Nordic Fleming, an Alpine Austrian and a Mediterranean Catalan, thus showing the real diversity displayed by the White race, and the ability of young Europeans to overcome the past wars between European nations to unite and confront the mortal dangers Europe faces today: demographic swamping, Islamic colonization and the erasure of what remains of the European culture. For now, these young guys find negative reasons to assert a common European identity (i.e. directed against Islamization and Africanization). There was a lack of positive reasons to be proud of being European. Still, that’s nothing to worry about: a mere five years ago, I was thinking of myself only as a Frenchman, and I know that lots of people from my generation have undergone the same process: first you defend your national identity, and then, as you realize that the national identities have become largely irrelevant today, you discover what is really at stake: the survival of European/Western civilization, i.e. the White race plus the Greek, Roman and Germanic heritage. We simply need time to understand that. How many of us could have imagined having such thoughts a decade ago?

Having a Pan-European mindset is all the more necessary, since viewing the current events from a national perspective leads to major misunderstandings: in France, the common discourse is that Muslims and Africans have an “integration problem” (i.e., crime, welfare-dependency and hostility to the indigenous culture) because of slavery, colonization, and the like. How come, then, that Switzerland, that has always been neutral in world affairs, has never had any colonies, and has never participated in the Atlantic slave trade, is experiencing exactly the same problems as France today?

Is it because of its (non-existent) colonial Empire and trading of slaves that Norway sees her daughters raped by Third Worlders (at the rate of a hundred percent in Oslo)? Do the Germans, who have had a long-lasting alliance with Turkey, "deserve” to be violently replaced by Turks in most major German cities?

It is not specific countries that are under attack, but European civilization itself. More importantly, we are not attacked for what our ancestors did (this is a mere pretext, and the history of slavery and colonization is more a concern for guilt-obsessed SWPLs than for Third World immigrants, who hardly know anything about it) but for what we are.

Fabrice Robert, the Identitarian Bloc’s president, should be praised here for his closing statement titled “Nous sommes européens!” (“We are Europeans!”), in which he said, “No, we won’t survive with France alone or by trying to transcribe Maurice Barrès or Charles de Gaulle to the world of 2012.” This is something that would have been anathema in the narrowly nationalistic (and thus increasingly irrelevant) National Front.

Moreover, the idea of Génération Identitaire taking the Battle of Tours as a reference point is a smart move on their part: they celebrate a European victory against a non-European invader, which is a sharp departure from the military celebrations in today’s Europe: the English celebrate their victory against Napoleonic France by welcoming the under-Channel trains at Waterloo Station, whereas one of the main Parisian train stations was named after the Napoleonic victory at Austerlitz against the Austrians and the Russians. In Freiburg-im-Breisgau (Baden-Würtemberg, Southwestern Germany), the first street the French visitor has to cross when he leaves the train station is the Bismarcksallee, reminding them that German unity was achieved thanks to a German victory over Napoleon III’s France. The only national pride that is still allowed in Europe is the remembrance of internecine European wars. In these post-Thanksgiving days, we should therefore be thankful to Bloc Identitaire for calling for the end of such pointless stato-nationalism. May they be imitated by other European movements.

We are the heirs of conquerors

One thing that is still problematic in the Identitarian platform, though, is the very New Rightist principle that “every people has a right to have a country of its own,” something that David Duke tirelessly reiterates at the beginning of each and every one of his podcasts. Well, if our ancestors in central Asia had always respected the “right of every people to have a country of its own”, we would not exist today. There would have been no Greek cities, no Roman Empire, no medieval Germanic Kingdoms, no Viking longships and no Iberian galleons, no Italian Renaissance, no French literature, no British Empire and no United States of America. Moreover, the very notion of “right” is a Modern one, and the idea that this “right” has to be guaranteed (by whom? By the United Nations?) is very Wilsonian. For this “right” to be enforced, it would take nothing less than a World Government granting each people its own honeycomb in the global beehive.

Of course, it is not what the Identitarians have in mind when they talk about such a right. They are trying, so far with remarkable success, to free European youth of its undeserved guilt about the crusades, slavery, colonization and the Holocaust, which all happened decades or centuries before their birth. But they have to know (and this applies to all New Rightists) that it will never prevent them being depicted as evil “racists” by their enemies. As fair-minded as Alain de Benoist is in his “heterogeneous world of homogenous peoples” doctrine, he is nevertheless still viewed as a beyond-the-pale extremist by the mainstream in France. The reasonable and peaceful nature of the action of Génération Identitaire in Poitiers did not deter the radical Left from demanding the dissolution of the movement on the ground of “racial hatred.” As of this writing, four of the 73 militants who were on the roof of Poitiers’s future mosque face jail time and high fines on the same absurd ground of “racial hatred.”

Furthermore, as it has been written on numerous occasions by Alex Kurtagic, White advocates have to emphasize the positives vis-à-vis their White constituency. It is more appealing to present the European peoples as explorers and conquerors, rather than as sedentary tribes of primitives driven out from their lands by superior conquerors. The latter is at odds with our history, anyway. Even since the end of the European colonial empires, the Europeans have found vicarious ways to quench their thirst for conquest and glory, by landing on the Moon or by discovering the human genome. We can’t remain what we are if we lose our “Promethean” and “Faustian” way of being, which makes us unique in human history.

America and Europe: Brothers in Arms

I’m insisting on that point, because during the convention, a young woman involved in the Identitarian movement compared herself and our people to the Indian tribes. That is problematic because such a mentality undermines the European settlement in America, which gave so much to European civilization.

There is still a huge misunderstanding between the two shores of the Atlantic. In Europe, and especially in France, the American people is conflated with Wall Street, Hollywood, the Pentagon and the Federal Reserve, despite the fact that these elements of American power are controlled by groups hostile to White interests and are persecuting the European-descended population of the United States in particular. It makes no more sense to believe this than to confuse the French people with Nicolas Sarkozy, Marion Cotillard or Tony Parker. When the very Europhile Jared Taylor previously delivered a speech in Paris (in perfect French at that), he received a standing ovation. And I’m quite amused and delighted to see that in America, my fellow countrymen Alain de Benoist and Guillaume Faye have more readers than in our homeland. It shows that there is a growing feeling that we European people are all on the same boat. What we need now is the equivalent of Fichte’s Addresses to the German Nation, but this time encompassing all the European nations, to emphasize our common interests and increase our mutual support across the borders that once divided us in deadly enmity.

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

Seduce And Destroy

In the following excerpt from Andy Nowicki's new novel Heart Killer, the protagonist-- a pathetic geek turned avenging Don Juan-- reveals his unorthodox methods of seduction, as well as his disturbing flair for exacting carnal vengeance. Heart Killer is now available as an e-book from Amazon (www.amazon.com/Heart-Killer-ebook/dp/B00ABO49P2) and can also be purchased directly from ER Books (www.erbooks.com), England's legendary publisher of elegant erotica.

Seduction isn't really difficult at all, once you've carefully excised all sense of shame, and indeed, all sense of self.

The fear of rejection is what prevents the typcial single man from straining too far beyond his zone of comfort. Even the man most desperate for female company often finds the burden of psychological exposure too much to bear; he makes a few, feeble tentative stabs at connecting with a desirable-looking girl, dashes out a "pick-up line" or two, trying all the while to disguise the artificiality of his manner behind a facade of casual apathy, the better to protect his ego.

Practiced faux-apathy is one thing, but actually not giving a good goddamn is something quite different. When I entered the bar that fateful night, I found myself utterly drained of all vestiges of my former self. I'd become a reptilian killing machine. I wasn't the least afraid of being turned down; in fact, I haughtily courted rejection. It wasn't that I felt like the smoothest, handsomest guy in the room; there could be no doubt that I didn't compare, looks-wise, to the soccer jocks of the world, for whom "poontang" came easily, and came in every sense of the word... Still, I had an advantage, in that, unlike them, I really didn't care one speck if anyone found me cute, charming, dreamy, or sexy.

It happened, somehow. Either due to my intense self-taught training exercises, or through a weird and perverse imposition of grace, which can after all take many forms, not all of them comely or pure. Regardless, it happened, like black magic. I was a changed man; I lived like one already dead. I strode right into the place, ordered a drink (being a non-alcohol consumer, I picked at random from the options), nursed the poison I'd selected, and surveyed the room with cold, reptilian eyes.

My potential prey needed to fulfill three requirements: she needed to be 1) beautiful, 2) stuck-up and full of herself, and 3) in a relationship.

Such a combination wasn't in the least hard to find; indeed, these three attributes usually go hand-in-hand among women. Beauty could easily be apprehended; haughtiness also announced itself without much of a struggle-- all I had to do was lock eyes with the lovely lady in question to discover how skin-deep hear beauty truly was; how mean, ugly, and cruelly rejecting was the soul beneath the painted, pressed, coiffed, and manicured exterior. Her initial response to me said it all: she was unimpressed, annoyed, even offended, by the attention of my unabashed stare. The first thought she telegraphed to me was, "Ew, what a creepy loser!" She betrayed this sentiment either by ignoring the lancing beam of my eyes, or by glaring back, or otherwise acting irritated. Thus, I was able to check off both of the first two boxes in my list of criteria: I knew she had looks and a bitchy attitude. Now I just had to discover if she was "taken" before I moved in for the kill.

Some women, of course, had "the ring," and with this rich-bitch type, it was almost always a gaudy diamond-studded affair, never a plain gold band. Other women hadn't yet taken the plunge into the whoredom of matrimony, but were nonetheless "taken," having snared a "serious" boyfriend who just hadn't yet "popped the question." This could easily be assessed in the opening stage of conversation, when I fearlessly, cold-bloodedly engaged her with an opening line.

"Pardon me, Miss, do you have a boyfriend?" I would straightforwardly ask. This would usually prompt my prospective lady in question to roll her eyes and answer in the affirmative, hoping I'd be deterred and slink away like a sick, mangy puppy. But it wouldn't deter me at all. I'd stay where I was, buy her a drink, and proceed to regale her with contempt. I'd point out her (real or invented) physical flaws, I'd inform her that her husband or boyfriend would no doubt eventually leave her behind for a younger model and she'd wind up dying alone... I'd explain to her that it was no use getting offended-- I only spoke the truth, the brutal, God's honest truth-- and that she ought not get angry with the impertinence of the messenger, but like Cleopatra after Anthony left her for Octavia, learn to reconcile herself with the factuality of the message. Then, I'd buy her another drink.

Oh, I got cursed out more than a few times; I got slapped, even punched, and yes, of course I got kicked in the groin on occasion, as one might expect; these women, after all, deplored my cruel honesty; moreover, it deeply disturbed them, because they couldn't abide the turning of the tables that it represented. They, being beautiful, were the ones who felt themselves entitled to be cruel. I, on the other hand, being un-beautiful, was supposed to be the one on the receiving end of such attacks; that one like me should become the attacker they could absolutely not abide; it reprensented a kind of existential turnabout that struck them as ghastly in its implications.

Many a time the lady in question flung her drink in my face, prompting me to dryly mutter, "How cliched..." And of course, many a possible prey stormed out after having pelted me with alcohol or bruised my cheek or injured my scrotum with a shapely knee. ("You like it rough? You'll still die alone, you stupid cunt," I'd fling back, undaunted, even while doubled over in pain.) I didn't care about the rejections; I never took it personally, never felt any shame; I persisted defiantly on my course; I moved to a different bar, found another beautiful, haughty, and "taken" girl to insult and abuse.

And at the end of the night, I never went to my motel room alone!

Always, always, always, it happened, though some nights it took several tries and the absorption of numerous blows to my person, and sometimes the taste of blood in my mouth. One night, I barely escaped a concussion when one screaming Mimi drunkenly swung a bottle at my head and narrowly missed. I was also, naturally enough, called every nasty name in the book that honest men have ever been called.

Yet... it "worked." I invariably "scored," as the Lotharios of the world would say. I "got some." I "tapped that."

Why did it work? Well of course it happened partly through my own stubborn doggedness; I never gave up, having been possessed by the demonic grace that permitted me to hurl abuse at beauty without shame-- that is to say, to speak truth to power.

But my success is also attributable to the challenge I represented to these women, at whom I took remorseless aim with my savagely unhinged tongue. They felt a need to restore the equilibrium of the universe as they knew it, and since I was the disturber of their universe, they could only effect this change by submitting to my imperious assault. Since I represented everything that they feared and loathed in the world, they found it necessary to forfeit their pride and allow me-- the very one who'd temporarily burst the dam protecting them from their subconscious anxieties of mortality and loss of power and control-- access to the most intimate recesses of their bodies and souls.

Another way to come to terms with this phenomenon is to acknowledge that within every woman-- even, and perhaps even especially, within every beautiful woman-- there exists a desire to be treated brutally; that all women, maybe even particularly the lovely ones, secretly despise flattery and hunger to be put in their place. Maybe the crueler-hearted the woman (and cruelty accompanies beauty as a stench follows death), the greater the corresponding desire to be one-upped.

Whatever the case may be, I never found any lack of drive, any dearth of passion, among these haughty "taken" beauties, once I brought them back to my motel room and intensified my attack from the verbal to the physical level. I don't claim to be any sort of master of technique; indeed, the first couple of times, I scarcely knew what I was doing. Still, there was no absence of screaming, moaning, and gasping on their part. The release they found, in fact, always seemed to border on positive hysterics. They truly lost control, truly plunged into ecstasy, truly exploded all over; it was a sight to behold. I myself, however, never climaxed in their presence. For this reason, they couldn't help but feel one-upped afterwards. They had bared themselves in every way, yet had failed to get to my core. I tipped them over the edge into oblivion, into the frightening depths of pleasure... and once our ferocious coupling was finished, I dismissed them with barely another word. Yet they never protested my perfunctory brusqueness; instead, they slunk out like guilty children nursing a secret.

Yet even then, my brutality had not reached its limit. My master stroke hadn't yet been enacted...

Before the lady of the evening had left my presence, I would take advantage of an opportune time to steal a glance into her purse or pocketbook, wherein I would find her driver's license, which of course would contain her name and home address. A short time later, from a remote location, I would call the phone number that accompanied the name and address listing in the White Pages. If a woman's voice answered, I would hang up, then call back a short time later. When I first got a man's voice, I would ask, "Is ___ your wife/girlfriend?"

After a tense pause, the man would answer, "Yes, she is... who the fuck is this?" or something similar. (A man always cusses to compensate when his gut tells him he's about to suffer a sucker punch to the ego.) I'd always wince at this, feeling sorry for the poor guy, before going forward. I would say, "Ask your wife/girlfriend what happened in Room ___ of the ___ Motel last Friday night."

"What?" he would then all but yell. "Who the fuck is this? Just what are you implying, pal? I oughta--"

"Just ask her, sir," I would break in, politely but firmly. "Ask her to tell you the truth. No lies, no games. You have been cuckolded, sir. Your woman is a whore."

Then I'd hang up, chuckling dryly. Mission accomplished.

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.

Why Israel Loses Asymmetric Wars

I originally wrote this essay for Taki's Magazine in January 2009, during the 2008-2009 Gaza War.  I recently re-read it and found that 1) little had fundamentally changed in Israel's conflict with the Palestinians and 2) that its central thesis still stands: Regardless of what happens militarily, Israel will symbolically lose its engagments with both Muslim states and NGOs such as Hamas.     

I’ve been reluctant to write about Israel’s bombardment and invasion of Gaza this past two weeks for the simple reason that the ordeal has struck me as, to borrow a phrase from Bismarck, “some damn foolish thing” in the Holy Land—and one which, I hope, doesn’t precipitate a worldwide disaster like the original “damn foolish thing” in the Balkans.

The invasion also gives one a strong sense of déjà vu. In Hollywood, big-budget movies that are embarrassing flops thankfully don’t generate sequels. In foreign affairs, things are different. Much as if an exec had green-lighted Ishtar II for a Christmas release, Israel seems intent on making us watch a second installment of The Invasion of Lebanon. The cast is even mostly the same: Ehud Olmert is back, now flanked by new blonde co-star with the alluring name of Tzipora. This time ‘round, Hamas has replaced Hezbollah as the hate-filled, towel-head villains who just won’t acknowledge Israel’s right to exist.

It’s perfectly natural and reasonable—and likely strategically wise—for Americans to not want to have anything to do with the Gaza conflagration. And many don’t. But then there’s unfortunately no shortage of people in America with an obsessive concern for the Israel-Palestinian conflict—ranging from the rabid neocon hawks to the Endtimes evangelicals pining for the Apocalypse to my “more Israeli than the Israeli” Brooklyn neighbors to wannabe world statesmen who view a Palestinian state as an almost eschatological Answer To Everything. And since this conflict has been inflated beyond proportion—the India-Pakistan standoff seems more potentially dangerous, and yet it stirs few passions—we should at least speak clearly about what’s at stake.

When I say Israel’s Gaza incursion is a “damn foolish thing,” a bad sequel to a bad original, I’m not trying to be cute or flippant. I’m certainly aware that the invasion has had a high cost in human suffering, and I remain horrified that my tax dollars are supporting it, as well as the continued occupation of the West Bank. I also recognize the political implications involved. As Justin has argued, Israel is likely trying to get Hamas—as well as the Palestinian people—on a war footing before Obama takes office, heading off at the pass a potential pro-Palestine intervention or even a substantial shift in policy by the new administration. Olmert, who’s been reduced to a caretaking role, is trying to redeem himself for the botched Lebanon campaign before he leaves office, just as the new Kadima leader, the aforementioned Tzipora Livni, seeks to prove her stuff to Israeli Right.

All the same, the invasion remains a “damned foolish thing” for the simple reason that after it’s over, nothing will be accomplished or settled; indeed, Israel’s actions—as well as the justifications for them one reads in the Western press—are indicative of the fact that the Gaza campaign is a war to nowhere.

When Israel invaded Lebanon two and half years ago, the campaign was, by all conventional measures of military matters, a resounding success. The only problem was that Israel was fighting an asymmetric war—that is, an established nation-state (think F-14 firing missiles) was taking on an amorphous, state-like social charity and terrorism organization (think screaming poor person with a grenade launcher). The funny thing about this kind of conflict is that the little guy usually wins by losing, and the big guy is usually ruined by his success. On CNN International, Israel looked like a horrible monster, and on the proverbial “Arab street,” Hezbollah got cred for standing up to the “Zionist entity.” Hamas, which at the moment is much smaller and less well organized than Hezbollah, will undoubtedly benefit greatly from losing a war to Israel and will soon be rewarded with an enlarged donor base, new recruits, and a reputation for toughness. Getting attacked by the Israelis is good for organization branding.

This kind of “asymmetry”—in which the stronger party is usually at a disadvantage—informs the broader conflict as well. Israel voluntarily surrendered Gaza to the Palestinians in 2005, and even supported elections in the territory (until you know who got the most votes.) But despite this gesture, Israel was always perceived as an imperial-colonial power, brutally lording over the Palestinians. There is, of course, good reason for this, as Israel very much is occupying formerly Palestinian land in the West Bank—and expanding its presence there—and even after giving up Gaza, it made sure that the place remained an isolated, miserable shantytown without running water. But the perception also has much to do with the fact that the conflict appears, rightly and wrongly, to be one between “European,” “white” colonizers and “brown” third-world victim people—and this kind of thing went out of style a long time ago. As Steve Sailer wrote here at Takimag a little over a year ago:

Today, most countries … are ruled by elements relatively indigenous to their continent. A clear historical pattern has emerged: European settlers either take over an entire continent politically and demographically or lose power everywhere and find themselves expelled. There is, however, one famous exception to this rule: Israel.

The fact that Israel stands against such an epochal trend helps explain the inordinate excitement and loathing Israel arouses among its neighbors, just as decolonized Africa’s political elites found the continued existence of Rhodesia and white-ruled South Africa far more upsetting than the dismaying conditions in their own countries. Israel is a reminder of the European superiority to which these non-Europeans were once subjected themselves.

The occupation status quo is not only instable and violence-producing, but it makes it impossible for Israel to gain legitimacy approval for aggressive actions among anyone other than its patrons and underlings in Washington—and no amount of yammering about Arabs having full legal rights in Israel and the like is going to change this.

If Israel wants to rid itself of the colonial stigma, as well as guarantee its national security and preserve its identity as a Jewish state, then its options are fairly clear. Assuming a multicultural “one-state solution” (in which Jews would be demographically overwhelmed rather quickly) won’t be countenanced, Israel could choose to follow the advice of men like Martin van Creveld and draw a line in the sand—withdrawing completely from the territories, allowing the creation of an independent Palestine, and building a buffer zone between itself and the new state. The other option would be to pursue the grand, genocidal dreams of the Israeli far Right (and at one point, Ariel Sharon) and pursue “Greater Israel”—driving out all Arabs from the land bequeathed to the Jews in the Bible. (As option two is repulsive and unfeasible, I’d recommend option one. But who I am to tell Israel what to do?)

But instead of a hardnosed discussion of what’s possible, Israeli leaders, as well as the pro-Israel commentators in the Western media, have reverted to the all-too-familiar platitudes of the war on terror—a rhetoric just as mendacious as it is naïve.

Thus, immediately after Israel began its bombardment, David Horowitz cried out “Liberate of Gaza!,” in order to, I guess, save the Palestinians from their duly elected leaders, or themselves. Might Horowitz expect the troops to be “greeted as liberators,” and have to fend off barrages of chocolates and rose petals, when they march into Gaza? Victor Davis Hanson, also playing to type, spoke of Hamas’s creed of “religious fascism” And in making this clumsy historical analogy, the good professor doesn’t want to merely dehumanize the enemy. For in Hanson’s “militant liberal” imagination, Hamas, much like the Nazis, is an extremist clique that must be destroyed in order for the Israelis to move in and instruct the Palestinians on how to “craft a peaceful, prosperous democracy”—and not vote for Hamas! Melanie Phillips, who, granted, makes some legitimate points about Hamas’s placement of military targets in civilian areas, presents another variation on this theme. The recent conflict is the “frontline” (where have we heard that before?) in a struggle between “the West”—that great abstract, vacuous construction we’re supposed to defend—and “those waging holy war” on “civilization.”

Israel’s apologists want to reconstruct a paradigm of “the West vs. Totalitarianism” (sometimes throwing in an Israeli mission democratrice). But to much of the world—and, most importantly, to the Palestinians themselves—the conflict will always be colonizer vs. colonized, white vs. brown.

The Israeli politicians aren’t quite as taken with democratization theory, but with them, too, the emphasis is on explaining how Hamas deserves to be destroyed for their wicked rocket attacks, and not on what exactly will be done after Israel (inevitably) wins on the battlefield. Are more elections to be held, knowing that the surviving Palestinians won’t be particularly inclined to vote for a peace candidate? Is Israel to install Mahmoud Abbas as its Man in Gaza? Will a re-occupation ensue? What?

Unless Israel confronts these issues, the invasion will do nothing to ensure its security, and it will forever be remembered, quite rightly, as some damn foolish thing.

Eyeless in Gaza

I hate Israel just as much as any other fan of geopolitical Feng Shui. Yes, there’s no denying the fact that when it came to giving planning permission for a revived Jewish state smack bang at the crossroads of an antagonistic civilization, a major circumcised cock-up occurred and now we are stuck with the consequences – the drip…drip…drip... of carnage big enough to suck up the oxygen of the Western media but far too trivial to actually change anything.

It’s also big enough to generate a signal to get all the various groups of irritable, internet-enslaved Westerners yakking away about it as if it actually meant something to them, while meanwhile their countries go down the toilet. Whether pro-Jew or pro-Arab, concerned yakkity-yakkity Westerner gets the payoff of actually seeming to know a bit of geography and history and give a fuck. Gold star from teacher!

But once again, we are in the realm of the eternal shell-and-pea trick (or BP and Shell trick as it’s known when oil is involved) as Whitey, frothing with moralism about the rights and wrongs of people who wouldn't give him the time of day unless they were trying to sell him a rug, loses sight of the bigger picture and starts to empathize with his poor provoked IDF avatar or heroic rock-throwing Palestinian doppelganger. Yes, he’s effectively playing a rolling news version of one of his pointless computer games, trying to get back to his atavistic state from the soft, stultifying Twinkiesphere.

We all know Israel is in the wrong place. We all know the Palestinians have had it hard for too long, and that perhaps they deserve it. There is casus belli to spare and plenty to bellyache about on both sides, but all the outrage and emotion is for show because the people who are causing it are not the ones suffering. They are taking calculated risks in their cold, calm, bean-counting way to rise within the power structures that will reward them.

The latest outbreak in this eternal ding-dong match was not, as it seems, a mere accident caused by the Dali Lama or Jimmy Carter being otherwise engaged, but was intimately connected to events and agendas elsewhere. No, I don’t mean some sort of Machiavellian Uncle Sam figure expertly surfing the winds of chaos. That’s a mythical figure that I stopped believing in soon after Santa Claus. Geopolitically the US is so high on its own supply of moronic propaganda that it is effectively playing a chess game with checker pieces.

What’s really going on is revealed by events in Egypt, where President Mohamed Morsi, with Jesuit cunning, is now finishing off a coup to consolidate power for the fundamentalist Islamic Brotherhood. A day after Gazans celebrated their ceasefire agreement with Israel as a victory, Mursi issued a decree stating that the president’s decisions cannot be revoked by any authority, including the judiciary. Yes, the Brothers are wasting no time squeezing their big fat Fellaheen feet firmly into Pharaoh’s slippers.

How handy then that Hamas, who, incidentally, are an offshoot of the Brotherhood, just happened to drag Gaza into a lopsided fist fight with the Eternal Enemy a few days before this piece of constitutional tinkering. Stoking up feelings of Islamic solidarity and bringing the endemic hatred of Israel to boiling point is the ideal way to distract the Egyptian masses from something as minor as the centralization of power in the Presidency. And if too many people start to complain, it’ll be easy enough to get the Gazan fires burning again.

As for those of us in the rest of the world, we should let them get on with it, and stop outsourcing our political concerns to somewhere where they’ll flail in ignorance and be wasted in irrelevance. Being eyeless in Gaza should teach us to appreciate the virtue of positive ignorance in turning our finite attention and knowledge to the problems which directly concern us.

Why Asians Vote Democrat

Much of what happened in the recent US presidential election – ethnic minorities swinging the vote, the continuing lack of White consciousness and growing apathy – is perfectly understandable and fits well within what we already know. But there was also something that didn’t quite make sense, namely the surprisingly high Asiatic vote for Obama. Although this is not a new trend, at this election it hit new heights with a higher percentage of Asians (73%) voting for Obama than Hispanics (71%). This is surprising because in the great post-racial utopia that America is supposed to be, Asians sound like typical Republicans:

"Asian Americans are the highest-income, best-educated and fastest-growing racial group in the United States. They are more satisfied than the general public with their lives, finances and the direction of the country, and they place more value than other Americans do on marriage, parenthood, hard work and career success, according to a comprehensive new nationwide survey by the Pew Research Center."

The Rise of Asian Americans Pew Social and Demographic Trends

So, how can we explain this enormous anomaly?

People and the identity groups they belong to are motivated to vote for both positive and negative reasons. Positive voting is an expression of an attraction, while negative voting is an expression of repulsion. For example, Black voters are clearly attracted to policies of higher public spending, greater welfare, and the redistribution of wealth, even though Obama’s track record in these areas has not been very impressive. But they also had negative reasons for voting for Obama. They are clearly repulsed by the implicit Whiteness of the Republican Party and the White America that it still unwittingly represents. There are historical and mythical reasons for Blacks to feel this way, namely slavery and the myths that Blacks were (1) taken from the “paradise of Africa,” (2) were the only victims of slavery, (3) were enslaved solely by Whites, (4) were treated much worse than any other group ever in history, and (5) deserve limitless affirmative action to make amends for this ancestral experience.

Two other important groups also voted mainly for Obama and by roughly equal percentages – Jews (70%) and Hispanics (71%) – but interestingly the main motivations for each group seem quite distinct. As a lower-than-average income group, Hispanics were motivated by some of the same positive pull factors that motivated Black voters, but lacked strong negative push factors. Despite the existence of a radicalized minority of Hispanics who hate or are paid to hate White America, most Hispanics lack a strong animus against White America.

Like Asians, Jewish voters, as a higher income group, should be natural Republicans, but negative feelings about a country dominated by White Christians – partly based on their imported ancestral experience from Europe – leads them to vote for the candidate who best represents a multiracial America in which their group strategies can be more effective and less noticed.

So far these ethnic voting patterns are all very easy to understand. A strong positive and negative reason leads to a percentage in excess of 90%, while either a strong positive or strong negative reason leads to a percentage of around 70%. But when we look at Asians – a group that includes Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Indians, and Filipinos – this schemata no longer makes sense. In economic terms, Asians should be natural Republicans. They have little to gain and much to lose from Obama’s taxist, welfarist, and deficitist leanings. Also, unlike Blacks and Jews who have historical and mythic reasons for fearing or hating a majority White Christian America, Asians in general have no special deep animosity towards White America. They might prefer their own kind to Whites, but this is quite a different thing from hating White America and wishing to see it replaced by a chaotic multiracial state. In broad terms, they neither have a strong positive nor strong negative reason for voting for Obama.

This constitutes a major anomaly and is something that cries out to be explained not just by race realists. Accordingly Pew Social and Demographic Trends comes up with some deceptively plausible factors:

"Compared with the general public, Asian Americans are more likely to support an activist government…On balance, Asian Americans prefer a big government that provides more services (55%) over a smaller government than provides fewer services (36%)…By a ratio of 53% to 35%, Asian Americans say homosexuality should be accepted by society rather than discouraged. And on the issue of abortion, 54% of Asian Americans say it should be legal in all or most cases, while 37% say it should be illegal."

A telephone survey by the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund of 800 Asian American voters in 50 states conducted on the weekend (Nov. 2 to 4), also takes an issue-based approach to explaining the anomaly:

"The vast majority of Asian American voters (58%) said that fixing the economy and creating more jobs was the most important issue that politicians should address. Health care and education reform were each cited by 20% of Asian American voters as the most important issue, followed by civil rights/immigration issues (13%)… Health care. 60% of Asian American voters supported the federal government's role in ensuring access to health insurance, compared to 23% who believe that people should secure their own health insurance…Budget deficit. To address the national budget deficit, 45% of Asian Americans supported a combination of tax increases and spending cuts, with 26% stating that taxes on the wealthy should be increased. Only 14% of Asian Americans supported spending cuts alone to reduce the deficit….Immigration reform. 57% of Asian American voters supported comprehensive immigration reform, with a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants currently in the United States."

Examined more closely, the Asian paradox seems to consist of affluent, hard-working family-oriented Asians basically espousing the views of SWPLs. Some might speculate that this is simply a reflection of their collective mentality and their Buddhist or Confucian culture, in other words, that unlike "essentially selfish and inherently racist" Republican Christians they are generally just "better people." This is certainly the kind of explanation that the liberal media and Asians themselves would find attractive. But a lot of this data is rather tenuous and tends to show essentially mainstream feelgoodism rather than hard liberal attitudes. For example, when Proposition 8, the amendment to the California Constitution stating that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," was voted on, Asians voted overwhelmingly in favour of it, so notions like this must be taken with a pinch of salt.

The fact that Asians voted for not recognizing gay marriage is also the best piece of evidence for those who believe the thesis that Asians simply vote as part of an anti-White coalition, in lock-step with Blacks, Jews, and Hispanics, as it shows their independence from a general White "progressive" mindset and is an assertion of traditional Asian values.

Some of this may be true, but because Asians lack strong reasons to hate White America and because the Republican Party is  anything but a pro-White party, an alternative and additional explanation for Asian voting patterns is needed. I believe a major part of the mystery can be explained by focusing on the essential racial differences in character between Whites and Asians.

One of the chief characteristics of people of Northern European origin is an abundance of "alpha types." It has been speculated that our attempts to deal with this has been the foundation of our democratic tendencies, and something which has driven our overachievement in so many fields. It is also the reason why we love to squabble among ourselves, even when the enemy is at the gates. Asians, by contrast, tend to be a bit more beta, a bit more follower, and a lot less leader, which means that they can create stable but often stagnant hierarchical societies. These contrasting patterns seem strongly encoded in the differing histories of Northern Europeans and Asians.

A common explanation given as to why Asians vote against the Republican Party is resentment over petty racism and stereotypes. In other words, it is speculated that just like Jews and Blacks, Asians also have a strong animus against White America, but one that isn't based on slavery, lynchings, and centuries of anti-Semitism in Europe, but rather on "micro-aggressions." But the reality is that Asians are very favourably disposed to White America in terms of culture and social association. Intermarriage rates between Asians and Whites are higher than between other racial groups and there are many other affinities. Indeed, rather than racial animosity or incompatibility, it is the ease with which Asians can associate with certain types or Whites that is the real basis of their voting habits.

One of the keys elements of the Asian mind that I have become aware after many years living in Japan is its suggestibility and deference to what it sees as the dominant view. In my experience this has usually been my view. This is often based on politeness, a non-confrontational attitude, and a desire to please. One formulation of this characteristic is high self-monitoring behaviour.

The Wikipedia entry reads as follows:

"People who closely monitor themselves are categorized as high self-monitors and often behave in a manner that is highly responsive to social cues and their situational context. High self-monitors can be thought of as social pragmatists who project images in an attempt to impress others and receive positive feedback. Conversely, low self-monitors do not participate, to the same degree, in expressive control and do not share similar concern for situational appropriateness. Low self-monitors tend to exhibit expressive controls congruent with their own internal states; i.e. beliefs, attitudes, and dispositions regardless of social circumstance. Low self-monitors are often less observant of social context and consider expressing a self-presentation dissimilar from their internal states as a falsehood and undesirable."

Just reading this immediately evokes some of the well-established racial types – the timid or amenable Asian guy, keen to be liked or at least not to offend, the overly opinionated White or Jewish guy, and perhaps the cocky or demonstrative Black. This is also the origin of the notion of the inscrutable, two-faced Oriental. Voting patterns, however, suggest that it runs deeper than simply saying what you think the other person wants to hear. There is also a fair degree of psychological internalization.

In Japanese culture, such a phenomenon is widely recognized. It is referred to as seken, and described as the internalization of society's gaze. In his liberal-slanted Japanese Higher Education as Myth, Brian J. McVeigh, an academic teaching in Japan, writes about his students views of seken (世間).

"In the words of one student, seken is 'the world of invisible strangers,' and according to another, 'seken is invisible, but it governs people.' For many, seken is associated with being carefully watched in schools and companies, avoidance of bad behavior, rumors and gossip, and “common sense” (Joshiki, which carries strong moral overtones about knowledge required for appropriate behaviour). Some students spoke to me of the 'strictness of seken.' One noted that seken 'makes me think ‘I wonder how other people think about me?' Some young women associated seken with being pressured to get married. Others linked it to being 'Japanese': 'we Japanese don’t have individual identity' because of seken. In the words of one student, seken means 'being concerned with what people think about you and what you think about yourself.'

If seken can make young women get married, then it should be able to persuade at least some "natural Republicans" to throw the switch for Obama.

The next part of the puzzle is that Asians live in predominantly Democrat areas and that most of the non-Asians they interact with are overwhelmingly Democrat. If we accept that Asians have a "follower mentality," characterized by high self-monitoring behaviour and the internalization of views deemed appropriate, then it seems logical to suppose that their associations with others have a significant impact on their political behaviour, and that this is something that the individualistic ethos of American political commentary would be unlikely to pick up on or emphasize.

Of course, all people are to some extent influenced by those they associate with, but clearly this tendency is much more enhanced in the case of high self-monitors and therefore Asians. But is there any poll evidence that would support this thesis? Yes, if we start to look at Asians not as a monolithic group but as a diverse constituency made up of distinct racial and ethnic groups and groups that differ in their degree of assimilation to the non-Asians around them. Pew Social and Demographic Trends reveals that Asians overall identify 50% as Democrats, 28% as Republicans. Interestingly, the least Democrat Asian ethnic groups are the least affluent: Filipinos (Republicans 40%, Democrats 43%) and Vietnamese (Republicans 35%, Democrats 36%).

In the case of Asians, affluence usually means greater interaction with non-Asians. This is especially true in the case of Indians, many of whom work in the computer and software industries and who have superior English language skills. Not surprisingly this group identifies 65% as Democrat and 18% as Republican.

Also, on the typical liberal issue of "immigration reform" with an amnesty for illegals, an interesting difference emerges among Asian Americans according to their length of association with America. Overall 57% of Asians supported comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship for illegals, but this support was counterintuitively higher among U.S.-born Asian American citizens (73%) than among foreign-born Asian American citizens (50%). Logically, you might suppose that foreign-born Asian Americans, with greater links to their home countries, including relatives either illegally in America or wishing to emigrate to America, would support this policy more strongly than those whose families had been established in America for several generations. Yet, the opposite is the case.

This supports the thesis that Asian voting behaviour is strongly influenced by the degree to which Asians are exposed to the political views of non-Asians they interact with. U.S.-born Asian Americans are more exposed to these influences than foreign-born Asian Americans, who are more likely to have language barriers and live in more isolated immigrant communities. What this means is that U.S.-born Asian Americans have clearly had time to take on the liberal hue of those around them - although Proposition 8 suggests that they are not quite ready to go the whole hog on gay marriage (possibly because of a masculinity inferiority complex).

While anti-White feeling can always be found in Asian voting behaviour for those who want to find it, the lifestyle choices – i.e. schools, socialization, residence areas – of Asians show that they actually dislike Blacks and Hispanics a lot more. The best explanation for the anomaly of Asian voting patterns can be found by focusing on key differences in character and behaviour between Asians and non-Asians. Surrounded by the domineering egalitarianism of White and Jewish liberals, and with a background chorus of Black and Hispanic special interest demands, the polite Asian "follower" mentality is susceptible to being sidetracked from expressing its true political nature.